Saturday, October 15, 2005

Citizenship and Jurisdiction: Why Americans Get Screwed in Court

If you want to see some case law that will make you want to rush out and lynch some federal judges, go to and download and read the book The Federal Zone. In it author and attorney Paul Mitchel shows how the constitution provides for three basic meanings for the phrase "United States" and at least two meanings for "citizen." He demonstrates how the resulting confusion puts Americans in dire legal jeopardy, and how it makes judges and prosecutors complicit in stripping Americans of their rights, liberty, and property.

The impact of this confusion upon Americans is enormous. Let's analyze the issue a bit. First, let's address the meaning of United States.
1. Union - United States can mean the collection of states united by and under the Constitution. A better term would be the "Union of States". I shall refer to it herein as "Union" or "Union US"
2. Corporate - United States can also mean the corporate United states that includes federal enclaves, Washington D.C., territories and possessions (like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands). I shall refer to it herein as "Corporate" or "Corporate US".
3. USA - the collection of 1 and 2 above, including geography and jurisdiction, a nation in the collection of nations throughout the world.

Why is this confusing? You cannot be sure from context in any discussion or legal dispute what "United States" means. If its meaning is not specifically declared by the communicants, one can be referring to Union US, and the other can be referring to the Corporate US.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem because supreme law over the Corporate US is different from that over the Union US. The constitution is the supreme law of the land over the Union US, but it allows Congressional acts and resolutions to be the supreme law over the Corporate US. Note here that Congress is not a republic. It is a majority-rule democracy, and that means people under the jurisdiction of congressional resolutions are protected only by those resolution, and not by the Constitution.

It is also a problem because of the nature of your citizenship. If you claim to be a United States Citizen or a citizen of the United States, to which United States are you referring? And how do your rights as a citizen of the corporate or union US differ? Some provisions of law apply to Corporate US citizens without the requirement of conformance Constitution's powers and restrictions, some apply to to Union US citizens, some apply to both, and some apply to to people who are neither. It should be obvious, but often it is not clear who or what is the subject of the law.

