Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Policy Document - UCC Redemption
Policy Document - UCC Redemption
U.C.C. REDEMPTION
“The righteous should choose his friends [and government protectors] carefully,
For the way of the wicked leads them astray.”
[Prov. 12:26, Bible, NKJV]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Constitutional Provisions
13th Amendment .................................................................................................................................................................... 23
15th Amendment .............................................................................................................................................................. 23, 25
19th Amendment .............................................................................................................................................................. 23, 25
26th Amendment .................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Amendment 14 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Amendments 14 and on .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
Amendments 15, 19, and 26 ................................................................................................................................................... 24
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 ......................................................................................................................................... 21, 22
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Constitutional Amendments 15, 19, and 26 ........................................................................................................................... 23
Fourteenth Amendment ....................................................................................................................... 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 53
Fourteenth Amendment Annotated, Findlaw ......................................................................................................................... 21
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 ................................................................................................................................... 22, 23
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ................................................................................................................................... 24
United States Constitution ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Statutes
12 U.S.C. §411 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18
12 U.S.C.A. §95a ............................................................................................................................................................. 49, 50
15 U.S.C., §17 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37
18 U.S.C. §471 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
18 U.S.C. §472 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
19 U.S.C. §2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 41
22 Okla.Stat. 403 .................................................................................................................................................................... 60
22 U.S.C.A. §286d ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
22 U.S.C.A. §286e ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
22 U.S.C.A. §286E ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
26 U.S.C. §7212 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) ......................................................................................................................................... 67
28 U.S.C. §§754 and 959(a) ................................................................................................................................................... 46
28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3) ............................................................................................................................................................ 26
28 U.S.C. §1605 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
28 U.S.C. §1652 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
28 U.S.C. §2679 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) ................................................................................................................................................... 18, 19
31 U.S.C. §821 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 41
38 Stat. 1065 et seq. ............................................................................................................................................................... 43
42 U.S.C. §1981(a) ................................................................................................................................................................. 25
42 U.S.C. §1983 ............................................................................................................................................................... 25, 26
5 U.S.C.A. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 49
64 Stat. 419 (Public Law 673, 81st Congress) ....................................................................................................................... 41
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 3 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) ...................................................................................................................................................... 21, 26
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22) ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Ala. Code §7-2-201 ................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Alabama Code §8-9-2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 36
Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code ........................................................................................................................... 63
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code ........................................................................................................................... 63
Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 28 U.S.C. §725, Sept 24, 1789 .............................................................................................. 46
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ........................................................................................................................................ 26
H.J.R. 192 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18
H.J.R.-192 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43, 44
House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, 48 Stat. 112-113 ............................................................................................................. 43
I.R.C. Subtitle A ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Internal Revenue Code ..................................................................................................................................................... 19, 52
Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429 ...................................................................................................................................... 56
Public Law 673....................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.) 10.40.050........................................................................................................... 60, 61
Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.) 10.46.060........................................................................................................... 60, 61
Title 18 of the U.S. Code .................................................................................................................................................. 22, 25
Title 26 of the U.S. Code ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 911 ................................................................................................................ 29
U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a) ............................................................................................................................................................... 65
U.C.C. §2-104(1) .................................................................................................................................................................... 65
U.C.C. §9-102(a)(72) 1999 .................................................................................................................................................... 65
U.C.C. §9-105(m)................................................................................................................................................................... 63
U.C.C. §9-105(m) 1972.......................................................................................................................................................... 64
U.C.C. §9-318(1)(a) ............................................................................................................................................................... 63
U.C.C. §9-340 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 64
U.C.C. 1-207 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
U.C.C. 1-308 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
U.C.C. Articles 2, 2A, 4 and 5................................................................................................................................................ 65
Uniform Commercial Code .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Regulations
31 C.F.R. §357.20 .................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Rules
CrRLJ 4.1(d) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) ................................................................................................................................... 67
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................. 16
RULE 9 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (TCRP) 52 ............................................................................................................................. 56
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 .................................................................................................................................... 56, 57
Cases
75 Am.Dec. 509 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Adams v. Richardson, 337 S.W.2d. 911................................................................................................................................. 49
Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823 (1949) ................................................................................................................................ 28
Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936) .................................................. 34
Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) ............................................................................................................................ 26
Other Authorities
"Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933", (See: House Joint
Resolution 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session) ..................................................................................................................... 50
“Judge” Anna von Reitz ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
1 Hale, P. C. 62 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24
2 Kent, Comm. 340 ................................................................................................................................................................ 63
30 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence section 1163, at 338 (1967) ............................................................................................................ 59
4 Bl.Comm. 74, 92 ................................................................................................................................................................. 24
4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11, "Citizens" (1906) ............................................................................................................... 28
6 Webster's Works, 526 .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
About SSNs and TINs On Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012 ...................................................... 52, 73
About SSNs and TINs On Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012, Section 2 ........................................... 62
Affidavit of Corporate Denial, Form #02.004 .................................................................................................................. 29, 40
Americans Bulletin Storefront................................................................................................................................................ 12
Americans Sovereign Bulletin.................................................................................................................................... 15, 16, 68
3 1. Describe in detail differences between the approaches of U.C.C. Redemption and this website towards the illegal
4 enforcement activities of the IRS.
5 2. Describe efforts to resolve the conflicts between us to date and U.C.C. Redemption’s response to those efforts.
6 3. Provide legally admissible evidence justifying why our position is the only one consistent with prevailing law.
7 4. Offer an opportunity for fellowship Members and readers to further investigate and rebut any of the evidence upon which
8 we base our position.
9 5. Improve the information and materials available on this website for preventing unlawful activities by our government
10 and private industry.
11 In preparing this document, we rely upon all of the following sources of information
33 In addition, members of the SEDM Staff have participated extensively as editors and reviewers of the materials available
34 from MakeFreedom.com. This includes:
41 You may notice if you have the above books, that they follow the same formatting conventions as SEDM and reference
42 materials on both Family Guardian (http://famguardian.org) and SEDM (http://sedm.org). This is no accident but proof that
43 we are editors of the materials. Our staff participates in review and editing of the above materials to ensure that they don’t
44 perpetuate any of the flawed arguments described in this pamphlet, discredit the freedom community or our materials, or get
45 anyone in trouble. HOWEVER, we warn readers that SEDM does not have a financial relationship with
46 http://makefreedom.com and does not intend through this memorandum to officially endorse or condone any specific product
47 or service relating to U.C.C. Redemption. That would hinder our objectivity and interfere with the accuracy of this document.
IMPORANT NOTE: Please DO NOT contact us with questions about any of the following:
1. Asking us for copies of any of the materials we mention above as references to the UCC. That would only further
the spread of what we believe is a hugely flawed approach.
2. How to use our materials or services in connection with anything having to do with U.C.C. Redemption as described
herein.
3. How to undo the damage caused by those who were deceived or misled into pursuing U.C.C. redemption.
4. Promises or guarantees about the effectiveness of any of our materials or services. The only thing you can and
should rely on as a source of reasonable belief is your own reading of what the law actually says and not what ANY
vain man, guru, or “expert” says, including us.
We remind our readers that our Member Agreement, Form #01.001 (see section 1.3, item 2 and section 4, item 10) forbids
anyone from using our materials or services who are also pursuing U.C.C. redemption. Consequently, all we can do is
describe our own efforts to comply with the law consistent with the content of our website and let people decide for
themselves whether that method is appropriate in their case.
If you discover methods to address the issue of undoing the damage that U.C.C. redemptionists did to you, we welcome
you to post what you learn in our MEMBER forums. You are also encouraged to compare notes with others in our forums
as you discover such methods, but please direct all your questions at OTHER than us directly because we won’t help you
violate our Member Agreement.
http://sedm.org/participate/forums/
5 1. Roger Elvick.
6 2. Winston Shrout. Holds commercial redemption seminars throughout the country.
7 http://www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com/
8 3. Sam Davis:
9 3.1. Has his own website: http://statusisfreedom.com/
10 3.2. Runs the Sovereign People’s Court in Las Vegas Nevada: http://www.sovereignpeoplescourt.com/.
11 3.3. Affiliated with the Commercial Redemption website: http://www.commercialredemption.com/
12 4. Victor Varjabedian. Published a book called Cracking the Code. Three different editions were published before the
13 book was discontinued. We have a copy of Cracking the Code, Third Edition. The book was originally offered by the
14 now defunct Better Book and Coin of America (BBCOA). They were shut down by the Federal Trade Commission
15 because they were offering false ID documents.
16 5. Rice McCleod. He has done several seminars and publishes The Redemption Manual.
17 6. Robert Kelly.
18 6.1. His materials were the precursor to the Redemption Manual Series published by Makefreedom.com.
19 6.2. He used to publish a U.C.C. Redemption newsletter called the Americans Bulletin.
20 6.3. We have obtained a few of his offerings, including the Redemption Companion, Robert Kelly and Redemption
21 Manual. His website is at:
Americans Bulletin Storefront
http://americansbulletin.safestorefront.com/
22 7. Moziah Corporation-offer same processes and books as Sovereign Filing Solutions. Situated in New York.
23 https://www.moziahcorporation.com
24 8. Sovereign Filing Solutions. They took over the maintenance of Robert Kelly’s Redemption Manual and now publish it
25 in printed form only on Amazon. See:
26 8.1. Redemption Manual 5.0 Series- Book 1: Free From Servitude, Sovereign Filing Solutions
27 http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Manual-5-0-Series-Servitude/dp/1497480086/
28 8.2. Redemption Manual 5.0: -UCC: UCC Supplemental, Sovereign Filing Solutions
29 https://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Manual-5-0-UCC-Supplemental/dp/1500488151/
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 12 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 8.3. Redemption Manual 5.0-Book 2: Operating Secured, Sovereign Filing Solutions
2 http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Manual-5-0-Operating-Secured/dp/1500463388/
3 8.4. Redemption Manual Version 6.0 Series, Makefreedom.com.
4 http://makefreedom.com/product-category/study-material/
5 9. Barton Buhtz. See:
Investigative Report on the U.C.C., Barton Buhtz
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/UCC/InvestigativeReportUCC.pdf
6 Roger Elvick started U.C.C. Redemption and we are told that Barton Buhtz and Winston Shrout were among his students.
7 Winston Shrout makes a series of 21 videos in three volumes called “Solutions in Commerce”. We have watched the series
8 and it is rather disappointing because, like most redemptionist offerings:
9 1. There is no evidence or facts from independent third parties to back up almost all of what he says.
10 2. He cites almost no statutes, case law, or regulations to prove any of his points.
11 3. He talks about the history of how the fraud upon the American people was perpetrated, but cannot confirm it from any
12 independent objective source.
13 4. Everything he talks about is couched in commerce. There is no moral or religious element that ties his teachings back
14 to any aspect of morality or the bible.
15 It seems as though what the redemptionists teach is simply a presumption or a religion without any facts to back them up.
16 We are about as far in the OPPOSITE direction as you can get: We insist on evidence to back EVERYTHING up. Some
17 have approached Winston Shrout to ask him where he gets the materials he teaches people. You know what his answer was?:
18 Prisoners who are STILL in jail! Do you want to base your whole approach to the world on what convicted cons know about
19 law and commerce? Not exactly the brightest thing to do, if you ask us.
20 Many of the above redemption personalities have a criminal record, as you will see from the following subsections.
22
25 As the creator of the "Redemption movement," a bizarre fusion of conspiracy theories and financial chicanery, Roger Elvick
26 claims he has liberated his "straw man," a secret doppelganger created by the U.S. government to capture the economic value
27 of U.S. citizens who, according to the Redemption doctrine, have unknowingly been sold into slavery to a Jewish-run
28 international banking cabal.
1
Adapted from an article published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=544
2 In April, Elvick pleaded guilty to one count each of forgery, extortion and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, and was
3 sentenced to four years in an Ohio state penitentiary. The 68-year-old far-right extremist and former Aryan Nations associate
4 was charged for aiding and abetting a ring of Redemption scammers based in Akron, Ohio, home to Right Way Law, a
5 clearinghouse for the Redemption movement's pseudo-legal shenanigans.
6 The Redemption movement is founded upon Elvick's outer-limits postulation that for every birth certificate issued in the U.S.
7 since the 1936 Social Security Act, the federal government deposits $630,000 in a hidden bank account linked to the newborn
8 American. Redemptionists claim that by executing a series of arcane legal maneuvers, a person may entitle themselves to the
9 $630,000 held in the name of the phantom entity created at their birth, and may then access these funds with "sight drafts" —
10 better known to business owners and prosecutors as "bogus checks." Elvick also encourages Redemption enthusiasts to harass
11 enemies with phony property liens and IRS reports designed to provoke audits.
12 Elvick first started spreading his crackpot vision in the 1980s, when he was the national spokesperson for Committee of the
13 States, a white supremacist group Elvick started with William Potter Gale, who had previously founded the Posse Comitatus,
14 a violent anti-Semitic organization.
15 By 1990, Redemption groups advised by Elvick were active in 30 states and several provinces of Canada, and had tried to
16 pass more than $15 million in bad checks. Elvick was eventually convicted of personally passing more than $1 million in
17 sight drafts, and, in a separate case, of filing fraudulent IRS forms. He spent most of the 1990s in federal prison.
18 But while he was incarcerated, the Redemption movement lured ever-growing legions of antigovernment extremists with the
19 combined promise of free money and the chance to attack the federal government with paperwork instead of guns.
20 After Elvick was released, he started holding expensive seminars where he instructed Redemption acolytes. It wasn't long
21 before he was back in big trouble. Elvick was indicted on multiple felony counts in Ohio in August 2003.
22 During preliminary hearings, Elvick frustrated court officials by denying his identity, claiming the court had no jurisdiction
23 over him or his straw man, and constantly interrupting with unfathomable questions about procedure. A judge ruled Elvick
24 mentally unfit to stand trial and committed him to a correctional psychiatric facility, where he was diagnosed with an
25 "unclassified mental disorder" and underwent nine months of treatment before facing trial. Elvick then surprised prosecutors
26 by changing his plea to guilty.
27 When asked if he wished to address the court at his sentencing, the usually vociferous Elvick replied simply, "I have nothing
28 to say."
31 AP
33 MEDFORD, Ore. (AP) - A federal jury has convicted a California man of passing $3.8 million in fake checks.
34 Barton Buhtz, 68, of Sunland, Calif., was convicted of conspiracy to pass false U.S. Treasury instruments and five counts of
35 passing fictitious financial instruments, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.
36 A co-defendant, Steven Douglas Shollenburg, 56, of Prineville and formerly of Medford, was acquitted.
37 Buhtz could face up to 130 years in federal prison and fines up to $1.5 million, prosecutors said.
2
Adapted from an article published by AOL News:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/california-man-convicted-in-oregon-for/n20071010151109990027
2 Buhtz was indicted in September 2005 with Rebecca Adelle Shollenburg, Steven Douglas Shollenburg, Richard Roy Aquila
3 and Steven Dale Kelton on charges of using fake checks drawn on nonexistent Treasury accounts to pay property taxes in
4 Jackson and Coos Counties, to pay federal income taxes, and to try to buy property, recreational vehicles and other goods
5 and services.
7 Court records show that Buhtz, a self-styled "consumer advocate," gave promotional seminars on fraudulent financial
8 practices in Oregon and other states.
9 In 2001, co-defendants Steven and Rebecca Shollenburg, Aquila and Kelton attended a seminar in Medford. After that, they
10 began using the fake checks, which Buhtz approved, to defraud banks, tax authorities and private creditors, prosecutors said.
11 A Medford bank learned that the documents were worthless after initially accepting them as payment for new vehicles
12 purchased by the Shollenburgs and Aquila.
13 Before the start of Tuesday's trial, Rebecca Shollenburg and Aquila pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to pass fictitious
14 documents. Kelton pleaded guilty to the same charge after the trial had begun. The co-defendants testified against Buhtz and
15 Steven Shollenburg, as required by their plea agreements.
27 1. His americansbulletin.com domain was discontinued. Later it was picked up by Sovereign Filings.
28 2. Links to his writings were removed from the Americans Sovereign Bulletin website.
29 3. His writings were moved to a different store website.
30 4. Blankenship and Kelley stayed in contact.
31 Kelly’s new store website where he continues to sell his Redemption Manual is the following, as of 2011:
http://americansbulletin.safestorefront.com/Merchant/?p1=95618
32 The following email was sent to us by a former secretary of Robert Kelly of the Americans Bulletin on Nov. 5, 2007. She
33 asked us not to disclose her identity:
34 I want to comment on the UCC.pdf file [this document] I just finished reading online. It is excellent.
4 My job was to answer the phones. I spoke with very many people in crisis on a daily basis, not Patriots but people
5 looking for an easy way out of their financial problems, as one example. I was concerned that they would only
6 have larger problems in the end. Robert does not use discretion when accepting their money to process these
7 U.C.C. filings. He doesn't feel it is his responsibility if these so-called clients do not take the time to learn about
8 the concepts of 'Redemption', a word I have come to despise.
9 Personally, I do not care about this subject. However, I realize there is an underlying truth but what does it all
10 mean in the end, what are the goals of this so-called movement, and will it benefit all.
11 I am still in communication with a couple of Kelly's clients, mostly the families of inmates who are concerned
12 about their loved ones doing these processes. I haven't known what to tell them exactly other than to say there is
13 something not right to my way of thinking and that Kelly does not care about their loved one, which is the truth.
14 I liked your U.C.C. article and will send it to these people I have learned to care about. I was hoping, for their
15 sakes, that their efforts weren't all in vain, they weren't being scammed or feeling foolish. Your article gives the
16 process legitimacy.
17 There is something wrong with Kelly's materials when people ask, over and over, "Will these processes really get
18 me out of prison? or "Is it true I have a million dollars in an account somewhere?" Somewhere in his writings I
19 saw...you can even buy a house! This is irresponsible in my eyes. Ah, it upsets me to even think about this.
20 I am very unsettled about the inmate issues as well. I feel it is unconscionable of Kelly to use the disclaimer of
21 'everything works on a case by case basis'. The answer is NO, they have not released one inmate with these
22 processes.
23 I am sure you are a very busy office but feel free to contact me if you wish.
24 It shouldn’t surprise you that Mr. Kelly eventually learned about the above mention in this document by one of his clients,
25 and subsequently contacted us to ask us to have it removed. However:
26 1. When we asked him to swear that it was NOT true under penalty of perjury, he refused.
27 2. He REFUSED to give his contact information so we could talk to him to verify whether it was inaccurate.
28 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), we are entitled to continue to believe that the above is true. A failure to deny
29 constitutes an admission:
30 “Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in
31 question , and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. When silence is of such a
32 character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party
33 who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an
34 estoppel.”
