The UCC Connection – How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny – Howard Freeman

This article has really filled in the “voids” that kept us from fully understanding
things. We have found it to be one of the best discussions on the subject of freedom,
and how our own Government has managed to take that freedom from us, all the
while giving lip service to the Constitution.
The title of the article is The UCC
Connection. The author is noted as Howard Freeman. It is distributed by
Americans for Constitutional Government, PO BOX 99, Lancaster, Ohio 43130.
It also notes “without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207. And it is dated September 22nd 1991.
(We do not know if reserving rights under U.C.C. 1-207 is a method of asserting
It is possible that the author did not want to use the conventional (c)
as it might imply an implied contract with the US Patent Office, and thus the
Federal Government. If this is the case, we apologize to Mr. Freeman.
THE UCC CONNECTION BOOK - How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny by Howard Freeman
(Originally published by the Oklahoma Freedom Council)
Scroll down to download the document


Get a new credit file
This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a
seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available the
knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and
understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the
courts. It should be helpful to those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded
The frustrations many Americans feel about our judicial system can be
overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, is based on lack of
understanding or knowledge. Those of use how have chosen a path out of bondage
and into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some
governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We
have been taught that we must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming
increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that — I’m an officer of the court.”

best credit repair methodUltimately, the only way for us to have ever a “snowballs’ change” is to
understand the RULES OF THE GAME and to come to and understanding of the
true nature of the Law. The lawyers have established and secured a virtual
monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just
too difficult for the AVERAGE PERSON to understand, and by creating a separate
vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage.
While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp. Are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe?
Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government
with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers know procedure, not
Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, master, thus saying
thou reproachest us also. And he said, woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye
made men with burdens grievous to be born, and ye yourselves touch not the
burdens with one of your fingers… Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have
taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them
that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:45-52)

Here is the file!


A preview of the document is below:

“I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove.” [Matthew 10:16]





When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court (SC) 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 SC had declared that I was not a person required to file an
income tax — that that 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?

SECTION1: Never Argue The Amount Of Deficiency.

Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of information: NEVER ARGUE
If you’re not required to file, what do you care
whether they say you owe sixty dollars or $60,000. 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 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, (NOD) 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 SC 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 SC 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

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 me
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 is, can he wait just five
minutes.” It worked.

He was there, and I ran back up to his office. His secretary met me when I am
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 talk to him about. (If you never
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 here by the bag full.” That was what I
thought. I said, “There are some of your agents writing letters which contradict the
decisions of the SC 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.

[Supreme Court cases supporting his position] 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 within 3 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

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 would
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 SC 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 it’s case and he [Bob] decided to rest his case on my
testimony, which showed that he was not required to file and that the SC had
upheld this position.

The prosecution then presented it’s 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 and Income Tax form; you decide whether or not he filed
it.” What a shock! The jury convicted him. Later some of the 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 him.”

As soon as the trial was over, I went around to the judge’s office and he was
just coming in through his back door. I said, “Judge, by what authority do you
overturn the standing decisions of the United States SC? 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 US SC in a District Court.”
SECTION3: Public Law vs. Public Policy.

He said, “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it,
but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938. He went on, “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 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 vs. 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 commercial
(Negotiable Instruments) Law; that this man was not under any contract with the
Erie Railroad, and therefore he lacked standing to sue the company.
Under the
Common Law (Natural Law), he was damaged and he would have had the right to

This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift “S. Tyson
in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court then was that in
a case of this type, the court would judge by the Common Law (Natural Law) of
the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. In the Erie
Railroad case, the Supreme Court now ruled that all federal cases will be judged
under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based
on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together I reasoned that all
our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.
There were still pieces missing from the puzzle.
SECTION 5: A Friend In Court.

Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won’t make friends with a
judge if you go into the 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 a 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 the 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

SECTION 6: America Is Bankrupt.

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the
Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said,
“In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys, and the U.S. Attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: ‘America is a bankrupt
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 under Admiralty Jurisdiction – call it anything you want,
but do not call it “Admiralty.”

SECTION 7: 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 party, and
which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.

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

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 might 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.

SECTION 8: 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.

[My note: DAMN RIGHT! “At this time” That is the KEY behind the building
up of the UN as a MILITARY FORCE! That is the KEY to disarming America.