This confusion is over citizenship and associated rights is compounded by other facts about law, jurisdiction, juries, judges, and courts. I shall go into them in a little detail here so as to enable you to build a mental picture of elements and relationships.
1. The Constitution empowers the various branches of government, and it is a social contract between people, the states of which they are citizens, and the federal government. It specifically restricts the federal government to hold only the powers specifically defined within it, and it reserves to the states or the people, respectively all other powers.
2. The Statutes-at-Large (SAL) are the actual annotated statutes passed by Congress through acts and resolutions They are maintained by the National Archives after Congress passes them.
3. The United States Code (USC) is a body of 50 titles of the codified statutes in which Congressional attorneys actually implement the intent of the Statutes at Large. Since these are not actually the statutes, in order for them to have full force and effect, they must be passed into positive law by Congress. In reality about 12 of the 50 have not been passed into positive law (including Title 26, the Internal Revenue code, and Title 31, the Banking Code). In spite of this, all federal judges consider USC to be prima facie evidence that corresponding law exists in the SAL.
4. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a body of law that should mirror the United States Code, but often does not. These are the regulations under which the Executive Branch governs America. A regulation is placed into the CFR by way of entry in the Federal Register. The CFR is in numerous places more restrictive or empowering than USC, but the courts have ruled that in order for a law to be binding, it must be in both the USC and the CFR.
5. The Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by all states, is a codification of equity law relating to contractual relationships. Even in criminal cases, this law can apply, particularly if you have, by your signature, agreed to perform to some contractual obligation. Any time you sign a government form, you are entering into a contract, and woe unto you if you do not properly reserve your common law rights to personal sovereignty in the process. For instance, when you sign a W-4 form to signify you are entitled to income tax exemptions, you are by implication attesting that you are a taxpayer for revenue purposes, and that subjects you to all the associated laws - it is an abrogation of your rights.
6. The "Common Law" of America is based on English Common Law and includes "case law" which makes it profoundly arduous and difficult to know what the law says in any given instance. Judges hate to overturn ruling of previous judges, even in cases two hundred years old when our society was completely different. So those old rulings become "precedents". In other words, regardless of what the words of the constitution, SAL, USC, or CFR say, an interpretation of one or more of those by a federal judge in an unrelated case many years ago actually becomes binding on all Americans today, even if the judge were drunk and derelict. This is one of the things that frightens so many citizens and legislators about Bush's nomination of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court. Nobody know her judicial tendencies because she has never been a judge. She might be one who will scoff at precedents, throwing massive confusion into our courts by opening the door to have every previous ruling challenged and overruled. Or she might be mindlessly subservient to precedent, no matter how illogical or inapplicable. She might see the constitution as supreme law, or some precedential ruling about it as supreme law. Nobody knows. It's scary. Worse than that, it's dangerous. In my opinion, precedent is highly over-rated, and too many judges use it as a convenient escape from freshly evaluating the constitution, statutes, and evidence to determine and render justice fairly.
7. In trials by juries, to which all Americans are entitled, the juries are supposed to be "peers" of similar background and social standing as the accused, and who know or are somewhat familiar with the accused personally. Otherwise, the juror is not a peer. Furthermore, juries are the last bastion of defense against high-handed usurpation of power and iniquitous rulings by judges, or collusions between prosecutors and judges who are paid by the same employer. They are entitled to evaluate and decide on matters of fact (whether various evidences are factual) and on matters of law (whether the law is understandable, the law is in accord with the constitution, the law is applicable in the case at hand, the judge and prosecutor are in collusion, or the defendant is innocent). The jury can overrule the judge. Unfortunately, most jurors are ignorant of this fact, and all prosecutors normally ask the judge to command the jury to consider only matters of fact (the judge tells the jurors what the law is and what it means, as though he is the only authority, an egregious usurpation of power). When defense counselors attempt to inform jurors that they have the right to throw the whole case out because it is unfair, the court is biased, the law does not apply, or the law is confusing, bad, or unconstitutional, judges clear out the jury and cite the defense counselor for contempt of court. Judges thereby effectively prevent justice from being done, and many innocent Americans are fined or sent to jail as a result.
8. The jurisdiction of a federal court can change based on the type of law over which it has the authority to rule, and that can change the entire nature of a case. In America there are courts of law, courts of equity, and admiralty courts. Courts of law and equity have been merged, to add to the confusion. The rules for these jurisdictions are different. Admiralty courts are supposed to govern maritime issues because they deal with interactions with foreign powers at sea, but they have jurisdiction only over international contracts. If you are "foreign" in citizenship status to the corporate United States, then jurisdiction switches from the rules of equity and law to the rules of admiralty. Quite often, you can be put into a situation of not knowing what kind of court you are in or which rules apply, and attorneys are often unaware of the issues too.
9. One's citizenship and residency status is unclear to most Americans. To the United States federal government, a State of the Union is "foreign." If you reside in the Corporate US (federal enclave, territory, or possession), you are a "resident." If you reside outside the Corporate US (in Texas, for example), you are a "non-resident." If you were born in the geographical area of a federal enclave, territory, or possession, such as Puerto Rico, you are a Corporate US citizen, but not a Union US citizen, and you are considered by the federal government of the United States of America to be a non-alien. If you were born in Germany and are a naturalized citizen, you are a federal non-alien because you are a Corporate US citizen. If you are a Union US citizen (by virtue of having been born in one of the states united under and by the Constitution), but you are not a Corporate US citizen, then you are an "alien" to the corporate United States. Note that a "state" is not necessarily one of the states of the union of states. 26 USC (and case law) indicates that a "state" can be one of the territories or possessions of the corporate US; the rules for them are different from the rules for states of the Union US. If you are both a natural-born citizen of a state of the Union US (Texas, for example), and you reside in a state of the Union US (Florida, for example), you are a Union US citizen, but not of the Corporate US, and from the Corporate US perspective, you are thereby a "non-resident alien." Most Americans are astonished by this revelation, about the same as they would be if they suddenly learned that they were adopted as infants. All of us Union US citizens tend to feel protected by the enormous and fatherly government of the USA, when in reality, that government of the USA is to us an "evil foreign empire," particularly when it comes to efforts to steal money from us through iniquitous tax laws like 26 USC.

