The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny (1/3)

The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny September 22, 1991 Foreword This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by [the late] 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 may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material. The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening and, as most fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who 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." Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a "snowball's chance" is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME and to come to an 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 learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer and, as such, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted. So, again we find, as in many other areas of life, that "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!" It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take them from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others. To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of our plight, and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always refining, expanding and improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others greater knowledge and hope, and to God, the gift of lives lived in peace, freedom and praise. UCC Connection "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove." Introduction When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If I had tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted. I was involved with a Patriot group and I studied supreme Court cases. I concluded that the Supreme Court had declared that I was not a person required to file an income tax -- that the tax was an excise tax on privileges granted by government. So, I quit filing and paying income taxes, and it was not long before they came down on me with a heavy hand. They issued a notice of deficiency, which had such a fantastic sum on it that the biggest temptation was to go in with their letter and say, "Where in the world did you ever get that figure?" They claimed I owed them some $60,000. But, even if I had been paying taxes, I never had that much money, so how could I have owed them that much? Never Argue the Amount of Deficiency Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of information: NEVER ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're not required to file, what do you care whether they say you owe sixty dollars or 60,000 dollars? If you are not required to file, the amount doesn't matter. Don't argue the amount -- that is a fact issue. In most instances, when you get a Notice of Deficiency, it is usually for some fantastic amount. The IRS wants you to run in and argue about the amount. The minute you say, "I don't owe that much," you have agreed that you owe them something, and you have given them jurisdiction. Just don't be shocked at the amount on a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is ten million dollars! If the law says that you are not required to file or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter. By arguing the amount, they will just say that you must go to tax court and decide what the amount is to be. By the time you get to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are only there to decide how much you owe. They will not listen to arguments of law. So, I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required to file. He said, "You are required to file, Mr. Freeman." But I had all these supreme Court cases, and I started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and you're going to pay that amount or you're going to go to tax court." I thought that someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked to talk to his superior. I went to him and got out my Supreme Court cases, and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman ...." Finally, I got to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He said that the only person above him was the District Director. So, I went to see him. By the time I got to his office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was out. But, I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there. I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a desk, and she asked if she could help me. I told her my problem. I said that I really thought the District Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator Simpson's office calling, and to ask if the District Director was in. I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a person whom you are sending over to speak to him -- if he is, can he wait just five minutes. His secretary met me when I came in and said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky -- the Director just arrived." The Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies and we sat and talked. So, he asked me what I wanted to talk to him about. (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to do you a favor," watch out! But, we can turn that around and approach them the same way.) So, I said, "I thought you ought to know that there are agents working for you who are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't agree with. Do you read all the mail that goes out of this office over your signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything -- it goes out of here by the bagful." That was what I thought. I said, "There are some of your agents writing letters which contradict the decisions of the supreme Court of the United States. And they're not doing it over their name; they're doing it over your name." He was very interested to hear about it, and asked if I had any examples. I just happened to have some with me, so I got them out and presented them to him. He thought it was very interesting and asked if I could leave this information with him, which I did. He said he would look it over and contact me in three days. Three days later, he called me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will be glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been withdrawn. We've determined that you're not a person required to file. Your file is closed and you will hear no more from us." I haven't heard another word from them since. That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1969. The Supreme Court on Trial I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help him. I told him that they have to prove that he willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me on the witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the audience. He should then ask me what I spoke of that day. When I got on the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases I had used with the District Director. I thought I would be lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off, but I was reading whole paragraphs -- and the judge didn't stop me. I read one and then another, and so on. And finally, when I had read just about as much as I thought I should, the judge called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we had it made. There was just no way that they could rule against him after all that testimony. So we relaxed. The prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest his defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not required to file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this position. The prosecution then presented its closing statements and we were just sure that he had won. But, at the very end, the judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts of this case, and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form. You decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted him. Later, some members of the jury said, "What could we do? The man had admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict 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 supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now, how do you, a District Court Judge, have the authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says, "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are. You have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court." Public Law 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, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much -- he wasn't going to tell me any more. 1938 and the Erie Railroad Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case and the decision of the supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the State where the incident occurred -- in this case, Pennsylvania. But, in the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So, here we find the blending of Law with Equity. This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing. A Friend of the Court Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now, you won't make friends with a judge if you go into court like a "wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is -- how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case, we will visit." America is Bankrupt Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 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 nation -- it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction -- call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty. Admiralty Courts The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into 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 may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves. No Expedient But, the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So, until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. When we understand these things, we realize that there are certain secrets they don't want to admit, and we can use this to our benefit. Jurisdiction The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate: Common Law: Common Law is based on God's Law. Any time someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself, provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over State lines in most States, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But, Common law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable. Equity Law: Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now, this can only be a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are your seat belt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract. Admiralty/Maritime Law: This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now, we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as 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 Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction. Courts of Contract You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seat belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But, you must understand that the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced -- Equity and 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. Contracts Must Be Voluntary Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties, or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic -- it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract -- the dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, "For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house ...." And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable"1 dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable. Colorable Money -- 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 if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is "colorable." If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a "colorable" contract. And "colorable" contracts must be enforced under a "colorable" jurisdiction. So, by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using "colorable money." Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction. Uniform Commercial Code The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the "colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely "colorable" from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every State. This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all the courts. I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says "Jump!" then the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut his head off. As slaves, we have no rights. But, the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This "colorable" jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened. Contract or Agreement One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly (2) voluntarily and (3) intentionally. Under the UCC, this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement," it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don't even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these. Compelled Benefit I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But, if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this 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. 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 a Common Law court. We can only use a "colorable" court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- we are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying debt. (continued in The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny (2/3) ) ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net