That is the KEY to “ending” the cold war. Like now we have no more enemy, so
we can melt all our guns. WRONG. The Bankers PLAN to foreclose, they just
don’t want their HEADS BLOWN OFF WHILE DOING IT, so they DICTATE to
the “congress” to get rid of the guns.” eg]

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 WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to
admit the jurisdiction of 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.
SECTION 9: Jurisdiction.
The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in
which the courts may operate:
SECTION 10: Common Law.
Common Law (Natural or Constitutional Law) is based on [the Creator's] Laws
as originally presented by Moses. 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 pleases, 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 governmental action which prevents a man from making a fool of
himself. For instance, when you cross state line 5, you will probably 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
SECTION 11: 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 the contract. If you then refuse to perform as
directed by the court, you can be charged with the contempt of court, this is a
criminal action. Are our set belt laws Equity laws? No. They are not, because you
cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of the contract. [This
has of course changed since the publishing of the article, so read on.... e.g.]SECTION 12: Admiralty or Maritime Law.
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance, which also has Criminal
Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to
International Contracts.
Now we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic laws,
building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty
for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file) that is Admiralty/Maritime
Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under
Admiralty/Maritime [hereafter noted by A/M] Jurisdiction, so they took the
international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. This is what the
SC decided in the Erie Railroad case - that the decisions would 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 A/M Jurisdiction, they call it
Statutory Jurisdiction.
[My note: I looked for Statutory Jurisdiction in the 4th edition of Black's. It's
not there, so looked up Statue and under the definition is this paragraph: This word
is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster
v. Brown, 199 Ga. 444, 34 S.E.2d, 530 535 See Common Law.
Unwritten law is common law, contradistinction you can look up, but it means
"as opposed to" "opposite to." Also I looked up Common Law (with my new
understanding) and it's quite enlightening! :)]SECTION 13: Courts Of Contract.
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with
failure to wear set belts and be fine for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to up hold the
Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution in Art. I,
Sect. 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.
SECTION 14: Contracts Must Be Voluntary.
Under the Common Law, both parties must enter into every contract
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally 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
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.

"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, 5th ed.
SECTION 15: Colorable Money And Colorable Courts.
The word "colorable" means something that appears to be genuine, but is not.
Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but it if 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 Note, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover
the kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory
Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is a "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.
SECTION 16: Uniform Commercial Code.
The government setup 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 the created a system of law called the
UCC. This "colorable" jurisdiction under the UCC is the next key to understanding
what has happened.
SECTION 17: Contract Or Agreement.
One difference between Common Law and the UCC is that in Common Law,
contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3)
intentionally. Under the UCC this is not so. First of all, contracts are necessary.
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 the those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by

government, and then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every
statute involved with the 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’s the driver's license, the marriage license, or the birth
certificate, etc. I believe it's none of these.
SECTION 18: Compelled Benefit.
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of
DISCHARGING [my emphasis e.g.] debt with limited liability, instead of paying
debt en toto with substance. 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 to
buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve
Note. It is worthless paper (because it cannot be reasonably be used for anything
else) given in exchange for something of substantive value.
Congress offers us this escape in the form of a benefit: Debt money, created by
the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States, it will
be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you
cannot be sued for not paying your debts when you "pay" a debt using this
colorable money.
So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just
discharge your debts instead of paying your debts."
When we use this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we cannot use
Common Law court. We can only use "colorable court." We are completely under
the jurisdiction of the UCC -- We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments
and we are discharging debt rather than paying debts.
SECTION 19: Remedy And Recourse.
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and
Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the 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 UCC 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 UCC
they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the UCC. 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 were found right in the first volume, at 1-
207 and 1-103.
SECTION 20: Remedy.

The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights
the person then possessed, 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 Gov. and
say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No.
The proper answer is "THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A
FRENCHMEN." 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 UCC 1-207.
SECTION 21: 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 it's 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
Whenever you sign any legal paper, that deals with the Federal Reserve Notes
in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature writes: Without Prejudice
UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4 that you have
sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand just what this means. For example, one
man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he
meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He
had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get
out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what