35 [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)]
36 People in the redemption community frequently plagiarize and reuse other people’s materials in violation of the copyrights
37 and to the injury of the original authors. For instance, Robert Kelly’s redemption materials, including his Redemption
38 Manual, have been widely emulated in the redemption community. The following organizations offer redemption materials
39 that are based upon Robert Kelly’s original Redemption manual:
40 1. Redemption Service. They sell a “Matrix DVD” that contains many of our documents. Mark Edwards runs this
41 website.
42 http://redemptionservice.com/
43 2. Sovereign Filings. Offer an updated version of Robert Kelly’s Redemption Manual. In partnership with Robert
44 Kelly’s Ex Wife, who took over his business. Also do UCC filings.
45 http://makefreedom.com
46 3. Redeem The Truth. Formerly http://nmcservices.net. Shawna Page runs this website. They reused some of the
47 Redemption Manual from Robert Kelly of the Americans Bulletin and offer their own manual by the same name. They
48 also offer “verified Declaration of Revocation and Termination of Election” services to restore your status as an
49 American National for $500. We offer a similar item that is FREE (Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship
17 CARSON CITY – U.S. District Judge James Mahan has sentenced Samuel Davis, 56, to 57 months in prison on
18 his guilty plea in a money-laundering scheme in Las Vegas in which he was caught by undercover FBI agents.
19 The judge also ordered Davis to pay $95,782 in restitution and serve three years of supervised released for his
20 guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and 30 counts of money laundering.
21 U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden said Davis’ partner Shawn Rice, 48, is still at large.
22 Court records say Davis, of Council, Idaho, and Rice, of Seligman, Ariz., laundered about $1.3 million for FBI
23 undercover agents who said they got the money from theft and forgery of stolen official bank checks.
24 The government maintains Davis laundered the money through a nominee trust account and Rice put it through
25 a reported religious organization. Davis got $74,000 and Rice took $22,000 for their work.
26 Davis and Rice are reportedly members of an anti-government group called “Sovereign Movement,” which tries
27 to disrupt and overthrow governments and other forms of authority by using “paper terrorism” tactics,
28 intimidation, harassment and violence.
29 Sovereign Movement maintains members do not have to pay taxes and it believes Americans are deceived by the
30 federal government into obtaining Social Security cards, drivers' licenses, car registrations and wedding licenses.
31 Davis is a national leader and Rice is a lawyer and rabbi, according to the government.
40 “6. Beginning in or about February 2008, and continuing through at least June 2015, defendant SHROUT
41 knowingly devised and participated in a material scheme and artifice to defraud financial institutions and the
42 United States out of funds and monies by making, presenting, and transmitting fictitious financial instruments,
13 1. The only lawful money is gold and silver. This is mandated by our Constitution.
14 2. Gold was outlawed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933 in order to force people to use fiat currency.
15 2.1. In the place of gold, fiat currency was borrowed by the U.S. government in the form of Federal Reserve Notes
16 (FRN’s).
17 2.2. Federal Reserve Notes are classified as “obligations of the United States government”. 12 U.S.C. §411.
18 2.3. FRN’s are NOT issued under the authority of the government’s power to coin money found in Article 1, Section 8,
19 Clause 5 of the Constitution. Instead, they are issued under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the
20 Constitution, which authorizes congress to borrow money.
21 2.4. The use of FRN’s constitutes a “franchise” from which the authority to collect income taxes primarily derives. See:
The Law, The Money, and Your Choice, Lee Brobst
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/LawAndMoney.pdf
22 2.5. Since FRN’s are not lawful money, the government made it impossible to satisfy any contractual obligation or to
23 pay off a debt with real money.
24 2.6. Federal Reserve Notes have NO value. See:
25 http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
26 “Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by
27 anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy.
28 In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services
29 in the economy.”
30 [SOURCE: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml]
31 3. What most people “think” is money today is actually a promissory note or corporate bond issued by the “United States”,
32 which is a federal corporation as described in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) backed by NOTHING.
33 4. The Wizard of Oz story is symbolic of how our country was corrupted by the banksters and politicians. See:
34 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/UCC/WizardOfOz.pdf
35 5. The United States government went officially bankrupt in 1933.
36 5.1. When it went bankrupt, it was replaced with a for-profit corporation wholly owned and controlled by the private
37 bankers. See 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A).
38 5.2. H.J.R. 192 passed in 1933 is the document which authorizes the switch in the money system accompanying the
39 bankruptcy. That resolution is still in force. See:
40 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/1933-HJR192.pdf
41 6. Government does not need taxes to pay its bills. Instead, it simply prints more money out of thin air. See:
42 http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Money/RUMLspeechToAmBarAssn1945.pdf
43 7. The only thing that regulates the current value of our fiat currency is the supply.
44 7.1. The Federal Reserve and the IRS in combination are the method for regulating the supply.
45 7.2. Both the Federal Reserve and the IRS are private, for profit corporations that are NOT part of the U.S. government.
46 7.3. The Federal Reserve creates the money out of nothing and loans it at interest to the federal government. Present
47 fiat currency is DEBT based, not VALUE based.
48 7.4. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the mechanism for reducing the supply of fiat currency from circulation in
49 order to increase the value of remaining currency.
50 8. The Federal Reserve essentially amounts to an illegal counterfeiting franchise sanctioned by the now de facto United
51 States government.
15 "Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by
16 usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but
17 whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of
18 power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the
19 instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is
20 a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes 'all
21 persons,' ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst.
22 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing
23 of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws which protect that of
24 individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. 'No man shall be taken,' 'no man shall be disseised,' without due process of law, is a
25 principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal
26 government, by the amendments to the constitution."
27 [Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]
28 9.2. When people are born, their birth certificate becomes a debt security that the government deposits into a central
29 account that it uses to determine how much it can borrow.
30 9.3. The U.S. Dept. of Commerce maintains a central national database of birth certificates in order that the Bureau of
31 Public Debt can figure out how much it can borrow against your straw man, which is symbolized by the birth
32 certificate. See:
Bureau of Public Debt FOIA, Form #03.007
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
33 9.4. Money is created when criminal indictments signed by a foreman of a jury and the U.S. attorney create a commercial
34 security instrument that creates money. This money is sold as bonds on the open market.
35 9.5. Courthouses act as brokerage houses for the indictments, citations, etc. that are used to create the debt securities.
36 9.6. Prisons are privatized, money-making industries that contract out incarceration to private parties. The cost of
37 incarceration is paid for by bonds issued against prisoners. See:
38 https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/trading-prisoners-like-cattle/
39 9.7. When the IRS collects taxes, it does so under the Uniform Commercial Code in complete disregard for what the
40 Internal Revenue Code says. They fabricate debt instruments and securities called “liens” and “notice of liens”
41 through a default process that are then sold on the open market to pay for government debts, even though they have
42 no lawful authority to do so. See:
Why the Government Can’t Lawfully Assess Human Beings with an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent,
Form #05.011
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
43 10. Governments cannot lawfully interact directly with biological people. They can only interact with entities like
44 themselves who are artificial and/or corporate:
45 10.1. When the government wishes to interact commercially with you as a person, it must do so through your “straw
46 man”.
47 10.2. Your “straw man” is a “public officer” who serves within the United States government. All “taxpayers” are “public
48 officers”. The Social Security Number and/or Taxpayer Identification Number constitutes a de facto license for
49 the natural person to act in a representative capacity as a “public officer” in the commercial arena.
50 10.3. The ALL CAPS instantiation of your legal birthname in combination with the federal identifying number such as
51 an SSN or TIN together constitute the “res” that is the entity against whom all tax collection and enforcement
52 activities by the government are undertaken.
36 We indicated in section 1 earlier that we are editors of the Redemption Manual Series published by Makefreedom.com and
37 Sovereign Filings. We didn’t get involved in editing these documents until Version 6, which is expected to become available
38 sometime in 2020. Thus, we have taken great pains to remove ALL of the flawed arguments in the following subsections
39 from Versions 6 and on of that manual. This hopefully will help:
3
Source: Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 10; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
False Argument: People in states of the Union are NOT Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States”. A
Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is domiciled on federal territory and subject to the exclusive
LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of Congress.
Corrected Alternative Argument: All state citizens are, at this time, Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The fact that one is
a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” does not mean that they are subject to the exclusive
LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, but rather the POLITICAL jurisdiction.
Political jurisdiction encompasses allegiance, nationality, being a “national”, and political rights. Exclusive
LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of Congress, on the other hand, has domicile and/or physical presence on federal territory as
a prerequisite.
Further information:
1. Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015--explains and rebuts THE MOST
prevalent flawed argument we hear from freedom advocates.
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Fourteenth Amendment Annotated, Findlaw
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
4. Citizenship and Sovereignty Course, Form #12.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6. Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Family Guardian Forums, Forum 6.1, Citizenship, Domicile, and Nationality
http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/forum/6-issue-and-research-debates-anyone-can-read-only-members-can-
post/61-citizenship-domicile-and-nationality/
2 A number of freedom advocates domiciled and born in states of the Union and who are state nationals falsely allege one or
3 more of the following:
4 1. The Fourteenth Amendment is a threat to the freedom of the average American domiciled in a state of the Union.
5 2. People domiciled within states of the Union are NOT Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States”.
6 3. A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is domiciled on federal territory and subject to the exclusive
7 LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of Congress.
8 This is what we call a “conspiracy theory” and it is actually an over-reaction to the verbicide abused by the government in
9 Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 8.2. In fact, this view is COMPLETELY FALSE, as we will explain.
10 The first thing we must understand to fully comprehend constitutional citizenship is that there are the TWO types of
11 jurisdiction:
12 1. POLITICAL JURISDICTION: based upon allegiance, nationality, and being a national under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)
13 and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).
14 2. LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION: based upon domicile and being a statutory "citizen" under the civil law.
15 One can be subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION without being subject to the LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION. An
16 example would be an American Citizen domiciled in a state of the Union on land within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state
17 that is not federal territory. THAT person would be subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION of the United States by
18 virtue of possessing BOTH of the following characteristics:
19 1. Being born or naturalized anywhere within the country “United States*” AND
2 That person does not have a domicile on federal territory and therefore:
8 The next thing we must understand about citizenship are the various jurisdictional phrases used to describe it in the USA
9 Constitution and within federal statutory law. These phrases are summarized below.
10 Table 1: Meaning of jurisdictional phrases beginning with "subject to ...."
# Phrase Context Type of jurisdiction Jurisdiction created by Extent of Jurisdiction
1 “Subject to THE Fourteenth Political jurisdiction Oath of allegiance to “United States of the Union, federal
jurisdiction” Amendment, Section 1 States”, including birth or territories, federal possessions
naturalization in the United
States*
2 “Subject to ITS Federal statutory law Legislative jurisdiction Domicile on federal territory Federal territories, federal
jurisdiction” ONLY possessions
3 “Subject to Thirteenth Amendment Political jurisdiction Oath of allegiance to a state of States of the Union ONLY
THEIR the Union. Becoming a
jurisdiction” “citizen under state law.
4 “within ITS Fourteenth Political jurisdiction Oath of allegiance to a state of States of the Union ONLY
jurisdiction” Amendment, Section 1 the Union. Becoming a
“citizen under state law.
11 Below is the case law upon which the above table is based:
13 "This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons
14 declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
15 the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree
16 to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them
17 direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time
18 of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth
19 cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
20 naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
21 [Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)]
22 _______________________________________________________________________________
23 "This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons
24 declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
25 thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the
26 jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union]
27 political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words
28 relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other.
29 Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards,
30 except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively,
31 as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
32
33 [. . .]
34 "It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, as less
35 comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold
36 that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the states of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the
37 United States[***].'"
38 [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]
11 _______________________________________________________________________________
12 "The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United
13 States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' is also significant as showing that there may be places
14 within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. To say that the phraseology of this
15 amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded states, under a possible
16 interpretation that those states were no longer a part of the Union, is to confess the very point in issue, since it
17 involves an admission that, if these states were not a part of the Union, they were still subject to the jurisdiction
18 of the United States [because they were federal territory until the rejoined the Union].
19 Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that 'all persons born or
20 naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of
21 the state wherein they reside.' Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States,
22 which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction."
23 [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
24 Within the United States Constitution, there are two types of citizens mentioned:
48 The U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the “citizen of the United States***” described Fourteenth Amendment included
49 EVERYONE and people of ALL RACES, and therefore was a superset of the capital “C” citizen of the original constitution,
50 which was a white male only:
51 “The fourteenth amendment, by the language, 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
52 thereof,' was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time
53 pertained to the white race.' Benny v. O'Brien (1895) 58 N.J.Law. 36, 39, 40, 32 Atl. 696.
54 The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth
55 amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 23 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 allegiance and under the protection of the country [not the "United States**", but the "COUNTRY"],
2 including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself)
3 of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and
4 during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of
5 members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and
6 in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of
7 whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while
8 domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the
9 United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary,
10 continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7
11 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject';
12 and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the
13 natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is
14 completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr.
15 Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by
16 this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any
17 domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it
18 is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the
19 dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for
20 treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.'
21 Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U.S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall.
22 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl.Comm. 74, 92.
23 To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the
24 United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of
25 English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as
26 citizens of the United States.
27 [. . .]
28 But, as already observed, it is impossible to attribute to the words, 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' (that is
29 to say, of the United States), at the beginning, a less comprehensive meaning than to the words 'within its
30 jurisdiction' (that is, of the state), at the end of the same section; or to hold that persons, who are indisputably
31 'within the jurisdiction' of the state, are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the nation. “
32 [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
33 Obviously, the two types of citizenship started out as unequal in POLITICAL RIGHTS they had at the time the “citizen of
34 the United States**” mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment was first created in 1868. They were not unequal in OTHER
35 rights, but only in POLITICAL RIGHTS. Political rights include voting and serving on jury duty. Over time, the above two
36 types of citizens have converged to the point where they are now essentially equal in RIGHTS. That convergence has
37 occurred by:
38 1. The addition of several new amendments after Amendment 14 that add additional rights to the “citizen of the United
39 States” status. These amendments include Amendments 15, 19, and 26, for instance.
40 2. Additional federal legislation that enforce the new rights found in 42 U.S.C. §1983.
41 The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the convergence of rights between “Citizens” within the original USA Constitution
42 and “citizens of the United States” within the Fourteenth Amendment when it held:
43 There is no occasion to attempt again an exposition of the views of this Court as to the proper limitations of the
44 privileges and immunities clause. There is a very recent discussion in Hague v. Committee Industrial
45 Organization. The appellant purports to accept as sound the position stated as the view of all the justices
46 concurring in the Hague decision. This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens
47 against abridgement by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the
48 fundamental or [309 U.S. 83, 91] natural rights inherent in state
49 citizenship. This Court declared in the Slaughter-House Cases15 that the Fourteenth Amendment as well
50 as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth were adopted to protect the negroes in their freedom. This almost
51 contemporaneous interpretation extended the benefits of the privileges and immunities clause to other rights
52 which are inherent in national citizenship but denied it to those which spring from [309 U.S. 83, 92] state
53 citizenship.
54 'We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are
55 familiar to us all; and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to
56 be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which
57 none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm
3 'And so if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of
4 these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent. But what
5 we do say, and what we wish to be understood is, that in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase
6 of these amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them
7 all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until
8 that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accomplish it.'
9 [Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)]
10 Note, however, that even though these two types of constitutional citizens are EFFECTIVELY the same in RIGHTS:
20 With regard to the last item in the above list, we must emphasize that the government only has the authority to
21 LEGISLATIVELY regulate PUBLIC conduct, not private conduct, on government territory. Hence, statutes are law for
22 government and not private people. Those mentioned in the constitution are PRIVATE people and statutes are written to
23 protect these PRIVATE people, but not to regulate or control them or impose "duties" upon them. This is discussed in:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
24 In fact, the two types of citizens are just different subsets of the same sovereign state citizens within states of the Union. The
25 only difference is the CONTEXT described above. For both types of citizens:
26 1. The term "United States", in the constitutional geographic context, means ONLY states of the Union. This jurisdiction
27 excludes federal territory and statutory "States", and therefore statutory jurisdiction of Congress.
28 2. The method of enforcing civil rights is found in 42 U.S.C. §1983.
29 2.1. That provision applies to state officers and not private parties.
30 2.2. This provision was enacted pursuant to Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5.
31 2.3. The definition of “person” applicable to that provision and found in 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) refers to the “person” in
32 the constitution and not the statutory “person” found either in Title 26 of the U.S. Code (26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)) or
33 in the Social Security Act (see 26 U.S.C. §3121(e)).
34 3. One only becomes a subject of federal LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction by:
35 3.1. Being a state officer but not a PRIVATE person subject to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The ability to regulate PRIVATE
36 conduct is “repugnant to the constitution”, as held repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.
37 3.2. Changing your domicile to federal territory.
38 3.3. Setting foot on federal territory and committing a crime under Title 18 of the U.S. Code while there.
39 Our official position on the position that state citizens are NOT Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” is
40 therefore summarized in the following list based on the evidence presented in this section:
41 1. Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” are a SUPERSET of those the “Citizen” mentioned in the
42 original United States Constitution. Based on amendments and legislation created after the Fourteenth Amendment, it
43 adds the following demographic groups to the “Citizen” found in the original USA Constitution:
44 1.1. Blacks. See the 15th Amendment.
45 1.2. Women. See the 19th Amendment.
46 1.3. Voters under age 21, INCLUDING white males. See 26th Amendment.
34 "It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure,
35 and not the status of the people who live in it."
36 [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)]
37 5.4. Not tying the word "person" to the type of "subject to..." that corresponds to it, and hence are assuming the wrong
38 context.
39 5.5. Not recognizing the genesis of 42 U.S.C. §1983, which is the Fourteenth Amendment. The reason that this statute
40 mentions "white citizens" is precisely because it IMPLEMENTS the Fourteenth Amendment, and that
41 amendment extended equal protection and equal rights to everyone OTHER than white citizens.
Section 1983 Litigation, Litigation Tool #08.008
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
42 6. We take the position that our Members are Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States”. Our position, in
43 contrast:
44 6.1. Can be used by ANYONE and EVERYONE who claims to be a state citizen.
45 6.2. Does not result in a surrender of ANY right that a WHITE MALE OVERAGE "Citizen" in the original
46 Constitution has.
47 6.3. Avoids a lot of controversy and confusion that is pointless, and makes the advocate look like a conspiracy nut.
48 6.4. Can be used simply and reliably by people with far less legal knowledge, because it is LESS complex and less
49 controversial.
50 6.5. Keeps the focus where it belongs, which is on GOVERNMENT VERBICIDE and WORD GAMES that destroy
51 rights and violate due process of law. See:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
29 Below is a list of case law relevant to the subject of what a constitutional “citizen of the United States” is and its relationship
30 to that of state citizenship. All of the case law provided is entirely consistent with our position on citizenship. The cases are
31 listed in chronological sequence, so you can see the historical evolution of jurisprudence on the subject over time:
32 "The [14th] amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for
33 which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery."
