Remedy and Recourse Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that 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 Uniform Commercial Code 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 Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. 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 are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103. Remedy The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, 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 government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. 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. 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 its 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 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -- in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.2 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 prejudiced 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. 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 the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement. 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 with limited liability, and you don't have to pay 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 statute, 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 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 Anderson3 edition. 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. Recourse The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says, The Code is complementary 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. 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 United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its 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 right under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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 statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with a damaged party. 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 sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 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. Practical Application -- 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 ticket: 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 the 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 to 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 taxpayer's money to run me through this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo 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 a traffic court, where there is no record. When you get into court, there will be a court reporter there who records every word the judge speaks, so the judge is much more careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better situation there than in a 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 a violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, "Do you understand the charge against you?"4 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 stand." 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 that citation." Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license." (Handing the officer your 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 at it 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 am 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 he would have to admit that: a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC; b. you had one 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 its 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. Using the Code with the IRS If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a "presentment" in the Uniform Commercial Code. 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 met. 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 known." 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 $10,000, 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 that the Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn. So, you can see that, if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved. 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 Capitol building, put them in an internment camp and hold them indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they may not. They will 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 F E M A, 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 governments 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 told him that there are certain actions we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is an accommodation party5 to the national debt. To understand this, we must realize that there are two separate entities known as the United States. The Rothschild Influence When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy because it was founded on the 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 -- that is, 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 loan 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, that didn't work, so they had to find another way. 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 Article 1, Section 8, 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. Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the Republic -- the three-branch government. They 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 1, Section 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 a part of the Constitutional Republic, it had the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its duty was to coin gold or 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, D.C.), 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 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 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. THE THREE-BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE-BRANCH LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES. One is the federal United States, and the other is the continental united States. 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 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, D.C., 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. When did Congress get the authority to write the Internal Revenue Code? It is found in Article 1, Section 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 failed 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 nonresident 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 -- the 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, so then you can use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you are among the national citizenry of the continental united States, and you are a nonresident alien to the federal United States. You never lived in a federal territory and never had an 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 Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207. 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. They 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 up. Federal Regions 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? The ZIP Code Trick Remember how the government always come to us 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 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." They 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 dot every "i" or make an "i" that looks like an "e"? With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc., and some sloppy writing, 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. (continued in The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny (3/3) ) ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net