he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudice 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.
SECTION 22: 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 that
liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial
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. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you
are compelled to accept the benefit, and therefore obligated to obey every statue,
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 the 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 version. 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.
SECTION 23: Recourse.
The Recourse appears in the UCC 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 Law." (UCC 1-103.6)
This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If
it did not, recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit
that the US is bankrupt, and is completely owned by it's 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 rights under the UCC." 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 statue in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth with the-damaged party.
[Note: Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates
that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several
days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights
before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers'
Cooperative Publishing Co.]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 of 1-207 and 1-103 of the UCC, which is the
system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?
Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code
and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put this court on notice,
that I am appealing your legal determination."
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.
SECTION 24: Practical Application In Traffic Court.
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look at a court
situation such as a traffic violation.
Assume you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic
1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least three weeks. This
you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that
you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court appearance for about
three weeks away. (At this point we need to remember that 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 say, "I believe it
would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to save the government some
money (this will get his attention.) I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As
you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't
have a court reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayers's money to run me through
this court and then have to give me a trial *de novo* [new trial] 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 traffic court, where there is no record.
When you get into the court there will be a court reporter there who records
every word the judge speaks, so that judge is much more careful in a court of
record. You will be in a much better situation there than in 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 in 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
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 citation?"
Officer: "Well I got it from your driver's license."
[Number 4 above is very important to get into the record, clearly stating that
you do not understand the charges. With that in the record, the court cannot move
forward to judge the facts. This will be covered later on.](Handing the officer you driver's license) "Is this the document you copied my
name and address from?"
Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."
"While you've got that in your hand, would you read the signature that's on that
license?" (The officer reads the signature) "While you're there, would you read into
the record what it says under the signature?"
Officer: "It says, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207."

Judge: "Let me see that license!" (He looks 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 it's 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.
SECTION 25: Using The Code With The IRS.
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency this is called a "presentment" in the
UCC. 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 meet.
And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead, which says,” For services
rendered $10,000.00" I send this by certified mail to him at the address taken from
the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt
that he received it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and the
following statement: "If you have any questions concerning this bill or the services
rendered, you have thirty days to make your questions or objections know."

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 $10,00, was given thirty days to
respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now he has
defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000. That's common law.
The UCC works on the same principle. The minute you get a notice of
Deficiency from the IRS, you return it immediately with a letter that says:
The presentment above is dishonored. _(Your name)_ has reserved all of his/her
rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207.
This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more that they can do. In
fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of Deficiency.
The man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote
back that they could not make a determination at that office, but were turning it
over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the Collections
Department, which said they were sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him
and the NOD had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it's handled properly
these things are easily resolved.
SECTION 26: 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 capital building, put them in an
internment camp and hold them indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they
may not. They may 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.
FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been designed for
when America is officially declared bankrupt, which would be a national
emergency. In a national emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all law that
previously existed, would be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration
camps where they would put anyone who might cause trouble for the orderly plan
and process of the new regime to take over the nation.
Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment camps, and kept
there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and they are just waiting to declare a
national emergency.

Then even state government 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 UCC,
Wyoming is an accommodation party to the national debt. To understand we must
realize that there are two separate entities know as the United States.
SECTION 28: The Rothschild Influence.
When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy because it was
founded on the (Christian) 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, 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 lend gold or silver. Naturally,
they did not like this new government.
The Rothschilds had a deal with the King of England. He would borrow paper
and agree to repay in gold. But these United States, with their Constitution, were
an obstacle to them, and it was much to the Rothschild's advantage to get the
colonies back under the King. So the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812 to
bring America back under England. Of course, it didn't work, so they had to find
another way.
SECTION 29: The Flaw In The Constitution, Two Nations In One.
It was around the time of the American Civil War that they discovered a flaw in
the Constitution. The flaw was Art. I, Sect. 3, 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. [This
is an easy to understand restatement of how it’s presented in Black's Law
Dictionary, btw]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, Sect. 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 part of a Constitutional Republic, it had the obligation of
providing a medium of exchange for us. Its duty was to coin gold and 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 DC) Congress is not
limited by the Constitution. Congress has exclusive rule over the District of
Columbia. The legislators can make the law by a majority vote -- that makes it a
democracy; they have the authority to have administrative agents to enforce their
own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of the 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 the 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.
BRANCH LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both called the United States. One
is the federal United States, and the other is the continental United States.
SECTION 30: Are You A United States Citizen?
If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United States are you
referring to?
Anyone who lives in the District of the 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 DC, 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 Art. I, Sect. 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 filed to perform in some specific manner."
Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do whatever you want as