34 [Bowlin v. Commonwealth, 65 Kent.Rep. 5, 29 (1867)]
35 "No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
36 [Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal.Sup.Ct. 43, 47]
37 "The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed
38 by other provisions."
39 [United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830 (1873)]
40 "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the
41 State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other
42 of the state."
43 [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, (1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]
44 "We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several
45 States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own .... "
46 [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) emphasis added]
47 "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory
48 v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
49 [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323(1883) underlines added]
50 "A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides.
51 But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise
52 would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens."
53 [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
5 "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United
6 States**, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the
7 United States** and the other of the state."
8 [4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11, "Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]
9 "A fundamental right inherent in "state citizenship" is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges
10 and immunities of "citizens of the United States," on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature
11 and essential character of the national government, or as specifically granted or secured to all citizens or
12 persons by the Constitution of the United States."
13 [Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)]
14 "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and
15 one of the state".
16 [Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155, 48 So. 788 (1909)]
17 "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States**
18 and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident
19 of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. "
20 [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
21 "... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the
22 ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought
23 of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. ... citizens of the United States** ...
24 were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is
25 not within the language of the [federal] Constitution."
26 [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 (1918)]
27 "United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
28 [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545, 48 Supreme Court. 527 (1927)]
29 "A citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. While
30 the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount
31 and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship."
32 [Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935)]
33 "As applied to a citizen of another State, or to a citizen of the United States residing in another State, a state law
34 forbidding sale of convict made goods does not violate the privileges and immunities clauses of Art. IV, Sec. 2
35 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution if it applies also and equally to the citizens of the
36 State that enacted it." (Syllabus)
37 [Whitfield v. State of Ohio, 297 U.S. 431 (1936)]
38 "There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a
39 person may be the former without being the latter. "
40 [Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823 (1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]
41 "A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any
42 particular state."
43 [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter ,61 So.2d. 573 (1952), emphasis added]
44 "On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and
45 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . ."
46 [Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 379 F.2d. 33, 43 (1967)]
47 "[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no
48 question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved."
49 [Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)]
50 If you would like to learn more about citizenship, we encourage you to read:
1 If you would like a simplified presentation that addresses the subject of this session for neophytes, see:
Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2 If you would like to read an excellent and spirited debate between a freedom fighter who advocates the flawed argument
3 addressed by this section and this ministry, please read the following. You will need to join the forms by clicking on “Sign
4 Up” in the upper right corner. Membership is free:
False Argument: The all caps name that the government uses against people in their correspondence is an enemy of the
U.S. government who is an alien. That enemy is the subject of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 911.
Corrected Alternative Argument: The all caps name the government uses is a federal public officer engaged in a “trade
or business” or other federal franchise or “public right”. The only way the government can write laws that apply to the
human being is to connect him with a public office or other franchise so that he becomes the proper subject of nearly all
federal legislation.
Further information:
6 According to a book entitled Military Government and Martial Law written by William E. Birkhimer, a "nom de guerre" is a
7 war name symbolized by a given name being written in capital letters. You can read this book at:
10 This argument contends that because of events in 1933, we have been made "enemies" and government indicates our status
11 as enemies by the nom de guerre. If this is true, then why have the styles of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court
12 since its establishment been in caps? This argument has gotten lots of people in trouble. For example, Mike Kemp of the
13 Gadsden Militia defended himself on state criminal charges with this argument and he was thrown into jail. I have not even
14 seen a decent brief on this issue which was predicated upon cases you can find in an ordinary law library.
24 More recently, Jon Roland of The Constitution Society web site wrote the following about this argument:
27 One of the persistent myths among political dissidents is that such usages as initial or complete capitalization of
28 names indicates different legal entities or a different legal status for the entity. They see a person's name
29 sometimes written in all caps, and sometimes written only in initial caps, and attribute a sinister intent to this
30 difference. They also attach special meanings to the ways words may be capitalized or abbreviated in founding
31 documents, such as constitutions or the early writings of the Founders.
32 Such people seem to resist all efforts to explain that such conventions have no legal significance whatsoever, that
33 they are just ways to emphasize certain kinds of type, to make it easier for the reader to scan the documents
34 quickly and organize the contents in his mind.
35 They also seem to go to enormous lengths looking for dictionaries or court rules to tell them what such typography
36 means, without ever seeming to find what they are looking for, other than the actual usages themselves in
37 important court cases.
38 Well, there is an authoritative reference, the one used by courts and lawyers all over the world. It is The
39 Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, compiled by the editors of the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law
40 Review Association, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and The Yale Law Journal, 16th ed. 1996.
41 Copies can be obtained from any law book store or by writing The Harvard Law Review Association, Gannett
42 House, 1511 Massachusetts Av., Cambridge, MA 02138.
43 To explain how typographic conventions originated, and what they mean, I am reminded of the story of the first
44 grader whose teacher became alarmed by the crayon drawings of one of her students. She called in the school
45 counselor and she became alarmed, so she called in a child psychologist, who also became alarmed in turn.
46 Fearing for the mental health of the child, they called in her parents.
47 The parents, now themselves concerned about their child, arrived at the meeting. "What happened?", the father
48 said. The school staff persons showed his daughter's art work to him and to his wife. The father looked the
49 drawings over, and said, "Look pretty good to me. I couldn't do that well at that age."
50 "But the colors!" the teacher said. "She does everything in black, grey, and brown!" said the counselor. "It seems
51 morbid" said the psychologist.
52 So the father said, "Why don't we ask my daughter?" The school staff looked aghast at this audacious suggestion,
53 but, not having any better ideas, they asked the little girl to come in.
4 "I gave most of my crayons to the other kids when they used theirs up", she said. "Black, grey, and brown are the
5 only colors I have left."
6 Lawyers continued to hand write legal documents long after typewriters were invented. As a profession, they tend
7 to be the last to adopt new technology. When things were hand written, they had only a few ways to highlight
8 words. They could use block printed characters instead of cursive, or they could underline. Typesetters converted
9 the block printed characters to all caps, sometimes with different font sizes, and the underlined words to italics.
10 As lawyers and legal staff began to use typewriters, they could not conveniently underline, and they didn't have
11 italic fonts, so putting words in all caps was about the only way they had to show emphasis. Judges began
12 rewarding lawyers (or so they thought) with better decisions if they put some words, like the names of parties, in
13 all caps, to make it easier for overworked judges to quickly scan through many pages of pleadings and make
14 sense of them.
15 Then computers came along. People started using them to produce legal documents. But a lot of them only had
16 capital letters on their printers, or did not distinguish between upper and lower case. Programs in COBOL are
17 examples of this. It was also found that it was easier to read words printed in all caps on forms, and to distinguish
18 the newly-printed words from the pre-printed words on the forms.
19 In the meantime, there were advances in typesetting typography. People became able to print special symbols,
20 bold face, different fonts and sizes, superscripts, underlined, and colors. And with that came demands for using
21 differences in typography to highlight words in legal documents, including treatises, law review articles, briefs,
22 etc.
23 Now we have personal computers and laser printers that can do anything the typesetter can do, and legal workers
24 are now under pressure to produce nicely composed legal documents according to the same conventions that
25 typesetters are asked to use.
26 This explosion of choices could have led to confusion, so the various courts have established rules for how they
27 want legal documents prepared, and these rules are matched by similar but sometimes different rules of the major
28 law review editors.
29 Basically, they have settled on three font styles: upper-and-lower case Roman, Italics, and Roman all-caps with
30 larger point size for initials. Of course, if these are saved as ASCII text files, the Italics are lost, and the all-caps
31 only show up as a single point size. Sometimes, to show Italics, as a legacy of underscoring, the words to be
32 italicized are surrounded by underscore characters, as we do in the text above in the text version of this article.
33 The Bluebook calls for different typographics for the same kinds of things in different places. For example, a case
34 cite like Marbury v. Madison would be italicized in the body of a law review article, but not in a footnote. Why?
35 Who knows. It doesn't have to make sense. It's what they do. If you submit it using different conventions, the
36 editors will change it to their journal's conventions.
37 The important thing to remember, however, is that there is no legal significance to the typography of a name,
38 other than how well it distinguishes one object from others with which it might be confused. It is the object that
39 matters. A misspelling is a "scrivener's error". Doesn't changed anything. Just needs to be corrected. Caps,
40 complete or initial, don't mean anything. Just whatever the writer thought would aid the reader to get through
41 the document quickly and with a minimum of confusion.
42 [Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM]
43 The nom de guerre position is one rabidly advocated by Right Way Law. It is all based upon hype and emotions; the speakers
44 who advocate this argument know how to push the emotional "hot buttons" at patriot pep rallies. I have reviewed the "best"
45 briefs regarding this issue and they are all trash. Yet I continue to see people call themselves "John, of smith," "John: Smith,"
46 etc., and I just simply conclude that such parties have attended a Wrong Way Law seminar and have accepted a pack of lies.
47 Further, it is remarkable that all the people who believe this idea have never checked it out; they just accept it because some
48 patriot guru claimed it was correct.
49 The “Nom De Guerre” argument in this section has also been called the “Straw Man Argument”. Our position on the “Straw
50 Man Argument” is as follows:
51 1. There is a “straw man”. The term “straw man” is, in fact, defined in Black’s Law Dictionary.
6 2. The straw man is not identified by the all capital letter name.
7 3. The straw man is a public officer in the government.
8 4. The straw man is voluntarily engaged in some kind of government franchise.
9 5. The straw man was created as a crafty way to circumvent the fact that the government cannot lawfully or constitutionally
10 pay public funds to private persons without abusing its taxing powers and becoming a thief and a Robin Hood.
11 "A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the
12 support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group
13 for the benefit of another."
14 [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
15 Therefore, they had to create a straw man fiction to pay “benefits” to that is part of the government and an office within
16 the government. This is what facilitated FDR’s “New Deal” and the rise of the “Administrative State” that plagues us
17 today. That state and all the regulatory law which it embodies operates ONLY against the straw man and not the natural
18 being.
19 The following document proves with evidence that the straw man does in fact exist, explains how and why it was created,
20 how people are fooled into acting as the straw man, and how to avoid becoming surety for the straw man. See:
21 An article on names is available on the Family Guardian website at the address below which further expands on the content
22 of this section. We didn’t write the article:
False Argument: Because the United States outlawed real money in 1933, then we can essentially make our own by
issuing “drafts” that are sent to the Treasury to pay our tax bills. This is the same thing that banks can do by making
money out of thin air by lending ten times the money they have on deposit. It must be legal if the banks can do it.
Corrected Alternative Argument: The Federal Reserve System is the equivalent of a “counterfeiting franchise”, whereby
only banks can manufacture money out of nothing by lending ten times what they have on deposit. Yes, counterfeiting is
a crime if we do it, and yes it should be a crime if banks do it too, and it violates 18 U.S.C. §472. However, two wrongs
don’t make a right. The remedy for the fraudulent Federal Reserve system is not MORE fraud.
Further information:
26 Back in the early nineties, Hartford Van Dyke promoted the theory that "commercial law" was the foundation for all law
27 around the world. Based upon Hartford's contention regarding commercial law, he developed the idea that an "affidavit of
28 truth" submitted "in commerce" could create a lien against property which simply had to be paid. The lien created on property,
29 he argued, then became a form of redeemable commercial paper or “draft”. Hartford claimed that his findings were well
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 32 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 known everywhere and that this lien process had been used for thousands of years. I obtained his memo regarding this
2 argument and went to the law library. His contention that this "principle" manifested itself in the law was wrong; I could find
3 nothing which supported this argument. This theory appears to us to be a complete fabrication.
4 Did others act upon Hartford's ideas anyway? Leroy Schweitzer of the Montana Freemen took Hartford's ideas to heart and
5 claimed that he created liens against public officials. Based upon these liens, Leroy started issuing sight drafts drawn upon
6 some "post office" account and started passing them out to many gullible people who believed that such drafts were required
7 to be paid by the feds. Not only did Leroy get into deep trouble, so did many who got drafts from him. There have been lots
8 of people who have been prosecuted, convicted and jailed for using drafts allegedly justified by this crazy theory.
9 One of the most recent prosecutions of someone for using one of Leroy's drafts is Pete Stern, a patriot from North Carolina.
10 Several years ago, Pete issued some of these drafts to the IRS. Pete has been one of the most vocal advocates of the UCC
11 Draft Argument, "we are Brits," nom de guerre, etc. While I like Pete, still he has followed crazy arguments. Pete's federal
12 criminal case is filed in the Western District of North Carolina and you may visit the clerk's web site by clicking here. Once
13 you get to this page, look on the left side of the page to the sidebar and click on the case information section called
14 "docket/image." When that page comes up, insert Pete's case number of 2:1999cr00081 and his name. His file will come up
15 and you can read all the pleadings. Is he using for his own defense the arguments he advocates?
16 As best I can tell, the popular "UCC" Draft Argument has its origins in Howard Freeman's theories, Hartford's work and the
17 "improvements" made by Leroy Schweitzer. The UCC Draft Argument is one of the most legally baseless ideas we have ever
18 encountered, yet organizations like "Right Way Law" and people like Jack Smith continue to promote it. Here are some
19 published cases which have correctly rejected this lunacy:
20 1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d. 273, 274 (1993)(In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated,
21 "The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses")
22 2. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
23 3. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d. 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)("First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it
24 applies to commercial transactions")
25 4. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also raised flag and common law court issues)
26 5. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)("The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable
27 instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable")
28 6. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)("The IRS's Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument")
29 7. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning lawsuit complaint marked "Refusal For Cause
30 Without Dishonor UCC 3-501" and refusing other court pleadings "for fraud" based upon UCC argument got nowhere;
31 also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)
32 8. City of Kansas City v. Hayward, 954 S.W.2d. 399 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).
33 A substantial part of the UCC Draft Argument was "developed" by Howard Freeman. Freeman contended that some super-
34 secret treaty back in 1930 put this and other countries around the world in "bankruptcy" with the "international bankers"
35 being the "creditor/rulers." Once these banker/rulers were ensconced in power, they needed some way to "toss out the old
36 law" based upon the common law, and erect commercial law as the law which regulated and controlled everything. Roosevelt
37 and his fellow conspirators then set to work and developed a plan to achieve the destruction of the "common law" and the
38 erection of commercial law. This was accomplished by the decision in the Erie Railroad case in 1938. According to this
39 theory, Erie RR banished the common law, leaving in its place only commercial law via the UCC. Freeman also alleged that
40 lawyers were informed of this "takeover" by the "international bankers" and that they were required to take a secret oath to
41 not tell the American people about the takeover. Of course, as the direct result of this change in the law from common law to
42 commercial law, no court could ever cite a case decided prior to 1938.
43 But there are the tremendous flaws in this argument. I do not challenge the fact that big international bankers are economically
44 powerful and that such power enables them to secure favorable legislation. However I do disagree with the "secret treaty"
45 contention. Back in the 1930s and indeed all the way up to about 1946, all treaties adopted by the United States were published
46 in the U.S. Statutes at Large. As a student of treaties, I looked for this secret treaty and could not find it and I had access to
47 complete sets of all books containing treaties, especially those in the Library of Congress in DC. The major premise of this
48 argument is this contention regarding the secret treaty, which even the proponents of the argument cannot produce. Their
49 argument, "I cannot produce this secret treaty, but believe me anyway," simply is unacceptable to me as I want proof.
8 To prove that Erie RR changed the law, it is alleged that no court can cite a case decided prior to 1938. This is perhaps the
9 simplest contention to disprove, achieved just by reading cases (which apparently the UCC activists do not do). All my life
10 I have read cases which cited very old cases and I have never seen such a sharp demarcation where the courts did cite pre-
11 1938 cases before 1938 and then ceased afterwards. Here are just a few post-1938 cases which cite pre-1938 cases, the
12 constitution, the Federalist Papers and lots of other old authority:
16 When you scan these cases, please note the parentheses like "(1997)" above for Richard Mack's case. This denotes the year
17 any particular case was decided. You can easily see that these recent cases do in fact cites cases decided as far back as 1798.
18 The contention that pre-1938 cases are not cited is nothing but lunacy, believed by folks like Dave DeReimer, a "redemption
19 process" advocate.
20 This argument also contends that the states of this nation were placed in "bankruptcy" via the "secret treaty." If this were true,
21 why did the Supreme Court decide in 1936 that states and their subdivisions could not bankrupt? See Ashton v. Cameron
22 County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936).
23 Finally, I must inform you that neither I nor any other lawyer I know has ever taken the "secret oath" as alleged by this
24 argument. When I was sworn in as an Alabama lawyer in September, 1975, it was on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court
25 down in Montgomery in front of God, my parents and everybody else. I swore to uphold and protect the United States and
26 Alabama Constitutions. Nothing in that oath could remotely be the alleged "secret oath." I have also been admitted to practice
27 before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th
28 Circuits; I did not take the "secret oath" when I was admitted to practice before these courts, nor when I was admitted to
29 practice before several U.S. district courts. I have not taken any other oath and I know that the only oath most other lawyers
30 have taken is the same. But, I do not doubt that some lawyers are members of other secret societies who may have taken oaths
31 of which I am unaware.
32 Our advice is that if you hear anyone making some argument about the UCC Draft Argument, run away as fast as you can.
33 The argument is crazy. However, don’t confuse this advice by improperly concluding that the UCC is not useful for any
34 purpose. As a matter of fact, the most effective technique we know of for getting the IRS off your back derives directly from
35 the UCC and it is called the “Notary Certificate of Default Method” and we document this method earlier in Sovereignty
36 Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005, section 1.4.4 (http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm). We use the Notary
37 Certificate of Default Method, for instance, in most of our correspondence with the IRS and this approach is effective because
38 most dealings with the IRS are related to money and “commerce”. Unlike the UCC Draft Argument, the Notary Certificate
39 of Default Method has a firm basis in law and is commonly used by most banks, insurance companies, and government
40 agencies in dealing with members of the public. You will ever see it referenced in the statutes of several of the states and in
41 notary training materials.
42 If you would like to know our official position towards those who advocate UCC arguments, see the following document:
43 4.4 The "Straw Man" Sight Drafts (posted September 18, 1999)
44 There is a "new" theory floating around the movement which is absolutely crazy, yet it is promoted as "the hot new solution."
45 This new theory has its origins with a fellow named Roger Elvick, who has been involved with some con jobs in the past; see
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 34 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 Bye v. Mack, 519 N.W.2d. 302 (N.D. 1994). Roger Elvick was years ago "into" the idea of sending forms 1099 to the IRS for
2 its agents who stole your constitutional rights. This was a part of his "redemption process" back then and if you wish to learn
3 about what happened to one party who followed Elvick's advice, read United States v. Wiley, 979 F.2d. 365 (5th Cir. 1992).
4 Many others who followed Elvick's advice also went to jail; see United States v. Dykstra, 991 F.2d. 450, 453 (8th Cir.
5 1994)("He voluntarily made the decision to purchase and use Roger Elvick's 'redemption program,' and he admitted that he
6 did not pay any of the purported recipients any of the amounts reflected on the 1099 Forms. Because he knew he never paid
7 the individuals, he could not have believed that the forms, which he signed under penalties of perjury, were in fact true and
8 correct. The evidence also established that appellant acted corruptly in pursuing the retaliation scheme, in violation of 26
9 U.S.C. §7212(a)"). Roger was convicted for this activity; see United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d. 1448 (9th Cir. 1993).
10 While there, Roger developed this new argument. In essence, he contends that everyone's birth certificate constitutes
11 ownership in "America, Inc." and we all have stock in this corporation, which stock is represented by these birth certificates
12 (see Lodi v. Lodi, 173 Cal.App.3d. 628, 219 Cal.Rptr. 116 (1985), where similar arguments were rejected; and Dose v. United
13 States, 86 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9773 (N.D.Iowa 1986)("Petitioner... informs the Court of [his] 'notorious rescission of [his] social
14 security number' and rescission of his birth certificate, which documents had previously made him a 'member of Corporate
15 America (commune)' converting him into 'a slave of the commune subject to the regulation and control of the Federal
16 Government'... the fact that Dose has attempted to rescind his social security number and birth certificate by sworn affidavit
17 is irrelevant...")). According to Roger, the big banks and other financial institutions regularly trade in these birth certificates,
18 buying and selling them to others. Of course according to this new argument, you can do the same thing.
19 From here, the argument goes downhill and becomes even more bizarre. I know precisely what are the major features of this
20 argument because I have read the course material and even viewed a video tape of one meeting where this issue was discussed;
21 this contention is utterly crazy. However, many people are studying this new issue and even issuing "sight drafts" based on
22 this argument. But the promoters of this argument like Roger Elvick, Wally Peterson, Ron Knutt and Dave DeReimer are
23 really selling federal indictments. You are free to "buy into" this scheme, but be ready to face criminal charges, the maximum
24 term of imprisonment of which is 25 years.
25 Here is late breaking news, an e-mail, regarding the law enforcement activity against the redemption advocates:
27 I was just informed that a Federal swat team, approximately 30, raided a farm house near the town of Evart,
28 Michigan this AM. The raid started at approximately 6:00 AM and lasted 4 hours until 10:00 AM.
29 They captured the occupants, made them sit and watch the proceedings. They were told nothing except they were
30 "Not under arrest".
31 The raid was pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena and contained a Warrant for any and all items relating to
32 "Accepted for Value", "sight drafts" and anything to do with "IRS" and United States "Securities".
33 I was told that there were 22 people on a list that were raided this AM.
34 At least one of the occupants there was served a Grand Jury subpoena to appear and testify in February.
36 Be Advised!
37 So what is going to happen? I bet that those who advocated using "acceptance for value" to refuse criminal process like an
38 indictment or information will be charged with obstruction of justice, and they will be tied into a giant conspiracy of those
39 who told others to send in drafts drawn on the U.S. Treasury. This stupidity will just be another instance where the freedom
40 movement will be held up to the press and the rest of America as a bunch of crackpots, nuts and fruitcakes, and "dangerous"
41 ones at that.
42 Have people already gotten into trouble by using the "redemption process" sight drafts? Hyla Clapier is a sweet, little old
43 lady from Idaho. She was convinced last year by the redemptionists to try to buy a car with one of those "redemption process"
44 sight drafts drawn on the U.S. Treasury. Her effort brought her an indictment, trial and conviction. If you wish to study the
45 details of her case, simply read her docket sheet posted on the U.S. District Court of Idaho's web site. In late April, 2000, I
46 received a call from an Ohio newspaper reporter and was informed that a man in his local community had attempted to buy
3 There are certain very fundamental flaws within this argument which are as follows:
4 4.4.1 Flaw 1: The birth certificate is not the basis for the creation of credit in this country.
5 Economic texts and a wide variety of other materials plainly demonstrate the manner by which credit ("money") is created in
6 this country: a bank (or central bank like the Fed) extends credit in exchange for the receipt of some note or other financial
7 obligation made by either a private party or government. At the federal level, the Federal Reserve extends credit to the U.S.
8 Treasury simply by book keeping entry made in favor of the United States when the Fed buys obligations of the United States.
9 In contrast, a birth certificate is not a note or other debt instrument, contrary to what Roger Elvick, Ron Knutt, Wally Peterson
10 or idiots like Dave DeReimer may contend. Simply stated, a birth certificate is not a note, bond or other financial obligation,
11 and it is not sold to financial institutions, contrary to the blatant lies of the "liaryer" promoters of this argument. In short, the
12 birth certificate is not the foundation for the credit used as money today.
13 Why don't you ask the advocates of this argument to produce some reliable documentation that birth certificates are the basis
14 of credit in this country rather than the instruments mentioned above? It is simply foolish to rely on the word of Roger Elvick.
15 It is even more foolish to believe anything that DeReimer declares.
16 4.4.2 Flaw 2: The birth certificate cannot be, as a matter of law, a guarantee of debt.
17 A debt is created by a debtor making a promise to pay a creditor a specified amount of money over a specified period of time.
18 Merchandise purchased on credit involves the buyer delivering a promissory note to the seller wherein he promises to pay a
19 specific periodic amount with interest until the debt is paid. When a borrower obtains a loan, he delivers a promissory note
20 to the lender. A promissory note by definition requires the payment of certain specific amounts of funds to the holder of that
21 note. Is a birth certificate a promissory note? It simply cannot be because the party named therein has no obligation to make
22 any payment of anything to some alleged holder thereof (and traffic tickets, indictments, IRS documents and letters, etc., also
23 are not commercial instruments).
24 But ignoring for the moment this major fatal flaw, presume for purposes of argument that a birth certificate is indeed a
25 promissory note. The redemption advocates claim that the "straw man" is liable to pay some unspecified amount to some
26 unspecified creditor who holds the financial instrument known as a birth certificate (I have been unable to learn from the
27 advocates the name of the ephemeral creditor). They further argue that the "counterpart" of the "straw man," you, must answer
28 for this debt of the "straw man." This is legally impossible. I view such an argument as evidence of lunacy.
29 The "statute of frauds" originates from the common law and every state today has a general "statute of frauds." For example,
30 here in Alabama, we have a "statute of frauds" found in Ala. Code §8-9-2, which states that "every special promise to answer
31 for the debt, default or miscarriage of another" must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. This same type of
32 requirement appears in our version of the UCC, Ala. Code §7-2-201, which requires contracts for the sale of goods of more
33 than 500 bucks to be in writing and subscribed by the party liable. Precisely where is your agreement to answer for the debt
34 of the straw man? If such an agreement exists, have you signed that agreement making you legally liable to pay that debt of
35 the straw man? The truth of the matter is that such a signed agreement does not exist. But without your signature to a guarantee
36 making you liable for this debt, you cannot legally be liable.
37 The advocates of this insanity further contend that the international banks which hold these birth certificates as security for
38 some unknown financial obligation have a claim against you for your whole life, unless of course you "redeem your straw
39 man" by perfecting your claim against him by filing a Form UCC-1 financing statement. Can you really be legally responsible
40 for some debt for the rest of your life? Again, our statute of frauds found at Alabama Code §8-9-2 requires that "every
41 agreement which, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof" must be in writing and signed
42 by the party to be charged. The redemptionists assert that whenever a child is born and his birth certificate is filed in DC and
43 later bought by some big bank, that creditor owns you for the rest of your life. We all know that the average life expectancy
44 of a baby is longer than a single year. Just where is this agreement signed by you (apparently on the day you were born)
45 which cannot by its very terms be performed within a single year? Have you ever signed such an agreement? The truth of the
46 matter is that every aspect of this redemption theory flies in the face of the statute of frauds.
7 4.4.4 Flaw 4: The 1935 Social Security Act did not create an account for everyone born in this
8 country in the amount of approximately $630,000.
9 In review of the material I have been provided regarding this argument, it is plainly alleged that whenever anyone is born in
10 this country, a sum of approximately $630,000 is deposited into some account at the US Treasury or the Social Security
11 Administration and that this account was created by the 1935 Social Security Act. This contention is utterly false as may be
12 seen simply by reading the act which is posted to the SSA web site.
13 4.4.5 Flaw 5: The above named account is not the "Treasury direct account."
14 Neither the original Social Security Act nor any amendment to it created an account known as the "Treasury direct account."
15 However, there is such an account established by Treasury for those who routinely purchase US notes and bonds. A
16 description of this account may be found at 31 C.F.R., part 357 and specifically 31 C.F.R. §357.20. Those who assert that
17 everyone has such an account know nothing about such accounts. And there is no "public side" and "private side" for these
18 accounts.
19 4.4.6 Flaw 6: You cannot write sight drafts on the Treasury of the United States via this non-
20 existent account.
21 If you send any such sight draft to anyone, you will be prosecuted for violations of 18 USC §514 which provides as follows:
24 (1) draws, prints, processes, produces, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the
25 United States;
26 (2) passes, utters, presents, offers, brokers, issues, sells, or attempts or causes the same, or with like intent
27 possesses, within the United States; or
28 (3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce, including the use of the mails or wire, radio, or other electronic
29 communication, to transmit, transport, ship, move, transfer, or attempts or causes the same, to, from, or through
30 the United States,
31 any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting, or contriving
32 through scheme or artifice, to be an actual security or other financial instrument issued under the authority of
33 the United States, a foreign government, a State or other political subdivision of the United States, or an
34 organization, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
35 (b) For purposes of this section, any term used in this section that is defined in section 513(c) has the same
36 meaning given such term in section 513(c).
37 (c) The United States Secret Service, in addition to any other agency having such authority, shall have authority
38 to investigate offenses under this section.
40 A friend of mine from Kooskia, Idaho attended a meeting where Jack Smith of Wrong Way Law spoke regarding this new
41 "redemption process." During a break at this meeting, my friend asked Smith to provide specific authority and documentation
42 demonstrating that this was a bona fide argument. Smith admitted that this new argument was 100% theory.
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 37 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 The "redemption process" is one of the craziest arguments I have ever seen arise within this movement. Yet, people blindly
2 accept this argument without question or investigation.
4 This e-mail was received this date; it concerns one of the unfortunate followers of the process who was recently indicted:
8 BALLARD - The small Monroe County farming community of Ballard seems an unlikely place for a story with
9 national implications to emerge, but that's exactly what is taking place. One of the community's residents, Rodney
10 Eugene Smith, is involved in litigation that calls into question the very existence of the U.S. government. Smith,
11 63, seems quiet, polite and soft-spoken in his court appearances. Like about anyone would, he expressed a
12 preference to be seated in the audience gallery during hearings. But unlike everyone in the federal courtroom in
13 Beckley on Thursday, he was in the custody of U.S. Marshals, and therefore, had to sit at the defense table.
14 U.S. District Judge David A. Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia had ordered him to take a mental
15 competency exam at a hearing on Feb. 5 in Bluefield. At that time, Faber questioned the "nonsensical" motions
16 Smith has been filing in the case involving the serious federal criminal charges he faces.
17 Smith's life isn't necessarily an open book. At least eight years before appearing in federal court in the Southern
18 District of West Virginia, Smith was convicted in the state of New York for passing fraudulent documents - a
19 felony. A similar set of circumstances led to his Dec. 6, 2000, arrest and initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate
20 Judge Mary S. Feinberg.
21 The charges that brought Smith into the federal courts in Bluefield and Beckley involved passing four "bills of
22 exchange," totaling under $50,000, to various people and entities. The Internal Revenue Service agent heading
23 the investigation characterized the drafts as being associated to "fictitious obligations." Since his arrest, the
24 government's initial complaint has expanded to include charges of possession of firearms by a convicted felon. A
25 Beckley grand jury issued a "superseding indictment" against Smith in January.
26 None of that seems to faze him. Based on his statements to the court as well as the voluminous number of
27 documents Smith has filed in this and other cases he is associated with in federal court, the entire process seems
28 to be an exercise in "acceptance for value."
29 The federal government and several states are aware of the entire "acceptance for value" concept. The U.S.
30 Department of Justice is constantly monitoring any surfacing of what they term the "Redemption Scheme." As of
31 June 2000, 16 states including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Ohio,
32 Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming have passed at least some laws - in
33 several instances several laws - to protect public officials and private citizens from becoming victims of the
34 scheme.
35 Much has been written about the evolution of the so-called "redeemers," but the thumb nail version goes like this.
36 Redeemers (who don't refer to themselves by that term) are essentially a composite of several fringe (militia-like)
37 organizations that tend to hold some very strong anti-government beliefs.
38 During Smith's hearing Thursday in Beckley, Faber made reference to two specific documents that he said helped
39 the court understand some of the phrases Smith has been using in court and in his "pro se" (self-represented)
40 court filings. Faber referenced a paper by Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., titled "Old Wine, New Bottles: Paper
41 Terrorism, Paper Scams and Paper 'Redemption,'" published Nov., 8, 1999, and "The Radical Common Law
42 Movement and Paper Terrorism, The State Response," dated June 2000, by Denise Griffith and L. Cheryl Runyon.
43 At the risk of oversimplification, the independent researchers and the state and federal agencies mentioned in the
44 reports, claim that "redeemers" trace their roots to a murky event in 1909, that somehow - in redemption
45 practitioner belief - caused the United States to go bankrupt. Pitcavage states that in the redeemer's scenario, the
46 World Bank gave the U.S., a 20-year moratorium to get its financial act together. However, when that failed to
47 happen, the stock market crashed and America was thrown in the depths of the Great Depression.
48 Redeemer beliefs, according to Pitcavage and Griffith, are interwoven with significant developments in American
49 history including passage of the U.S. Social Security Act of 1935, and the change from a "gold standard" monetary
50 policy to a money system backed by the Federal Reserve, founded in 1913. The researchers claim a thread of
51 continuity connects present day paper terrorists with high-profile groups such as the Texas Freemen, the Branch
52 Davidians and others.
4 "It was the 1996 standoff at the Freemen compound in Montana, however, that helped shed national light on a
5 quieter, less visible form of protest that is being played out in the nation's judicial system," Griffith wrote. "...the
6 filing of frivolous liens against the property of public officials." She added that clearing the fraudulent liens,
7 "clogs an already overburdened judicial system."
8 Smith has filed documents indicating that Rodney Eugene Smith will "accept for value" and documents filed on
9 RODNEY EUGENE SMITH, spelled in all capital letters. Smith refers to HJR-192, a House Joint Resolution
10 passed by Congress on June 5, 1933, among the massive federal New Deal package, that redeemers interpret as
11 the nation's declaration of bankruptcy.
12 Redemption scheme practitioners cite the Uniform Commercial Code as defined in HJR-192 as their vehicle for
13 recovering what they call their "straw men" or "stramineus homo," an entity they claim the government created
14 to serve as a conduit to extract energy from flesh and blood citizens. They claim each person's "straw man" is
15 referenced by the government in all capital letters.
16 Subscribers to this philosophy appear willing to invest whatever is required of them to liberate or "redeem" their
17 straw man. The passing of fraudulent documents, such as the bogus "bill of exchanges" Smith was arrested for,
18 as well as other bogus documents called "sight drafts" are considered means of liberation, according to Griffith
19 and Pitcavage.
20 The Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance
21 Corporation issued alerts to banking officials, warning about the fraudulent sight drafts and instructing bank
22 officials to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation if they receive one.
23 "Your institution should also prepare a Suspicious Activity Report," according to an OCC advisory. "Under no
24 circumstances should your institution honor one of these instruments or submit it for payment."
25 Pitcavage and Griffith also described a redemption scheme tactic meant to harass public officials. Both explained
26 that, for example, if a police officer cited a redemption practitioner for a traffic violation, the practitioner would
27 fix a "value" to the document - say $50,000 - accept it for value, then submit an IRS Form 1099 naming the issuing
28 officer as the recipient of a gift. Under normal circumstances, the IRS would see the gift as unreported income
29 when the unsuspecting officer filed his taxes.
30 Faber has proceeded very cautiously in Smith's criminal case. The judge stated openly in court that people have
31 a right to voice opposition to the government, however, he made it clear that Smith "is not entitled to harass and
32 interfere with other people," and added that as a federal judge, he has a responsibility "to protect the public."
33 Faber ordered Smith to have a mental competency hearing exam locally, and scheduled a hearing on the matter
34 for March 5, in Bluefield.
36 There is an article on the Family Guardian Website about Roger Elvick himself being arrested:
37 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/RogerElvickArrest-030905.pdf
38 The U.S. Treasury has also put the public on notice that Bills of Exchange and Sight Drafts filed with the Dept. of the Treasury
39 will promptly land anyone who uses them into jail:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/fraud/fraud_bogussightdraft.htm
43 1. United States v. Rosnow, 977 F.2d. 399, 413 (8th Cir. 1992)
44 2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d. 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1992)
45 3. United States v. Higgins, 987 F.2d. 543, 545 (8th Cir. 1993).
False Argument: The gold fringed flag used in federal and state courts indicates admiralty jurisdiction.
Corrected Alternative Argument: Most federal and state courts are legislative courts that deal with franchises and “public
rights”. Nearly all federal or state franchises treat the franchisee as a public office with a domicile or residence on federal
territory who has no Constitutional rights. It is a criminal offense to create, offer, or enforce franchises within a
constitutional state of the Union because it is a criminal offense for a non-consenting and otherwise PRIVATE human to
impersonate a public officer per 18 U.S.C. §912.
Further information:
2 A currently popular argument is that the gold fringed flag indicates the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. Naturally, pro se's
3 have made this argument and lost.
4 1. Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex. 1987)(the argument has "no arguable basis in law or fact")
5 2. Comm. v. Appel, 652 A.2d. 341, 343 (Pa.Super. 1994)(the contention is a "preposterous claim")
6 3. United States v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp. 877, 884 (D.S.D. 1995)(in this case, the C.F.R. cross reference index argument,
7 those regarding the UCC, common law courts and the flag issue were rejected)
8 4. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647 (W.D.Mo. 1997)
9 5. Sadlier v. Payne, 974 F.Supp. 1411 (D.Utah 1997)
10 6. Schneider v. Schlaefer, 975 F.Supp. 1160 (E.D.Wis. 1997).
Corrected Alternative Argument: It’s wrong to steal. Any attempt to dishonor your loans, agreements, or commitments
is stealing.