long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. If you
do not want to perform, you don’t have to. The only way you can be compelled to
perform under the Constitution in the continental united States, is if you have
entered a contract. But if you are not under a contract you cannot be compelled to
perform. How can you be compelled to file an income tax form, or any form?
When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes must be in harmony
with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but when Congress works for the
Legislative Democracy, any law it passes becomes the law of the land (remember,
Congress has exclusive legislative control over federal territory.)
If you are charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax 1040 form, that is
a law for a different nation. You are a 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, and then you can use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can
also mention that you are among the national citizenry of 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 UCC at 1-207
SECTION 31: Original Intent of the Founders.
The Founding Fathers would never have created a government that was going
to boss them around! There were 13 sovereign States. There were nations, and they
joined together for protection from foreign enemies. They provided a means by
which the union of the sovereign states could fend off foreign enemies. But they
never gave the congress of the federal United States direct rule over any citizen of
any state. They were not going to be ordered around by that government they set
SECTION 32: Federal Region.
The Supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what Congress creates.
Congress did not create the States, but Congress did create federal regions. So
Congress can rule the federal regions, but Congress cannot rule the States. How
have we been tricked into Federal regions?
SECTION 33: The Zip Code Trick.

Remember how the government always comes to use 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 of writing three
or four letters to abbreviate the name of the state -- such as Ariz.
For Arizona, Just write AZ instead of Ariz. Or you can just write WY for
Wyoming instead of Wyo." So all of the states of the union have got a new two-
letter abbreviation. Even a state such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is
RI instead of R.I. The 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 do ever 'I' or make an I that looks like and '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 it’s old abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the
lawful abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new abbreviation, you have
to use the zip code.
Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you that the first
digit of your zip code is the federal region in which you reside. If you us 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.
SECTION 34: Accommodation Party.
Let’s look at how the states have become the accommodation party to the
national debt. There are many people I have talked to, including the Governor, who
are very concerned about this, and who know that it could happen very soon.
If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a national emergency.
FEMA 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
They have already setup 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 -- [now
almost double that in the 5 years since this was recorded] is not owed by the
Continental United States. It is the federal United States that had the authority to
borrow bank credit. When Congress worked for the Continental united States, it
could only borrow gold or silver, so the national debts was borrowed in the names
of the federal United States.
The federal United States had to trap the States into assuming the debt
obligation of the federal debt.
In the UCC, we find the term, 'accommodation party.' 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 does is 'colorable.' Under the 'colorable'
jurisdiction of the UCC, all of the states are the accommodation party to the federal
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?
SECTION 35: 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 against fire. Then I would
be waiting for it to burn down so I could trade my small premium for $80,000.
Under the Common Law, that is called a no-interest contract, and it is void and
unenforceable in any court.
SECTION 36: Unconscionable Contracts.
No-interest contracts are called unconscionable contracts. The section on
unconscionable contracts covers more than forty pages in the Anderson Code. The
federal United States has involved the states as the accommodation party to the
federal debt, and I believe we could prove this to be an unconscionable contract.
We should get some litigation into the courts before the government declares a
national emergency, claiming that this state has no lawful responsibility for the
national debt (of the federal United States,) because it became an accommodation
party to this debt through an unconscionable contract. If we have this litigation
before the courts under International Law when the nation is declared bankrupt, the
creditors would have to settle this matter first, and it would delay them. They
would want the new government to appear to be legitimate, so they could not just
move right in and take over the state, because it would be in an International Court.

This is very important at this time.
SECTION 37: 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 repeating.
SECTION 38: Courtroom Techniques.
Q. How did you "box in" the Judge?
A. 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 charges?"
Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not.
Judge: Well, what is 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?
Defendant: 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 that
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.
Judge: Well, what is that -- what do you want to know?
Defendant: Well Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action?
Judge: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action, there could be no fine, so it has to
be criminal.)
Defendant: 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?
Judge: Yes.
Defendant: 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 actions, so it seems it would
have to be under either Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me,
Your Honor, is that there is no *corpus delecti* here that gives this court

jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it
doesn’t appear to me that this court is moving under Common Law.
Judge: No. I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.
Defendant: 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 deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it does
exist, be placed into evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely, this court is not
operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put the words in the judge’s mouth.
Judge: 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 _____. No this is an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Defendant: 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?
Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.
Defendant: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have
never heard of that jurisdiction. So if I have to defend under that, I would need to
have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me
where I might find those rules? There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the
judge will get very angry at this point and say:
Judge: If you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed
attorney -- I'm not allowed to practice law from the bench.
Defendant: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of
practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few questions to explain to me
the nature of this actions, so that I may defend myself.
Judge: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more questions. Do you
understand that? If you ask anymore 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.
Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight.
Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a
criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of
which are known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me that