Further information:
12 Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landi popularized an argument that the land patent was the highest and best form of title and
13 that by updating the patent in your own name, you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violated many principles of
14 real property law and when Carol started trying to get patents for most of the land in California brought up into her own
15 name, she went to jail. Others who have raised this crazy argument lost the issue.
8 When Congress enacts a law, it often delegates authority to enforce and administer the law to some executive official,
9 typically the President. Naturally, the President does not personally attend to such duties and must himself delegate to others
10 within the Executive branch. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933, was one of these acts and it permitted the
11 President in §43 to issue silver certificates.
12 Public Law 673 enacted by Congress in 1950 was similar to many previous ones and it allowed the President to delegate his
13 statutory functions to others within the Executive branch. It provided:
14 The President of the United States is hereby authorized to designate and empower the head of any department or
15 agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice
16 and consent of the Senate, to perform, without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any
17 function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized
18 by law to perform only with or subject to the approval ratification, or other action of the President: ...
19 Pursuant to this statutory authority, on September 19, 1951, President Truman issued Executive Order 10289, which delegated
20 to the Secretary of the Treasury lots of the statutory duties of the President. This executive order provided in part as follows:
21 By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1 of the act of August 8, 1950, 64 Stat. 419 (Public Law 673,
22 81st Congress), and as President of the United States, it is ordered as follows:
23 1. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following described
24 functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
25 (a) The authority vested in the President by section 1 of the act of August 1, 1914, c. 223, 38 Stat. 609, as
26 amended (19 U.S.C. §2), (1) to rearrange, by consolidation or otherwise, the several customs-collection
27 districts, (2) to discontinue ports of entry by abolishing the same and establishing others in their stead, and (3)
28 to change from time to time the location of the headquarters in any customs-collection district as the needs of
29 the service may require.
30 (b) The authority vested in the President....
31 Thereafter, this executive order listed another 8 statutory powers of the President which he was delegating to the Treasury
32 Secretary, the substance of which is not important for this discussion. Please remember that this delegation to the Treasury
33 Secretary was to be exercised "without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President." It should also be noted that
34 this particular executive order did not delegate to the Treasury Secretary the authority to issue silver certificates granted to
35 the President in the 1933 law noted above.
36 From 1933 until 1963, the President alone possessed the statutory authority to issue silver certificates. But then on June 4,
37 1963, President Kennedy amended Truman's 1951 Executive Order 10289 by Executive Order 11110. This particular order
38 read as follows:
43 By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
44 SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended -
45 (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
46 (j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended
47 (31 U.S.C. §821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the
48 Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 41 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,"
2 and
4 SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued
5 or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all
6 such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
8 JOHN F. KENNEDY
9 THE WHITE HOUSE,
10 June 4, 1963
11 By this executive order, the statutory authority of the President to issue silver certificates was delegated to the Treasury
12 Secretary. In Kennedy's administration, the Treasury Secretary was Douglas Dillon, a man from a banking family and a
13 known established "power" in the banking community. Kennedy delegated the authority to issue silver certificates to Dillon
14 and his successors and this power could be exercised "without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President."
15 The only reasonable conclusion which may be reached based upon the facts are the exact opposite of the argument made on
16 the Net. For some 30 years, the President himself held the power to issue silver certificates. But some 5 months before his
17 assassination, Kennedy delegated this power to Dillon, and via this order, Dillon could do as he pleased with this power. To
18 assert that Kennedy was by Executive Order 11110 getting ready to issue silver certificates is contrary to the plain facts.
19 Instead, Kennedy was surrendering this power and delegating it to the Treasury Secretary, who then (and as always) has been
20 someone from the banking industry. There is no substance to this theory on the Net. I cannot understand how this particular
21 order proves that Kennedy was about to issue silver certificates. Where is the proof that Kennedy was anything other than a
22 pawn of the banking community?
25 Hi Larry:
26 Thanks for the input re the John F. Kennedy "silver-certificate" item. As chance would have it, about two months
27 ago I helped Ed Griffin ("Creature From Jekyll Island") write a letter to a guy who raised this issue with Ed. Ed
28 and I came to the same conclusion as you did, that the story being circulated by some "patriots" was seriously
29 flawed.
30 As you may recall, some 20 years ago a different story was making the rounds of the "patriot" community. This
31 story said that JFK made a speech at Columbia University a couple of weeks before his death. In that speech
32 JFK supposedly said, "I have discovered that the high office of the presidency has been used to foment a plot
33 against the American people," and allegedly, this presentation continued with him saying that he was going to
34 take decisive steps to stop that plot in its tracks.
35 JFK supposedly then ordered the U.S. Treasury to immediately print zillions of U.S. Notes (_not_ silver
36 certificates) to replace all the Federal Reserve Notes then in circulation. The implication was that by replacing
37 the Federal Reserve Notes with U.S. Notes, the federal government would no long have to pay interest to the Fed
38 on the face value of all the paper currency -- precisely because U.S. Notes are "spent into circulation interest
39 free" (echoing the late Pastor Sheldon Emery and others of his persuasion, that is, the advocates of "populism"
40 and/or "social credit.")
41 A few days before JFK's death, supposedly about $300 million of these U.S. Notes were placed in circulation, and
42 it was exactly this action by JFK that caused the bad guys, the "banksters," to arrange for JFK to be
43 killed. However, while this story is interesting, it apparently has almost no factual basis.
44 One of Congressman Ron Paul's researchers was a libertarian gal with heavy economic and finance credentials,
45 a Masters Degree in finance if I recall correctly, and many years of investment analysis for a major brokerage
46 firm. This gal, Rita something or another, spent several months early in 1983 investigating the story for Ron
47 Paul. She called me later that year to see if I could supply her with any supporting information.
48 I told her I had heard the rumor but did not have any facts to support it. She said she'd been in close touch with
49 top-level people in the Kennedy family, and in contact with several of JFK's closest political cronies, and also in
4 This researcher (Rita D. Simone, from Arlington, Virginia, whose name, address, and phone number is still in the
5 ZNS database) concluded that the alleged event simply did not happen.
6 However, some U.S. Notes were issued in 1962 but solely to replace worn-out Federal Reserve Notes from the
7 series of 1950 and earlier. The U.S. Notes were used because the Treasury had already issued all of its authorized
8 inventory of uncirculated Federal Reserve Notes, and because the Treasury could print U.S. Notes without special
9 prior approval from the Federal Reserve banking system.
10 But the U.S. Notes were strictly an interim solution to the problem of replacing worn Federal Reserve
11 Notes. Please recall that the next year, in 1963, the Treasury printed and began issuing Federal Reserve tokens,
12 FRTs, the "new Federal Reserve Note" bills, the ones missing the phrases "will pay to the bearer on demand" and
13 "and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank."
14 FRTs would eventually replace _all_ then-circulating paper currency: U.S. Notes, Federal Reserve Notes from
15 the series of 1950 and earlier, and silver certificates. Within 10 years or so, the only paper currency circulating
16 in the U.S. was the FRT.
17 The man who contacted Ed Griffin, questioning something Ed had said in "Creature from Jekyll Island," said he
18 had heard the U.S. Note story from an organization called "Christian" something or another. I had not heard of
19 that entity, I had no record of it in my big database of patriotic groups, publications, and broadcasts, etc., and I
20 had no record of any similar-sounding entity in the general area of the writer's home address.
21 I concluded that the "Christian" something or another "group" was really just a dba of a lone individual patriot,
22 someone who simply and innocently echoed a highly inaccurate version of the largely fictional JFK-Columbia
23 University tale.
25 Here's wishing you and your fine family a very happy Thanksgiving.
26 Also, thanks again for the analysis of the JFK "silver certificate" story.
27 Best wishes,
28 Jim Ewart
Corrected Alternative Argument: H.J.R.-192, which is the law that supposedly abandoned commodity based currency in
1933, is no longer enacted into law. It was repealed in 1982 when Title 31 of the U.S. Code was enacted into law. 38
Stat. 1065 et seq.
Further information:
31 House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, 48 Stat. 112-113 was enacted into law on June 5-6, 1933. The full text of this act can be
32 found at:
1 H.J.R.-192 was enacted in order to deal with the outflow of gold from our economy caused by the Great Depression and
2 financial instability. Many patriots who claim to believe in “redemption” hang their hat on the fact that H.J.R.-192 outlawed
3 lawful money and that this resolution is still law. See:
4 Most of those who believe in “redemption” that we have met, however, do not realize that this act has been repealed by Public
5 Law 97-258, 96 Stat. 1068. For proof of this fact, see:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041-Section 10.4 contains the full text of H.J.R.-192. Section 10.5 proves the REPEAL of
H.J.R.-192.
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
False Argument: The use of a postal ZIP code in one’s address implies that one maintains a domicile within federal
territory and is subject to federal civil law or that they are engaged in some kind of federal franchise that makes them
subject to federal law.
Corrected Alternative Argument: There is no evidence that any government has ever made the zip code portion of a
person’s mailing address into a material fact in court for determining whether that address is on federal territory and is
therefore subject to federal civil law. One’s mailing address is not the main criteria for judicially or administratively
determining the domicile of a man or woman. Mailing address is only material to the determination of legal domicile in
the absence of express declaration on a government form.
Further information:
7 Many freedom fighters mistakenly believe that the use of postal zip codes implies any one or more of the following:
8 1. That the address that uses the zip code is on federal territory.
9 2. That the person at said address maintains a domicile on federal territory.
10 3. That zip codes are a federal franchise which makes all those who use them into government franchisees who have
11 surrendered their rights.
12 These types of conclusions are absolutely crazy and unfounded. We suspect that they originate from the resentment that
13 people feel who have been victimized by other government franchises that abuse numbers, such as Social Security and the
14 income tax. What these types of beliefs reveal is simply presumption, ignorance, and superstition. They are not based on
15 fact. For instance:
16 1. Domicile is what determines tax liability, not your mailing address. Your mailing address is not legal evidence of your
17 choice of domicile, but only one of the factors for determining it ABSENT express declaration.
18 2. The government never argues any of the above in court, so it isn't material. Why argue or oppose something that the
19 opposition isn’t even talking about? You're just making needless work and anxiety for yourself and distracting attention
20 away from core freedom and law enforcement issues.
21 3. We have never seen any evidence that connects a zip code ONLY to federal territory.
22 4. We have never seen any evidence that use of zip codes constitutes consent to any type of federal franchise and evidence
23 is the only thing upon we rely as a basis for belief.
8 "Not a Domicile"
14 If you have any evidence in your possession that contradicts the content of this section, please provide it so we can post it for
15 all to review. Otherwise, we need to quit imitating our oppressors by engaging in religion and presumption that are not
16 supported by evidence.
17 4.11 The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the Common Law in 1938
False Argument: The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the common law in 1938, in the famous case of Erie Railroad v.
Tomkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). You can’t use the common law in any court, state or federal.
Corrected Alternative Argument: The U.S. Supreme Court declared that there is no FEDERAL common law applicable
to a state of the Union. They did not invalidate the use of the common law in all courts. The Constitution, in fact,
recognizes and invokes the common law so it can’t be unilaterally repealed. The implication is that when a federal court
is ruling on an issue between private parties domiciled within a state of the Union, the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C.
§1652 requires that the common law OF THE STATE COURTS is the only basis for decision. No federal precedent may
be cited as authority in such a case.
Further information:
1. Sovereignty and Freedom Page, Section 10.4: Common Law -Family Guardian Fellowship
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm
2. Common Law Practice Guide, Litigation Tool #10.013
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
18 This false argument was first discovered in the publications of Pastor Richard Standring of VIP. His website is now defunct
19 and was enjoined illegally and fraudulently by the U.S. Government from publishing tax materials. It is based on a
20 misunderstanding of the significance of the Erie Railroad v. Tomkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). It comes up most frequently in
21 tax cases filed by freedom lovers against the government which started in state court and which are unilaterally removed to
22 federal court by the national government. Most freedom fighters mistakenly believe that because they are in a federal district
23 court, then they HAVE to use federal statutes as their only defense and cannot invoke the common law.
24 In fact, the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. §1652 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 both require that STATE common
25 law are the ONLY rules of decision in all cases in which the party filing suit is not domiciled on federal territory and instead
26 is domiciled in the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state.
10 _______________________________________________________________________________________
13 The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress
14 otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United
15 States, in cases where they apply.
16 The Erie Railroad case DID NOT change or alter the above rules at all. Instead, they indicated that the original Federal
17 Judiciary Act of 1789, 28 U.S.C. §725, Sept 24, 1789 required state common law to be invoked and enforced:
18 The Erie had contended that application of the Pennsylvania rule was required, among other things, by § 34 of
19 the Federal Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, 28 U.S.C. § 725, which provides:
20 "The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise
21 require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United
22 States, in cases where they apply."
23 [Erie Railroad v. Tomkins, 304 U.S. 64, 71 (1938)]
24 The Erie Case was one in which Constitutional Article III diversity of citizenship was invoked and the common law of the
25 state courts was sought to be enforced. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court held:
26 There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law
27 applicable in a State whether they be local in their nature or "general," be they commercial law or a part of
28 the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. As
29 stated by Mr. Justice Field when protesting in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 401, against
30 ignoring the Ohio common law of fellow servant liability:
31 "I am aware that what has been termed the general law of the country — which is often little less than what the
32 judge advancing the doctrine thinks at the time should be the general law on a particular subject — has been
33 often advanced in judicial opinions of this court to control a conflicting law of a State. I admit that learned judges
34 have fallen into the habit of repeating this doctrine as a convenient mode of brushing aside the law of a State in
35 conflict with their views. And I confess that, moved and governed by the authority of the great names of those
36 judges, I have, myself, in many instances, unhesitatingly and confidently, but I think now erroneously, repeated
37 the same doctrine. But, notwithstanding the great names which may be cited in favor of the doctrine, and
38 notwithstanding the frequency with which the doctrine has been reiterated, there stands, as a perpetual protest
39 against its repetition, the Constitution of the United States, which recognizes and preserves the autonomy and
40 independence of the States — independence in their legislative and independence 79*79 in their judicial
41 departments. Supervision over either the legislative or the judicial action of the States is in no case permissible
42 except as to matters by the Constitution specifically authorized or delegated to the United States. Any interference
43 with either, except as thus permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the State and, to that extent, a denial of its
44 independence."
45 The fallacy underlying the rule declared in Swift v. Tyson is made clear by Mr. Justice Holmes. The doctrine rests
46 upon the assumption that there is "a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory
47 within it unless and until changed by statute," that federal courts have the power to use their judgment as to what
48 the rules of common law are; and that in the federal courts "the parties are entitled to an independent judgment
49 on matters of general law":
50 "but law in the sense in which courts speak of it today does not exist without some definite authority behind it.
51 The common law so far as it is enforced in a State, whether called common law or not, is not the common law
52 generally but the law of that State existing by the authority of that State without regard to what it may have been
53 in England or anywhere else. . . . "the authority and only authority is the State, and if that be so, the voice adopted
54 by the State as its own [whether it be of its Legislature or of its Supreme Court] should utter the last word."
7 The Erie case was an appeal from a lower district court under constitutional diversity of citizenship. The jury in federal
8 district court had held against the railroad company and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision, essentially recognizing
9 that:
10 1. The railroad was a state corporation and therefore nonresident to federal jurisdiction.
11 2. The common law of the state precluded liability of the railroad.
12 3. Federal venue was pursued by the injured party and against the railroad to see if the federal courts would overrule state
13 common law.
14 4. The federal courts do not have authority to overrule the common law of the state, which precluded the federal court
15 judgment against the railroad.
16 5. The case had to be dismissed because the federal courts cannot intervene.
17 At the same time, the court never said that there is not STATE common law. Only that the federal courts cannot exercise or
18 overrule it. Thus, only state courts can decide issues involving those who are not domiciled on federal territory and not
19 exercising federal privileges, even when diversity of citizenship is invoked under the United States Constitution.
20 The implications of this case to those whose tax cases against errant federal employees are removed from state to federal
21 court is that the federal court MUST dismiss the removed case and remand it back to state court. Otherwise, the plaintiff
22 suing the federal actor acting outside his delegated authority is a victim of criminal identity theft, as described in the following:
23 In fact, a case against a federal actor by a state citizen MUST be certified under 28 U.S.C. §2679 by the Attorney General of
24 the United States that the federal actor was acting within his authority before the case can be removed. Even then,
25 EVIDENCE must appear on the record of the court of proper delegated authority BEFORE the removal. If the case gets
26 removed ANYWAY WITHOUT evidence of authority from the Attorney General entered on the record by the U.S. Attorney
27 by using a unilateral Notice of Removal:
28 1. The certification under 28 U.S.C. §2679 MUST be demanded from the U.S. Attorney General by the Plaintiff in
29 federal court. The federal actor defendant or respondent is normally the one who requests this certification.
30 2. The certification by the U.S. Attorney General MUST include EVIDENCE signed under penalty of perjury that
31 jurisdiction to remove exists.
32 3. The Defendant and the U.S. Attorney General has the burden of proof WITH EVIDENCE to demonstrate that the
33 challenge to federal jurisdiction by the Plaintiff is in error. He may not simply PRESUME or allege that it is in error
34 without satisfying his burden of proof. All presumptions which prejudice constitutional rights are impermissible.
35 4. If the Plaintiff does NOT pursue the above approach he or she will CERTAINLY end up be a victim of criminal
36 identity theft for all cases against federal actors removed from state to federal court.
37 Now let’s further expand upon the burden of proof that the U.S. Attorney General and Defendant have in cases against errant
38 federal actors removed to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. §1652 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), the ONLY
39 legitimate justification for removal is that the Plaintiff is a federal actor and officer exercising agency on behalf of U.S. Inc.
40 by, for instance:
43 The above was the case in the famous case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) because Frank
44 Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad, which was a federal and not state corporation. All such
45 stockholders are contractors with the national government and therefore agents of the U.S. government.
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 47 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 The court held that the first company's charter was a contract between it and the state, within the protection of
2 the constitution of the United States, and that the charter to the last company was therefore null and void., Mr.
3 Justice DAVIS, delivering the opinion of the court, said that, if anything was settled by an unbroken chain of
4 decisions in the federal courts, it was that an act of incorporation was a contract between the state and the
5 stockholders, 'a departure from which now would involve dangers to society that cannot be foreseen, whould
6 shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business interests, and weaken, if not destroy, that respect
7 which has always been felt for the judicial department of the government.'
8 [New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]
9 The federal agency of Brushaber the federal corporation stockholder was the object of enforcement of the tax laws Brushaber
10 claimed injured him. That is the ONLY reason the U.S. Supreme Court could rule on the issue at all: Because it involved
11 federal contracts, franchises, and agency under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The court
12 held AGAINST Brushaber, because he was using federal property, namely stock in a federal corporation, to “benefit” himself,
13 and therefore was a party to a federal franchise acting upon federal territory and a federal corporation domiciled WITHIN
14 said territory. The reason the Brushaber case HAD to be heard in federal court instead of state court was because:
15 1. The Union Pacific Railroad was a federal and not state corporation originally incorporated in Utah at the time it was a
16 federal territory.
17 2. Brushaber was a state citizen of New York, but the Union Pacific Railroad was not domiciled within his state. In fact,
18 he was what we refer to as a STATUTORY “non-resident non-person”. Even the Department of Treasury identified
19 Brushaber in Treasury Decision 2313 as a “nonresident alien”. Proof is found in his birth records:
Frank R. Brushaber Genealogical Records, SEDM Exhibit #09.034
http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm
20 3. Constitutional Article III diversity of citizenship had to be asserted by Brushaber in federal court in order to reach the
21 Union Pacific Railroad. The domicile of the defendant or respondent determines where the case has to be filed. The
22 Union Pacific Railroad had essentially foreign sovereign immunity from any state court because as a federal
23 corporation, it was not domiciled in any constitutional state of the Union.
24 4. The main issue of the case was the payment of taxes by the railroad, which was reducing the corporate dividends
25 received by Brushaber. Brushaber didn’t want the railroad to pay the taxes, which he asserted were optional.
26 So the real source of jurisdiction over the case was Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, although the U.S.
27 Supreme court did not talk about it. The Brushaber opinion was written by Chief Justice White, the same guy who ruled
28 AGAINST the majority opinion in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 in FAVOR of the income tax. That
29 is why he had to write what many refer to as the most confusing opinion in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court: In order
30 to disguise the nature of the source of its jurisdiction and create the FALSE appearance that the income tax (the “trade or
31 business”/public office franchise) extends OUTSIDE of federal territory and INSIDE a constitutional state.
32 "Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them,
33 to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps
34 of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate
35 all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."
36 [Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121 ]
37 "The [federal] judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us
38 at last into one consolidated mass."
39 [Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307 ]
40 "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless and therefore
41 unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court."
42 [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421
43 "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the
44 center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become
45 as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
46 [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332 ]
“It’s better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Further information:
1 For years, there has been a completely baseless contention floating around, promoted by gurus, that there was a bankruptcy
2 of the United States back in the early 1930s. Of course, lots of gurus have made this argument, but nobody has ever proved
3 it, the contention being nothing but guru mythology, the purpose of which is to deceive the gullible. We have not yet seen
4 any concrete court admissible evidence that this is true. People should not be making ANY claims, especially in court, that
5 they do not have court admissible evidence is true. Please exercise your due diligence in fact checking ALL the claims of
6 others, and especially before passing on or endorsing what amounts to patriot mythology.
7 Below is an example of a false claim alleging the bankruptcy of the United States Inc. from the writings of so-called “Judge”
8 Anna von Reitz:
9 The United States defined as “…the District of Columbia et alia” went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared
10 so by President Roosevelt in Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and finally, as consolidated in Executive Order
11 6260, (See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the “Trading With The Enemy Act” (Sixty-Fifth
12 Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.
13 The several Federal “States of the Union”—purely incorporated political fictions created as franchises of the
14 United States of America, Inc., represented by their respective Governors pledged the “full faith and credit” of
15 their States and their citizenry, to the aid of the National Government represented by the “United States of
16 America, Inc.”, and formed numerous committees, such as the “Council of State Governments”, the “Social
17 Security Administration”, etc., to purportedly deal with the economic “Emergency” caused by the bankruptcy.
18 These organizations operated under the “Declaration of Interdependence” of January 22, 1937, and published
19 some of their activities in “The Book of the States.”
20 The Reorganization of the bankruptcy is located in Title 5 of the United States Code Annotated. The
21 “Explanation” at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The “Secretary of Treasury” was
22 appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy. (See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-
23 564, Legislative History, pg. 5967) As a Bankrupt loses control over his business, this appointment to the “Office
24 of Receiver” in bankruptcy had to have been made by the “creditors” who are “foreign powers or principals”.
25 As revealed by Title 27 U.S.C. 250.11 and elsewhere, the “Secretary of the Treasury” being referenced is the
26 Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, an Officer of the Federal United States who was designated as the
27 “Receiver” in bankruptcy by the Foreign Creditors (banks).
28 The United States as Corporator, (22 U.S.C.A. 286E, et seq.) and “State” (C.R.S. 24-36- 104, C.R.S. 24-60-
29 1301(h)) declared “Insolvency” according to 26 I.R.C. 165(g)(1), U.C.C. 1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22–103.5,
30 Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am.Dec. 509, Adams v. Richardson, 337 S.W.2d. 911; Ward vs. Smith, 7
31 Wall. 447)
32 A permanent state of “Emergency” was instituted within the Union and the Federal Reserve has acted as the
33 “fiscal and depository agent” of the “creditors” ever since. Please note that the member banks of the Federal
34 Reserve are all privately owned corporations, 22 U.S.C.A. §286d.
35 The government, by becoming a “corporator” (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on
36 that character and status of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate
37 charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr,
38 309 U.S. 242).
8 NONE of the authorities cited above admit of a U.S. government bankruptcy. They only appear authoritative to the legally
9 ignorant.
12 Another similar example is from the Family Guardian Website submitted by someone else and not written by us:
13 The United States went "Bankrupt" in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders
14 6073, 6102, 6111 and by Executive Order 6260 on March 9, 1933 (See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594),
15 under the "Trading with The Enemy Act" (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 5, 1917), and as
16 codified at 12 U.S.C.A. §95a.
17 On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors
18 of the Federal Reserve Bank System, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States
19 Treasury for criminal acts. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary
20 Committee, and has yet to be acted upon (See: Congressional Record, pp. 4055-4058). Congress confirmed the
21 Bankruptcy on June 5, 1933, and impaired the obligations and considerations of contracts through the "Joint
22 Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933", (See: House Joint
23 Resolution 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session).
24 [Declaration of Cause and Necessity to Abolish and Declaration of Separate and Equal Station, Family Guardian
25 Fellowship;
26 SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/subjects/LawAndGovt/NewWorldOrder/DeclarationToAbolishUSGov.htm]
27 Here are the Executive Orders mentioned in the above examples, none of which admit of a U.S. Bankruptcy:
28 1. E.O. 6073
29 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14507
30 2. E.O. 6102
31 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14611
32 3. E.O. 6111
33 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14621
34 4. E.O. 6260
35 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14509
36 The House Congressional Record of June 10, 1932, pp. 399-403, is sometimes offered as proof of the bankruptcy but it does
37 NOT indicate a bankruptcy.
38 http://annavonreitz.com/mcfaddenspeechonthefed.pdf
39 The above document claims to directly quote from the Congressional record the following alleged language of McFadden:
40 "Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has
41 repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at
42 the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasury making inventory arranging terms of
43 liquidations!”
44 [Congressman McFadden’s Speech on the Federal Reserve Corporation, Arizona Caucus Club;
2 Unfortunately, the above language is NOT in the Congressional record referenced in the above document as being there:
3 http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html
4 http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-congressman-louis-t-mcfadden-1932.html
5 A bankruptcy is a simple matter to understand. The debtor's assets are collected by a duly appointed trustee and sold in the
6 open market. The proceeds from the sale of assets are used to pay all creditors. How people can claim that the events in 1933
7 are really some bankruptcy is difficult to understand. They claim the United States was bankrupt. But assets of the United
8 States were not seized. Yes, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt DID seize all the gold of STATUTORY “U.S. citizens”
9 (not state citizens) in 1933, but the assets of the “U.S. Inc.” federal corporation were not seized. Can somebody please explain
10 how the seizure of property (gold) from STATUTORY “U.S. citizens” and the delivery of that gold to the possession of the
11 United States Inc. evidences some nefarious and mysterious bankruptcy?
12 With this background in mind, let me explain the “quotes” made from the above Congressional Record that are claimed to
13 support the contention of the bankruptcy of the United States in the early 1930s. The House Congressional Record of Dec.
14 13, 1932 explains the context of the above speech by McFadden. The June 10, 1932 FALSE “quote” is from a resolution
15 offered by Louis McFadden to impeach President Hoover. If you read the whole resolution, it is clear that Hoover was
16 engaged in what the historical record reveals: an international effort to provide relief to debtor nations, with the US being
17 their creditor (especially Germany). These facts were recounted in McFadden’s impeachment resolution.
18 The last page of McFadden’s resolution to impeach President Hoover, offered a mere 2 days before debtor nations were to
19 make payments to creditor United States, was tabled, an overwhelming defeat for McFadden. What we state above does not
20 mean that we dislike McFadden, who was a man we hold in high regard. However, what you provide below to support your
21 false claim of the bankruptcy of the United States is exposed for the lie that it is.
22 Let us present the real historical facts. After WWI, Germany was loaded down with war reparations, the payment of which
23 resulted in the downfall of the Weimar Republic due to hyper-inflation in the early 1920s. The financial condition of Germany
24 was exacerbated when the Great Depression hit in late 1929. By 1930 and early 1931, most of Europe was prostrated by the
25 depression, and payment of the WWI reparations, and indeed payments of loans from debtor nations to creditors nations was
26 creating serious economic problems and hardships. The United States was a creditor for Germany, being owed reparations
27 and other debts.
28 In the summer of 1932, conferences in London and Geneva were held to address these problems, and President Hoover sent
29 representatives. See:
30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Economic_Conference
31 While a tentative agreement was reached, it still would have required the agreement of Congress after that to relieve debts
32 owed to the United States, including those owed by Germany.
33 Some historical facts regarding these events may be learned by reading some of President Hoover’s statements regarding this
34 matter, posted here:
35 1. Telegram to Members of the Congress About the Moratorium on Intergovernmental Debts. June 23, 1931
36 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22722
37 2. White House Statement About Latin American Debts. June 27, 1931
38 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22725
39 3. Statement on the Moratorium on Intergovernmental Debts and Reparations. July 6, 1931
40 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22735
41 4. Message to Senator Arthur Capper About the Domestic Impact of the European Economic Crisis. July 18, 1931
42 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22748
43 5. Statement on the London Conference of Ministers. July 23, 1931
44 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22750
14 The link immediately above notes that on Dec. 15, 1932, lots of debtor nations were required to make payments on their debts
15 to the United States.
16 For further information about this subject, see the following, which also agrees with this section:
30 We think that many of the beliefs within the U.C.C. Redemption community are more a product of ignorance and presumption
31 than a realistic and diligent study of the statutes, regulations, and case law. In that sense, they constitute religion and
32 superstition more than informed belief. SEDM, by contrast:
33 1. Requires a belief in God in order to be relevant. No one who does not believe in God can become a Member. U.C.C.
34 Redemption advocates don’t care about religious affiliations.
35 2. Encourages skepticism. We tell everyone to validate EVERYTHING that everyone tells them, including us instead of
36 simply “presuming” that what they are told is true.
37 3. Insists on court admissible evidence in forming every belief. See:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
38 4. Emphasizes legal education so that people will have the tools and resources to validate what people tell them for
39 themselves. See:
Liberty University
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
40 5. Insists on arguments that are readily and easily defensible in any court of law using the government’s own laws and
41 documents.
42 6. Does not have a commercial motive. This prevents us from coming under government jurisdiction, most of which derives
43 from commerce.
44 7. Focuses on increasing all aspects of sovereignty by avoiding all government franchises instead of focusing only on money
45 or commerce. The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. Any system of beliefs that only focuses on
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 53 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 money and keeping more of it is always going to be perceived as immoral by juries and will make an easy target for the
2 government to undermine and destroy using the legal process.
7 There has been a proliferation of bogus sight drafts and bills of exchange drawn on the U.S. Treasury
8 Department. These documents have appeared in a majority of states and have been used in an attempt
9 to pay for everything from cars to child support. View image of a "Bogus Sight Draft (230K JPG file,
10 uploaded 12/12/2002)."
11 The Story
12 A stripped-down version of this scheme is as follows: When the United States went off the gold
13 standard in 1933, the federal government somehow went bankrupt. With the help of the Federal
14 Reserve Bank, the government converted the bodies of its citizens into capital value, supposedly by
15 trading the birth certificates of U.S. citizens on the open market. After following a complicated
16 process of filing U.C.C. documents with either the Secretary of State of the person's residence or
17 another state that will accept the filings, each citizen is entitled to redeem his or her "value" by filling
18 out a sight draft drawn on their (nonexistent) TreasuryDirect account. The scheme asserts that each
19 citizen's Social Security Number is also his or her account number. As a part of the scheme,
20 participants also file false IRS Forms 8300 and Currency Transaction Reports in the name of law
21 enforcement officials and other individuals they seek to harass.
22 The Reality
23 Drawing such drafts on the U.S. Treasury is fraudulent and a violation of federal law. The theory
24 behind their use is bogus and incomprehensible. The Justice Department is vigorously prosecuting
25 these crimes. Federal criminal convictions have occurred in several cases. The Office of the
26 Comptroller of the Currency has tried to alert the banking community to this fraud. See Suspicious
27 Transactions, Fictitious Sight Drafts. (3K txt file, uploaded 5/16/00)
29 With early and vigorous prosecution by the Justice Department on bogus Sight Draft cases, we have
30 begun to see Bills of Exchange taking their place. This change occurred on or around January 2001.
31 All these Bills of Exchange drawn on the U.S. Treasury are worthless. All the same issues and
32 background materials applicable to Sight Drafts also apply to Bills of Exchange. This is the same
33 fraud under another name.
34 For inquiries by anyone adversely affected by this fraud, please contact your nearest FBI or Secret
35 Service office.
36 [SOURCE: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/fraud/fraud_bogussightdraft.htm]
41 ______________________________________________________________________________________________
42 I absolutely hate and despise scammers, and plenty have gone thru this movement. Those utterly baseless and crazy UCC,
43 "we are Brits," fringe flag, etc, arguments have done incalculable damage and made this movement look like a bunch of
44 freaks. Every day, I detect gross legal errors in arguments promoted in this movement. People injured by the same come to
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 54 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 me for help and frankly, I am tired of playing "clean-up" for the gurus who promote these arguments but NEVER help those
2 injured thereby.
3 What about that stupid redemption process promoted by Wrong Way Law, Roger Elvick, Dave DeReimer, etc? From its start,
4 I tried to stop promotion of that insanity, and I even defended after indictment some people who got caught up in that
5 craziness. But when trying to battle promoters of stupid arguments, they defend themselves by hurling defamation. I have
6 learned to hate and despise all such promoters.
7 Presently, there is floating around the movement a book, USA vs US, by Richard Dwight Kegly, TJ Henderson, Edward
8 Wahler, which is premised on an utterly baseless contention that the "Act of 1871" completely changed our form of govt. I
9 address this argument below. Is it not fraud for people to claim that this "act" continues in effect today when the legal truth
10 of the matter is that the act was repealed a few years after it was adopted? The gullible bite into these utterly false "legal"
11 arguments "hook, line and sinker," but engage in defamation against all who try to show them the truth. Such is the power of
12 brainwashing.
13 Let me give another example. A guy named Victor Varjabedian wrote several years ago a book entitled "Cracking the Code."
14 Therein, he asserted that the case of "Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54, 1 L.Ed. 57, 3 Dall. 54" stated as
15 follows:
16 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a
17 government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary having neither actuality nor
18 substance is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that
19 no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. therefor can concern itself with anything other
20 than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/Penhallowcase.html
22 The above quote appears nowhere in the case and was a big lie. Yet, it became the basis for people thinking they had untold
23 sums of funds in a "Treasury direct account" upon which they could write drafts. Via that book, waves of people starting
24 writing drafts on non-existent accounts allegedly held by the US Treasury; that book made people believe that they could
25 write hot-checks on the US Treasury!!!!! This is insane. My protests against these lies have proven true: none of this false
26 scenario was correct and predictably people have been indicted. But, the promoters have long ago vanished from the scene.
27 In support of my position that the States are not foreign to Uncle Sam, I rely on cases that actually reach this conclusion.
33 On the subject of the “Straw man” argument we agree with Lewis that it is a bad idea to argue that you are not subject to the
34 jurisdiction of a court by virtue of how your name is spelled or whether it is upper case. However, we also continue to take
35 the view that the government can only legislate for “persons” and “individuals” and that most people are not “persons” or
36 “individuals” within most federal and state statutes. All such entities, we believe, must be “public officers” in order to be the
37 proper subject of government legislation:
38 1. Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
39 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
40 2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030:
41 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
42 3. Liberty University, Section 4:
43 http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________
6 To date, NOT even ONE (1) person anywhere in the United States, Texas, Louisiana Canada or anywhere else has been able
7 to prove the so called validity of the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN OR COPYRIGHTING YOUR CAPITAL
8 LETTER NAME (CENSORED).
9 There are some PATRIDIOTS, PAYTRIOTS FOR PROFIT & UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT PROVACATEURS in
10 Louisiana and Texas who are misquoting and using the following court rules and statutes out of context with what they really
11 mean.
12 Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429. "Corporate existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial. On trial of
13 any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless
14 the defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit specifically denying the existence of such
15 corporation."
17 "Allegations that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as Truth unless denied by affidavit of the adverse
18 party, his agent or his attorney, whether such corporation is public or private and however created."
19 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 was cited in Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties,498 S.W.2nd. 5, as follows: "The failure
20 of an adverse party [i.e. you] to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof
21 of the fact."
22 Did anyone read the title to this case? It clearly says Galleria Bank vs. Southwest Properties doesn't it? I am willing to bet
23 phony FRN money that both Galleria Bank and Southwest Properties are incorporated with the State of Texas!
24 All this means is that if someone opens up a business called 7-11, Safeway, Galleria Bank or Southwest Properties, that the
25 presumption is that these businesses are in fact and law "incorporated" by the State wherein they reside to do business "within"
26 the State unless they specifically deny under oath that they are not in fact and law "incorporated" by the State period. and
27 that is all Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 says.
28 To restate it another way, I could open a Business and call it "Luis Ewing Roofing and Construction" and someone wants to
29 sue the corporation "Luis Ewing Roofing and Construction" as opposed to suing me "Luis Ewing", the presumption is that I
30 actually "incorporated" my "Luis Ewing Roofing and Construction" business with the State unless I specifically deny under
31 oath that I did NOT in fact and law "incorporate" said company period. All I have to do in this case is to show up in court
32 and move to dismiss, because the plaintiff named the wrong party and that if they want to sue "Luis Ewing" that they have to
33 refile their suit against me "Luis Ewing" and not "Luis Ewing Roofing and Construction," and that is all this particular rule
34 means and nothing more.
35 This is consistent with the following Texas Rule of Civil Procedure to wit:
37 "A pleading setting up any of the following matters, unless the truth of such matters appear of record, shall be
38 verified by affidavit.