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 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 automatically be a reversible error on appeal.
SECTION 39: The Social Security Problem.
If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting out in my first job, I
would not want Social Security. with my signature on the application, I would
write, 'Without Prejudice’ UCC 1-207, and I would reserve my Common Law
rights. But why wouldn't I want Social Security today?
I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I paid into it dollars that
had good purchasing power. Now I’m getting a promised return in Federal Reserve
Notes which have considerably less value. For example, in 1940 you could buy a
deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today’s Federal Reserve Notes that won't
buy the rear fenders and trunk on a new Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I would
not want to put Federal Reserve Notes into SS now, and get back something later
like the German mark after WWI -- when it took a billion to buy a loaf of bread.
They will give you every Federal Reserve Note back they promised you, but it
might not buy anything.
SECTION 40: Assurance.
Under The UCC 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 SSN," or "I
refuse to take it." Just take it easy and say, "I would be happy to get a SSN 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 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 UCC
which grant the right to have assurance that the contract you have entered will be
fulfilled properly -- that the return will equal the investment, and you can reject the
contract using the Code. Using their own system of law, you can show that they
cannot make you get into a contract of that nature. Just approach them innocently
like a lamb.
It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with the government
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 be cooperative and ask questions
in a way that leads the judge to say the things which you need to have in the
SECTION 41: The Court Reporter
In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets his job at the
judge's pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease the judge. The court reporter is
sworn to give an accurate transcript of every word that is spoken in the courtroom.
But if the judge make 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 to 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 bad dog a good name, and he'll live up to
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 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 he is a no-good scoundrel
and so on. Just be wise and harmless.
SECTION 42: UCC 1-207 Review
It is so important to know and understand the meaning of "without prejudice"
UCC 1-207, in connection with your signature, that we should go over this once
more. It is very likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So please learn and
understand this carefully: The use of "Without prejudice" UCC 1-207 in
connection with my signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law
right NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM under any contract I did not
And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled
Once you state that, that is all the judge needs to hear.
Under the Common Law, both parties must enter into a contract knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally, or it can be declared void and unenforceable. You
are claiming the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that you
did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And you do not accept
the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
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 a medium of exchange provided
by the government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so you are
compelled to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed commercial
agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely and explicit reservation of your
rights under UCC 1-207, and you simply exercise this benefit rendered by
government, you will be obligated, under an implied agreement to obey every
statute, ordinance and regulation passed by government, at all levels -- federal,
state and local.
The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in putting this to paper in
an effort to make it readable and somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his
gratitude to Howard Freeman for the opportunity to work with the 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 to

print. [And again to e-test.] It's purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to make this
knowledge and wisdom available to as many people as will take the time and
trouble to read it. 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 "like sheep
among wolves." cannot be overstated, and is certainly good advice to us in all
dealings -- not just in court or with the government. Hearing him explain this in his
own words brings to life the practical application and usefulness of being "wise"
and "harmless." In fact, after being introduced to this approach, it becomes difficult
to imagine that any other way of defending oneself from the government would be
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 attorney."
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 use who have concluded that having an attorney means that you
will soon be chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this information may be in-
dispensable. 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 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.")
3) Simply don't have the energy or inclination to do anything about it. ("That’s
nice, but let's see what’s on TV".)
For those good 'citizens' this whole effort may seem useless or even threatening.
But it is this writers 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 of 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.
Well there you have it, The UCC Connection. There is also a list of other
publications available from American's for Constitutional Government. If you
found this information useful, I would recommend contacting them for a list of
their materials. I hope I didn't put all this effort in only for someone to tell me
"Yea, that's on the Internet...." I tried to find stuff like this for some time now and
other then John Freeman’s articles, I found none. Also, I like the author’s approach
here. Many of the so-called "patriot" organizations seem to be more "profiteers"
than patriots. I understand bills need to be paid, but after reading lists and lists of
"products available for $xxxx" I saw this as a little different. Good luck. And a few
more quotes:
"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear
to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril." -Harry
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave hated and
scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs
nothing to be a patriot." -Mark Twain
"Truth is less than truth until it is made known." -John Wheeler
Mr. Howard Freeman died in 1992, at the age of 92. He gave lectures all over
the country for more than fifty years.