39
40 1. That the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue or that the defendant has not the legal capacity to be sued. (if
41 you are not a corporation you would lack capacity, just for fun look up "civilly dead" or "civil death")
42 2. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the capacity in which he sues, or that the defendant is not liable
43 in the capacity in which he is sued. (Note: Corporations, or members of a corporation as officers or employees
44 of a corporation) cannot sue a man who is of unlimited liability status.) \
45 3. omitted
5 These YO YO'S are twisting and distorting and warping these statutes and court rules to say things that these court rules and
6 statutes do not say period.
7 Or to state it another way, let's say that I opened a business and called it "Luis Ewing Roofing and Construction" but NEVER
8 "incorporated" it with the State, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 allows me to file an affidavit and specifically deny under
9 oath that "Luis Ewing Roofing and Construction" is NOT incorporated period and that is all Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
10 52 says. Refer to Dr. Pepper Company v. Crowe, 621 S.W.2nd. 466, which held as follows:
11 Plaintiff pled defendant as a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to Texas Rule of
12 Civil Procedure 52 and 93 that he was not a corporation.
13 Thus, such fact was established. I am also willing to bet phony FRN money that Dr. Pepper Company is probably
14 "incorporated" with the state as is both Galleria Bank and Southwest Properties cited above.
15 The (CENSORED)TERS AND CON ARTIST'S IN TEXAS, LOUISIANA and CANADA DE-TAX people pushing Texas
16 Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and citing Galleria Bank vs. Southwest Properties, supra, and Dr. Pepper Company v. Crowe ,
17 supra are misquoting and using those cases out of context with what they really mean period.
18 The fact is that you will NOT find even just ONE (1) Case under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 Annotated Case law that
19 says the court has NO jurisdiction over you if they converted the Common Law Full Christian Upper and Lower case name
20 into the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS CORPORATION STRAWMAN that they are so falsely claiming.
21 The fact is that you will NOT find just even ONE (1) Case under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 Annotated Case Law that
22 says if you deny that you are incorporated because you are a flesh and blood living god created man, that the court will
23 dismiss your case.
25 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52 is THE BIG SO WHAT! Likewise, Galleria Bank vs. Southwest Properties, supra, and Dr.
26 Pepper Company v. Crowe, supra, cited above are also THE BIG SO WHAT!
27 That Texas Court Rule and those cases do NOT say what these scammers, patridiots, paytriots for profit and undercover
28 government provacateurs say it does period! (Emphasis added).
29 I challenge anybody in Texas, Louisiana or Canada to pull and read every case cited under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52
30 and find me just ONE (1) Case that says a court has NO jurisdiction over a defendant for committing a criminal act just
31 because the court misspelled your name into the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN!!!
32 IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 52, Galleria Bank vs.
33 Southwest Properties, supra, and Dr. Pepper Company v. Crowe, supra, that says a court has NO jurisdiction over you because
34 they misspelled your name into the CORPORATE FICTION ALL CAPITAL LETTER STRAWMAN PERIOD!!!
35 These people who believe this crap are so stupid, they wouldn't understand the law if you hit them over the head with a law
36 book! Either they are born stupid or their mommas dropped them on their heads when they were babies.
37 (Emphasis added).
38 Ask any of the YO YO'S who are pushing this ALL CAPS BS argument to cite just ONE (1) State Decision in any Appellate
39 or Supreme Court in even just ONE (1) State in the entire united States that WON THEIR CASE where the Judge said YES
40 YOU ARE CORRECT, WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE WE MISS-SPELLED YOUR NAME IN ALL
41 CAPITAL LETTERS instead of upper and lower case in any published volume and place the cite below:
42 1.) One State Appellate Court Decision here: _________________, ___ __________ ( ).
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 57 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 2.) One State Supreme Court Decision here: _________________, ____ __________( ).
2 3.) One United States District Court from any circuit here, ____________, ___ ____ ( ).
3 4.) One UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION HERE:_____________( ).
4 5.) One Am Jur Cite here, _______________, _______________________________( ).
5 6.) One Corpus Juris Cite here, _____________, ____ ________________________ ( ).
6 7.) One Corpus Juris Secundum Cite here, ________________, ____ ____________( ).
7 8.) One Ruling Case Law Cite here, _________________, ____ ____ ____________( ).
8 9.) One Words & Phrases Cite here, _________________, ____ _________________( ).
9 10.) One Blackstones Commentaries Cite here: _____________, _________________( )
10 11.) One Kents Commentaries Cite here: ___________________, ________________( ).
11 WELL, WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS THE CASE THAT PROVES THAT A COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER A
12 DEFENDANT WHO COMMITS A CRIMINAL ACT BECAUSE THE COURT MISSPELLED THE DEFENDANT'S
13 NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS THUS PROVING THE STRAWMAN DOES EXIST (CENSORED)? DO YOU SEE
14 NOW IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS HOW (CENSORED) THEY ARE YET?
15 WHY? BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU EVEN JUST ONE (1) CASE IN ANY STATE
16 OR FEDERAL OR EVEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT EVER WON ON THE GROUNDS THAT
17 THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THEY MISSPELLED YOUR NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!
18 BUT HERE IS SOME CASES PROVING THAT THIS ARGUMENT HAS GONE DOWN IN FLAMES:
45 THE ONLY PERSON WHO WILL GET MAD AT ME FOR SAYING ANY OF THIS IS THE PERSON WHO REALIZES
46 FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER HOW STUPID THAT THEY REALLY WERE FOR BELIEVING THESE SCAMMERS
47 AND CON MEN WHO PUSH THE ALL CAPS ARGUMENT.
48 ASKING ME TO PROVE WHY THE ALL CAPS ARGUMENT IS BOGUS IS LIKE ASKING ME TO PROVE THAT
49 THE EASTER BUNNY AND SANTA CLAUS DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
50 The case law even says that I do NOT have to prove a Negative to wit:
12 FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T GOT IT YET, HERE IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE THAT WILL ABSOLUTELY PROVE
13 MY STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT IN FACT AND IN LAW. EXAMPLE:
14 Let's say that I raped your wife, fiancé, girlfriend, lover, daughter, sister and/or your mother and grandmother and then the
15 court brought me in on numerous rape charges. "Do you think that I should be able to simply walk into court and say: "Your
16 Honor, I'm sorry to inform you that this court has NO jurisdiction because you spelled my name in all CAPITAL LETTERS
17 and therefore you have no choice but to dismiss this case," and oh by the way your honor, I've notice your wife and daughter
18 are in the court room and I'm going to rape them on my way out and there is nothing you can do because you spelled my
19 name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS."
20 I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF YOU GO RAPE SOMEONE AND THEN CLAIM THE COURT HAS NO
21 JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE YOU BECAUSE THEY MISPELLED YOUR NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS,
22 THAT IT WILL BE YOU AND NOT YOUR ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN PICKING UP THE SOAP IN
23 FRONT OF BUBBA IN THE GRAY BAR MOTEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
24 The PAYTRIOT FOR PROFIT, CON ARTIST, SCAMMER, PATRIDIOT AND UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT
25 INFORMANT has failed to provide a "certified copy" of the private statute or local municipal traffic code that says the Court
26 has NO jurisdiction because it spelled your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS by its title, and the days of its passage as
27 required by subsection (j) of RULE 9 PLEADING PRIVATE MATTERS, therefore this court cannot take judicial notice of
28 this case until the plaintiff can provide a "certified copy" citing the date of passage of either the Municipal Ordinance or State
29 Statute that says the Court has NO jurisdiction because it spelled your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS See CRLJ or CR
30 9 to wit:
31 "CRLJ 9(j) Pleading Private Statutes. In pleading a private statute, or a right derived therefrom, it shall be
32 sufficient to refer to such statute by its title, and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial
33 notice thereof."
34 THE LAW IS COMMON SENSE! IF IT'S LAW IT WILL BE FOUND IN OUR LAW BOOKS, IF IT IS NOT THE LAW,
35 IT WILL NOT BE FOUND IN OUR LAW BOOKS!
36 Lord Chief Justice Cambden long ago held that a court's authority and jurisdiction must be legislatively conferred by a statute:
37 "If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it is not be found there, it is not law. Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell’s
38 St. Tr., Col. 1029, 1065-1066 (1765)." Hurtado v. California , 110 U.S. 516, 536 (1884).
39 PLEASE, PLEASE Tell the YO YO'S pushing that ALL CAPS BS TO PUT UP THE STATUTE OR CODES SECTION
40 THAT SAYS THIS (CENSORED) IS LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY CORRECT OR TO SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
41 My friend Dan Meador who managed the FREEDOM HALL IN OKLAHOMA and was a former friend of mine who died
42 over two years ago wrote an article in December 4, 1999 called Fraudulent Juristic Name (Here is your Straw Man). To see
43 the article and read it for yourself, go to the following web site link at: < http://www.svpvril.com/dmjuristic.html>
44 In general, it is necessary to properly identify parties to actions or judgments are void, as treated in Volume 46, American
45 Jurisprudence 2d, "Judgments":
47 A judgment should identify the parties for and against whom it is rendered, with such certainty that it may be
48 readily enforced, and a judgment which does not do so may be regarded as void for uncertainty. Such
Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption 59 of 73
Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ,http://sedm.org
Form 08.002, Rev. 7-30-2014 EXHIBIT:________
1 identification may be achieved by naming the persons for and against whom the judgment is rendered. Technical
2 deficiencies in the naming of the persons for and against whom judgment is rendered can be corrected if the
3 parties are not prejudiced. A reference in a judgment to a party plainly liable , followed by an omission of that
4 party's name from the language of the decree, at least gives rise to an ambiguity and calling for an inquiry into
5 the court's real intention as reflected in the entire record and surrounding circumstances. [Footnote numbers
6 omitted; cites not reproduced]
7 If it is really you who raped, robbed, killed or assaulted someone, could someone please explain to all of us how you are
8 prejudiced when the court properly corrects the spelling of your name and enters your common law full Christian name in
9 upper and lower case to your exact specifications into the minutes of the court proceedings and grants your motion to quash
10 or strike the misspelling of your name into the ALL CAPITAL LETTER STRAWMAN (CENSORED)?
11 Or are you going to say: YOUR HONOR, I DIDN'T RAPE, ROB, KILL OR ASSAULT THAT WOMAN, MY
12 "STRAWMAN DID IT."??? DON'T YOU PEOPLE SEE WHAT A JOKE THE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN
13 ARGUMENT IS YET?
14 In Oklahoma, Dan Meador found the following statute 22 Okla.Stat. 403 that specifically gives instruction to the court to
15 correct the spelling of your name should the court happen to misspell your name in any manner. See 22 Okla.Stat. 403 to wit:
16 "22 Okla.Stat. 403. When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any
17 stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring
18 to the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or information.
19 Dan Meador admitted to me personally that he had researched the hell out of the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS issue and tried
20 to brief it out and actually use it in court and got "slammed" every time by the judges who also cited 22 Okla.Stat. 403 and
21 then proceeded to correct the spelling of his name into his common law full Christian name into upper and lower case. Dan
22 Meador acknowledged that he believed that I finally put the nail in the coffin and put this "dead horse" to rest once and for
23 all when I exposed and put down many of the numerous patriot myths and scams in my speech at the last FREEDOM HALL
24 CONFERENCE that I attended in Oklahoma.
25 Dan Meador told me that he agreed with me that the ALL CAPITAL LETTER STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WAS
26 (CENSORED)! (Note: Dan doesn't normally swear, but he was so mad at all the time he wasted trying to prove this nonsense,
27 he actually used the BS word).
29 "THE KIND OF PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN THE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN IS THE KIND OF
30 PERSON WHO BELIEVES ANYTHING THAT THEY ARE TOLD!"
31 Here in Washington State the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (CENSORED) was put to rest back in the times of the Territory in
32 the Code of 1881 and was carried forward into the current R.C.W. State Statutes and the same was done in every other State.
33 See Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.) 10.40.050 to wit:
35 If he alleges that another name is his true name it must be entered in the minutes of the court, and the subsequent
36 proceedings on the indictment or information may be had against him by that name, referring also to the name
37 by which he is indicted or informed against. [1891 c 28 49; Code 1881 1065; 1873 p 232 227; 1854 p 116
38 91; RRS 2097.] Notes: Action on discovery of true name:
39 R.C.W. 10.46.060.
41 When a defendant is designated in the indictment or information by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any
42 stage of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it may be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring
43 to the fact of his being indicted or informed against by the name mentioned in the indictment or information.
44 [1891 c 28 23; Code 1881 1007; 1873 p 225 190; 1869 p 241 185; RRS 2058.] Notes: True name:
45 R.C.W. 10.40.050.
4 And finally, these statutes were brought forth into the current rule for procedures prior to trial at CrRLJ 4.1(d) which reads:
5 ". . . (d) Name. Defendant shall be asked his true name. If he alleges that his true name is one other than that by
6 which he is charged, it must be entered in the minutes of the court, and subsequent proceedings shall be had
7 against him by that name or other names relevant to the proceedings."
8 The Judge will again say you are correct, we misspelled your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and the court rule CrRLJ
9 4.1(d) requires that we enter your TRUE NAME in UPPER AND LOWER CASE and now that we have done that: "WHAT
10 NEXT YOU MORON"???
11 Do you PATRIDIOTS see how easy it is for the court to overcome the SILLY ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (CENSORED)
12 with the above two statutes and court rule.
13 I REPEAT: All the judge has to do is say, fine, we will enter your name spelled in upper and lower case in the court docket.
14 OKAY, NOW THAT THEY SPELLED YOUR DUMB ASS NAMES IN Upper and Lower Case, WHAT STUPID
15 ARGUMENT ARE YOU GOING TO BRING FORWARD NEXT?
16 IF YOU WANT TO BE THE GUY WHO PICKS UP THE SOAP FOR BUBBA IN THE GRAYBAR MOTEL, THEN I
17 RECOMMEND YOU ARGUE THE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!
21 Both Dan Meador and I separately did our own research, wrote our own briefs and went on a lark and had actually tried 7-9
22 years ago to make the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS argument as an experiment to see what the court's would do and the judge
23 brought forward these statutes and court rule to me and told me that the fact that their computers or typewriters spell someone's
24 name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS was faster to type and easier to read and that it became common practice and that my
25 argument was frivolous but that these statutes required him to change my name in the court docket and then he said: "Well
26 Luis Anthony, of Ewing, anything else" in a really smart ass tone of voice mocking at my silly ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
27 ARGUMENT. If you folks out there want to get laughed at, then go ahead and try to make the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
28 ARGUMENT and don't say I didn't warn you!
29 IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS STRAWMAN ARGUMENT IS ABSOLUTE (CENSORED)
30 BEING PUSHED BY ONE (1) OF THREE (3) TYPES OF PERSONS:
31 1.) The PAYTRIOT FOR PROFIT that runs a local law group who only cares "what's in it for him" if he sponsors an out of
32 town speaker to teach a seminar to his group of persons and does not have to accept responsibility when it goes down in
33 flames in court for being the stupid BS that it is.
34 2.) The PATRIDIOT: A person who has been attending law meetings for years, reads the Americans Bulletin, The Jubilee,
35 The Spotlight and listens to Rush Limbaugh and John Carlson and really believes that he "understands" the law. This
36 person is just another hardcore "patriot" who has good intentions and means well, but what was the road to hell paved
37 with???????? This person is incompetent and incapable of "reading" and will never have any "understanding" and when
38 he opens a book, he is only "looking" at the words and has absolutely NO comprehension, NO CLUE and NEVER WILL
39 Beware of those who are so stupid, that they do NOT even know they are stupid, but because they are like a "parrot" and
40 have a photographic memory and can recite and quote a bunch of cases or black law dictionary definitions, they sound
41 like they must be geniuses to the unknowing or newbie to the law meeting.
42 3.) The UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT "DISINFORMATION" SPECIALIST'S AND IRS SNOOPS THAT DAN
43 MEADOR SPOKE ABOUT A YEAR AGO IN A PREVIOUS E-MAIL.
3 WHERE IS THE PUBLISHED OPINION IN ANY STATE OR FEDERAL JURISDICTION THAT SPECIFICALLY
4 HELD THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT OR PERSON WHOSE NAME THEY
5 MISSPELLED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?
6 Sincerely
7 Luis Ewing
8 PS- This is NOT a case of "kill the messenger" just because I am the one who popped your bubble and now you are pissed
9 off because I made you feel stupid. You should be thanking me for opening up your eyes to the scammers and you should be
10 thanking me because hopefully I just stopped you from spending your hard earned money on some scammers BS. Probably
11 the only guy who will really get mad at me is the guy who just lost his sale with you because of this information that I brought
12 you!
17 1. The Secured Party Creditor (SPC) filing includes the following two documents related to a commerce:
18 1.1. Order For Deposit, Management & Investment
19 1.2. Private Registered Bond for Investment
20 2. We believe that the above two documents:
21 2.1. Should NOT be included in the filing and are unnecessary.
22 2.2. Create a commercial nexus that needlessly give the government jurisdiction over the filer.
23 3. The reason these two documents are included, according to Sovereign Filing Solutions (SFS), is as a way to prove that
24 public servants are not managing the Constitutional Trust indenture properly for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the
25 Constitution, which is “We the People”.
26 4. We don’t think the above documents prove what SFS says it proves.
27 5. If in fact SFS wants to prove that public servants are not managing the Constitutional trust indenture properly, then
28 they should use the following two documents on our site as proof:
29 5.1. The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040
30 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
31 5.2. Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of all Government Franchises, Form #05.051
32 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
33 6. We have been trying to get them to substitute Item 5.2 above in place of the two documents in Item 1 above and have
34 been unsuccessful so far. Until then, we believe that the filing is unsafe.
35 7. The SPC filing includes a trust Named “John Doe Trust”, where “John Doe” is the filer birthname. We think it is a
36 mistake to give the trust a name that has “Trust” at the end.
37 7.1. The name of the Trust should be “John Doe (a trust when associated with any government issued identifying
38 number)”. Otherwise, the trust and your all caps name will not be the same legal person. They need to be the
39 same legal person for the filing to properly disassociate the private human from the public office.
40 7.2. The Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number is what the Federal Trade Commission calls a
41 “franchise mark”. Use of that mark is prima facie evidence of the existence of a public office within the issuing
42 government. Associating it with your name makes that name synonymous with a public office. See:
About SSNs and TINs On Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012, Section 2
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7 Below is a table that translates common UCC terms to ordinary legal language so as to prevent the negative stereotypes,
8 ridicule, and judicial sanctions commonly instituted against redemptionists by judges and lawyers.
9 Table 2
# Term Legal Language translation Explanation
1 Conditional Conditional acceptance Conditional Acceptance for Value is not found in the
Acceptance for UCC or anywhere in the legal profession. They
Value (CAFV) don’t understand it.
2 Setoff Inappropriate Described in U.C.C. §9-318(1)(a) entitled “Right of
Account Debtor to Assert Defense Against
Assignee”. The term is only useful in the context of
bank deposits and collections, but it is never used in
this context by redemptionists.
3 Secured Party “Merchant” or “Seller” Defined in U.C.C. §9-105(m). You didn’t load the
Creditor opposing party money. Secured Party Creditors have
to loan money. However, “Merchants” and “Sellers”
can loan property and services OTHER than money
to the opposing party.
10 The legal field called “Secured Transactions” is the context which most U.C.C. Redemption terms originate from. Secured
11 transactions deal ONLY with personal property under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Below is a definition of
12 “personal property”
13 Personal property. In broad and general sense, everything that is the subject of ownership, not coming under
14 denomination of real estate. A right or interest in things personal, or right or interest less than a freehold in
15 realty, or any right or interest which one has in things movable. Elkton Electric Co. v. Perkins, 145 Md. 224, 125
16 A. 851, 858. The term is generally applied to property of a personal or movable nature, as opposed to property
17 of a local or immovable character, (such as land or houses,) the latter being called "real property," but is also
18 applied to the right or interest less than a freehold which a man has in realty. Boyd v. Selma, 96 Ala. 144, 11 So.
19 393, 16 L.R.A. 729; In re Bruckman's Estate, 195 Pa. 363, 45 A. 1078.
20 That kind of property which usually consists of things temporary and movable, but includes all subjects of
21 property not of a freehold nature, nor descendible to the heirs at law. 2 Kent, Comm. 340.
22 Personal property is divisible into (1) corporeal personal property, which includes movable and tangible things,
23 such as animals, ships, furniture, merchandise, etc.; and (2) incorporeal personal property, which consists of
24 such- rights-as personal annuities, stocks, shares, patents, and copyrights. Sweet.
25 [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1382]
26 An exhaustive discussion of the background of secure transactions under the Code and under prior law is the early two-
27 volume set, Gilmore, Security Interests in Personal Property, Little, Brown & Co, 1965.
28 Other terms such as “set-off” originate from Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is entitled “Bank Deposits
29 and Collections”.
3 On the other hand, there are many occasions where you can and should make your cooperation with a government
4 enforcement demand conditioned on them meeting the burden of proof that the obligation they seek to enforce is lawful. This
5 situation, however, would not be called a “Conditional Acceptance For Value”, but rather an attempt to enforce and obey the
6 law. The basis for demanding such proof of enforcement authority is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
7 "Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that
8 he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority."
9 [Federal Crop Insurance vs. Merrill, 33 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947)]
10 For details on FORCING the government to accept its burden of proof that its enforcement actions are lawful, see:
17 Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a bank with which a deposit account is maintained may exercise
18 any right of recoupment or set-off against a secured party that holds a security interest in the deposit account.
20 Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), the application of this article to a security interest in a deposit
21 account does not affect a right of recoupment or set-off of the secured party as to a deposit account maintained
22 with the secured party.
24 The exercise by a bank of a set-off against a deposit account is ineffective against a secured party that holds a
25 security interest in the deposit account which is perfected by control under Section 9-104(a)(3), if the set-off is
26 based on a claim against the debtor.
28 Unless you are dealing with a deposit account IN YOUR NAME and not someone else’s deposit account, then the term “set-
29 off” should not be used in the context of using the U.C.C. to defend yourself from violations of law by a government or
30 member of the legal profession. This context is the only context in which our members may use the U.C.C. when dealing
31 with the government.
35 Under 1972 §9-105(m) the term “secured party” means “a lender, seller, or other person in whose favor there
36 is a security interest, including a person to whom accounts or chattel paper have been sold. When the holders of
3 The term “secured party” is redefined in the 1999 §9-102(a)(72) as a person in whose favor a security interest
4 is created or provided for under a security agreement, whether or not any obligation to be secured is outstanding;
5 a person that holds an agricultural lien; a consignor; a person to which accounts, chattel paper, payment
6 intangibles, or promissory notes have been sold; a trustee; indenture trustee, agent, collateral agent, or other
7 representative in whose favor a security interest or agricultural lien is created or provided for; or a person that
8 holds a security interest arising under certain provisions of Articles 2, 2A, 4 and 5.
9 The references to a person holding an agricultural lien and to a consignor are new (the latter reference again
10 recognizing the transfer of much of the law of consignment transactions from Article 2 to 1999 Article 9). The
11 references to certain provisions of Articles 2, 2A, 4 and 5 recognize certain security interests given in sections of
12 those Articles that apply also under 1972 Article 9 but do not require a security agreement or filing. The reference
13 to payment intangibles or promissory notes is added to the reference to the purchaser of accounts and chattel
14 paper.
15 Other terms which might apply to a “secured party” include “lender,” “obligee,” “financer” or “seller.” The
16 latter term would include a person who sells goods on credit and takes a purchase-money security interest for the
17 unpaid price.”
18 [Secured Transactions In a Nutshell, 2nd Reprint 2002, Henry J. Bailey III, Richard B. Hagedorn, West
19 Publishing, ISBN 0-314-23817-4, pp. 28-29]
20 Therefore:
31 The definition of “Merchant” within the U.C.C. are found at U.C.C. §2-104(1). “Buyer” is found at U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
32 11 Stern Warning to Redemptionists about Membership in SEDM and Use of our Materials or
33 services
34 The following subsections describe aspects of U.C.C. redemption that members in good standing CAN and CANNOT
35 employ. On the subject of U.C.C. Redemption:
36 1. Our Liberty University (http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm) says that the materials appearing there may NOT be
37 used in connection with commercial redemption as described in this document. In spite of this fact, we have noticed
38 that there are still people out there using our materials in connection with commercial redemption, who have been
39 notified that they are in violation of the copyright on the materials, and who continue to slander and malign us by
40 abusing our materials.
41 2. Our Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1.3 forbids anyone who is a Member from using the “straw man” for
42 their own personal gain or for any commercial purpose. Those who violate this requirement are classified as “members
43 in bad standing”. The straw man is a franchise, and public officer, and property of the government and may only be
44 used for the benefit of the government and not any private party.
45 11.1 Secured Party Creditor (SPC) filing or process is NOT a replacement for SEDM processes
46 Redemptionists seeking to use our “tax information or services” (see https://sedm.org/footer/important-note/) are warned of
47 the following:
18 Sorry, but we can't accept you as a client on tax issues until you are a consenting and compliant member who has done all
19 their homework. Until then, on issues OTHER than tax we may be able to accept you as a client so long as you provide proof
20 of consent to the member agreement with your inquiry.
24 1. Use “All rights reserved”, U.C.C. 1-207, U.C.C. 1-308 in connection with all signatures on government legal and tax
25 forms. We do it all the time.
26 2. Copyright their name.
27 3. Put a lien against the straw man to protect themselves ONLY from government abuse and not private creditors. We
28 provide an example form to do that, but please don’t ask us ANY questions about it because we don’t have a
29 commercial purpose and can’t aid in commercial purposes:
U.C.C. Security Agreement, Form #14.002
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
30 4. Correct negative information returns, not file them against either themselves or any entity connected to themselves.
31 Therefore, they are FORBIDDEN from filing 1099OID information returns against the straw man. See:
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
32 This website and ministry, in fact, does emulate our oppressors by employing franchises against the government, but we don’t
33 use THEIR straw man against them. Rather, we create our own anti-franchise franchise and straw man under the concept of
34 equal treatment and equal protection and insist on acquiring rights towards our oppressors by all the same methods that they
35 use against us. There is nothing wrong with that approach, and you can find an example of its use in the following resources
36 on this site:
19 We remind our readers that this is a RELIGIOUS MINISTRY and not a business of any kind:
23 And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them
24 money, saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
25 But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be
26 purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight
27 of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be
28 forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.”
29 Then Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me, that none of the things which you have spoken may
30 come upon me.”
31 [Acts 8:18-24, Bible, NKJV]
33 In short, all those practicing U.C.C. redemption with a commercial purpose of any kind are REQUIRED to terminate all such
34 activities, return any monies they collected from the government by filing IRS Form 1040V, correct all IRS Form 1099OID
35 they filed, and completely disassociate with those practicing any of the activities documented in this section. All such
36 activities are a SCAM with a capital “S” and will NOT be tolerated by this ministry.
37 11.4 Blacklist of known redemption advocates who are abusing our materials
38 The redemption community is filled with people who have no scruples, who are ignorant of the law, and who want to try to
39 sell their snake oil to the innocent and the ignorant. It is the combination of their legal ignorance and their greed and
40 selfishness that leads them into the redemption community to begin with, in our experience. The redemption community, in
4 The following providers of redemption services are abusing, reselling, or plagiarizing our copyrighted materials, information,
5 or services:
6 1. Redemption Service. They sell a “Matrix DVD” that contains many of our documents.
7 http://redemptionservice.com/
8 2. N.M.C. Services. They sell a “American Freedom DVD” that contains many of our documents. They also stole the
9 Redemption Manual from Robert Kelly of the Americans Sovereign Bulletin
10 (http://www.americanssovereignbulletin.com) , modified it slightly, and are reselling it.
11 http://nmcservices.net/
12 3. Zerodebts
13 http://zerodebts.info/
14 4. Freedom Club
15 http://www.freedomclubusa.com/
16 Some of the above entities have even contacted us to ask that we provide a reciprocal link, which we refused to do and
17 demanded that they terminate any connection with our materials or our website. We are introduced to redemptionists
18 STEALING from us by clients they have victimized, who notice our web address on the materials they distribute and contact
19 US instead of the redemption entity, for help. Please note that:
20 1. Our Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1.3, Item 2, FORBIDS anyone who is a client of any of these
21 scamsters or who is practicing U.C.C. redemption from “using” our materials to interact with anyone in the
22 government or legal profession. We do this to prevent us from being discredited.
23 2. We don’t provide support to those who have bought materials STOLEN from us by redemption scam artists.
24 3. If you are a client of one of these scam artists and you call us to ask for support of OUR stolen materials on THEIR
25 disks or training materials, you are guaranteed to PISS us off and get the scam artist who sold you the snake oil in
26 HUGE trouble.
27 4. If the snake oil salesman who sold you the stolen goods does eventually injure you, be advised that you are not alone
28 and that there are MANY who have been hurt.
29 The government has even given a collective name or pseudoname to those practicing U.C.C. redemption by calling them
30 “sovereign citizens” and has attempted to slander them by connecting that label (usually unfairly) with violent or criminal
31 elements. We remind our readers that we DO NOT call ourselves “sovereign citizens” or even “sovereigns”, as we point out
32 in:
Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018, Sections 6.1 and 6.2
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
33 Finally, the above list are the redemptionists who are abusing our materials that we know about. There are probably many
34 more that we DON’T know about. If you find any parties who are offering our materials in connection with U.C.C.
35 redemption, then please be kind enough to post their information in our forums and a link to the materials on their site that
36 they stole or plagiarized from us.
http://sedm.org/forums/
41 Please therefore “get with the program” and do your homework thoroughly before you involve us or make demands on our
42 time. We even tell you HOW to do your homework on the following page:
1 A good place to start in answering your own questions BEFORE contacting us to ask a question are the following resources.
2 Chances are, your question has ALREADY been answered and answering it again would be a supreme waste of our time:
8 12.1 How current is your information and can you apply it to redemptionism?
9 QUESTION:
16 ANSWER:
17 1. Our website is updated every day and reviewed by over 60,000 visitors a month. It has also been battle tested in court in a
18 failed attempt by government to enjoin it. We keep it current and relevant as humanly possible with a staff that does nothing
19 BUT do that. At the same time, we don't mean to imply that it is "commercially successful", because commercial motives for
20 using our materials are not allowed. We are not an insurance company and we don't offer assurances or guarantees of any
21 kind. Those who seek such things INSTEAD of simply the truth have the wrong motives for using our materials or services.
22 2. All of the remedies we expose are found in the statutes or the case law we cite. You are encouraged to examine and review
23 any and every reference we cite and to even post any errors you find on our website in:
24 3. That question relates to U.C.C. Redemption. Our members are NOT allowed to engage in it and you cannot engage in it if
25 you intend to be a member. See:
27 We can't explain anything until you precisely and completely define what a "Secured Party" is as it relates to OTHER than
28 U.C.C. Redemption. Since we forbid U.C.C. redemption, then we can't and won't discuss our tools and services as they relate
29 to redemption. We have not seen that term used in any context OTHER than U.C.C. redemption.
30 5. For proof that this is NOT "patri-idiotic hearsay from 2004" look at what the courts and the law themselves say about our
31 approach by reading all the rebutted versions of de facto government propaganda about it at:
Liberty University, Section 8: Resources to Rebut Government, Legal, and Tax Profession Propaganda
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf
3 We didn't prepare this response to induce you to engage in a financial transaction, but to PREVENT you from associating us
4 with a financial motive. Requiring us to demonstrate our own passion and successfulness in pursuing our own self-interest
5 and greed and using that passion as an inducement to win your allegiance and support is simply pathetic and we want no part
6 of it.
7 If you are interested in our materials for strictly financial reasons or any reason incompatible with our member agreement,
8 you will bring reproach upon us and the God we serve and are discouraged from either becoming a member and especially
9 from "using" our materials to interact with anyone in the government or legal profession. Here is the agreement and you
10 should read it thoroughly before you even think of becoming a member.
11 It appears to us that your motives, like those of most redemptionists, are primarily financial or commercial, and hence,
12 incompatible with our member agreement and our mission. If you believe otherwise AFTER reading all of the resources
13 referenced in this response, please explain and defend your motives so as to make them compatible with our Member
14 Agreement. Anyone who is only interested in studying law of freedom so that they can benefit themselves personally or
15 financially is a threat to the credibility of themselves, Christianity, everyone in the freedom community, and to freedom
16 generally. Greed is primarily what got America into the huge problems it has now, and more of it won't help anyone.
17 "For the love of money [and even government “benefits”, which are payments] is the root of all evil: which
18 while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But
19 thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
20 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good
21 profession before many witnesses.”
22 [1 Timothy 6:5-12, Bible, NKJV]
23 "Getting treasures by a lying tongue is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death."
24 [Prov. 21:6, Bible, NKJV]
25 You may want to read and reread the quotes at the end of every one of our posts for confirmation of our motives in regards
26 to commerce:
27 "Two things I request of You [God]; (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give
28 me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, "Who
29 is the LORD?" Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God."
30 [Prov. 30:7-9, Bible, NKJV]
31 "The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes [socialist handouts, government "benefits",
32 or PLUNDER stolen from nontaxpayers] overthrows it."
33 [Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]
34 "The law of Your [God's] mouth is better to me than thousands of coins of gold and silver."
35 [Prov. 119:72, Bible, NKJV]
36 "Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding."
37 [Prov. 23:23, Bible, NKJV]
4 ANSWER:
5 Thank you for your interest in our ministry and more importantly, the truth.
6 If you are doing accepted for value, you are involved in U.C.C. Redemption. That is forbidden by:
7 We also can only do decoding for members. If these people were members and they were doing U.C.C. Redemption, then
8 they would be members in bad standing if they used our materials to interact with anyone in government.
9 Provided that the parties seeking decoding are fully compliant with and consented to our Member Agreement PRIOR to every
10 year they require decoding, we can help. Otherwise we can't.
11 A signed member agreement and certification of compliance with our member agreement for all related tax years is required.
12 No retroactive decodes for years in which the people were not members.
14 13 Conclusions
15 Everything that U.C.C. Redemptionists have learned to date has been discovered by inductive or empirical research and
16 experimentation. What they need is a systematic legal approach to the explanation of their processes and their presumptions
17 at every step of the process. Every assertion they make should be backed up by cases, statutes, and the UCC. This would
18 make their approach much more defensible and scientific and comprehensible to those who are somewhat schooled in the
19 law.
20 We think that redemptionists have a lot of good ideas that are consistent with those on our website, but they seem to be
21 primarily ideas and beliefs that they do not seem able to defend in a legal arena, which is where it really counts. Most
22 redemptionists we have encountered have good intentions, but:
29 We certainly don’t mean to stereotype every person who believes in U.C.C. redemption into a single box, to assume that
30 everyone who shares any such beliefs shares them all, or to embarrass or discredit everyone who has any of these beliefs as
31 a whole or a group, because many of them are valid. Everyone is different and we have found many people who don’t fit the
32 mold portrayed above. Therefore, these generalities may not apply to you if you are a redemptionist reading this document.
33 More likely than not they won’t fit, because people who frequent our website typically are much more studious and curious
34 and academic than most of the people we have met in redemption groups and other “common law courts”.
35 We also agree with the False redemption arguments documented earlier in Section 4 and following.
6 We also welcome our readers to notify us on our Contact Us page if they find anything on our website that is inconsistent
7 with what appears in this document, or which is inconsistent with prevailing law or legal precedent. We desire to bring
8 nothing but honor and glory to the Lord in all that we do in connection with this religious ministry.
9 We do advocate that people should lien their straw man so that they get ahead of the line if the government later tries to lien
10 him. We publish a document which does this as follows:
11 WARNING: Please DO NOT contact us for help with the above document. We don’t have commercial motives and this
12 document attracts WAY too many “pay-triots for profit” with purely commercial motives and no morality constraining their
13 behavior.
14 Finally, our Member Agreement, Form #01.001, forbids anyone to join our ministry for commercial reasons and forbids
15 promising or guaranteeing a commercial result by virtue of reading or using our materials. Section 1.3 of the document also
16 forbids members from engaging in most types of redemption activities using our materials with the following language:
18 2. I will not bring reproach upon this ministry by using any ministry materials or services for commercial or
19 financial reasons. Instead, I will consistently describe my motivations as being exclusively spiritual, moral, legal,
20 and religious. For instance, I will not use ministry materials or services in connection with any of the following:
21 2.1. Mortgage cancellation.
22 2.2. Debt cancellation.
23 2.3. Bills of exchange used in paying off tax debts.
24 2.4. 1099OIDs.
25 2.5 Using the "straw man" commercially to benefit anyone but its owner, which is the government. The "straw
26 man" is a creation of and property of the government, and I acknowledge that it is stealing from the government
27 to use their property, which is public property, for my own private benefit. I seek to abandon the straw man, not
28 hijack him to steal from the government. See:
30 For the reasons for all the above, see: Policy Document: U.C.C. Redemption, Form #08.002;
31 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
37 1. Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) -detailed educational materials useful in learning and enforcing
38 the law and preventing misrepresentations by government employees and especially judges
39 http://sedm.org
40 2. Sovereignty and Freedom Page, Family Guardian Fellowship-detailed information useful in court for disconnecting from
41 the government matrix
42 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm
43 3. Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015-detailed rebuttal of the MOST
44 common misconception in the UCC Redemption community about citizenship