What a nightmare this is if you get hauled into court and have to defend yourself, particularly if you are being prosecuted by a US Attorney on behalf of the IRS or some other agent of some department of the Executive Branch. Here's why:
1. You cannot trust the federal government, run by sometimes corrupt, bought-and-paid-for political officials elected by an increasingly ignorant and irresponsible constituency, to enact statutes that are in accord with the Constitution, nor can you trust attorneys working for non-elected officials appointed by a political president to encode the provisions of the acts into the CFR properly.
2. You cannot trust federal judges appointed by the president to explain the above realities to the defendant, nor to yield his authority to the jury.
3. You cannot trust a prosecutor to be more interested in justice than in seeing you in jail.
4. You cannot trust judges and prosecutors who are employees of the same corporate entity not to collude by secret or institutionalized unwritten agreement to deprive you of your rights.
5. You cannot expect a defense counselor, who is an officer of and by necessity to some degree in collusion with the court to give you a proper defense, or even to understand the subtle nuances of the above issues. A good defense counselor in federal court needs to study the Constitution, the statutes at large (a daunting task), the USC, the CFR, common law (including Uniform Commercial Code), case law, and the previous rulings of the judge before he is going to argue your case. I do not believe most attorneys are up to the task.
Clearly, the deck is intentionally stacked against your receiving justice in America's federal courts.

Let me give you just one example of the creeping injustice that is gradually enslaving all Americans. The Patriot Act imposes the requirement that banks get proper identification from patrons before allowing them to open accounts, and it requires that all foreigners show some kind of number similar to a social security number. However, it does not require that American citizens provide any such number to identify themselves. Attorneys for the various departments of the executive branch tore into the CFR to modify it so as to implement the Patriot Act. Many titles were changed. One was the title related to banking regulations. The CFR now requires Americans to have social security numbers to open accounts. Even though the SAL does not require the SSN, every bank will demand it or risk prosecution by US Attorneys at the behest of the Treasury Department of the Executive Branch of the United States government.

Maybe this doesn't bother you. It should. No law requires you to have a social security number. However, your life is made pure hell by such creeping encroachment on your rights if you don't have one. Your signature on a social security card application can be used as prima facie evidence that you are a Corporate US citizen, and therefore not protected by the Constitution as you otherwise would be if you were a Union US citizen.

Now, here's another example. When you sign a W-4 form to get income tax exemptions from your employee, you never indicate you are a non-resident alien and check the box that says "exempt." That is because you believe you are a resident non-alien, and you are an American citizen. Of course, the IRS officials advertise like crazy, sending tax forms to all Americans as though they owe direct income taxes in violation of the constitution's requirement that direct taxes must be apportioned among states. IRS officials and Treasury Department attorneys who advised congressional attorneys who drafted US code know that most people will think they ought to pay direct income taxes. So, no forms every clearly state that you aren't even subject or liable for to income tax as a non-resident alien of the Corporate US. But once you sign the binding W-4 contract without indicating you are a non-resident alien and therefore exempt from the income tax according to law, you have just confessed that you are a Corporate US citizen, and the IRS will take you at your word. Your employer, being utterly ignorant of these realities will happily take money from your check and hand it to the IRS.

When you go to court to dispute this, or for failing to file a 1040, or for failure to pay any tax owed, the US Attorney for the IRS will show the W-4 you signed, and the judge will accept it as evidence that are a Corporate US citizen, and therefore not protected by the Constitution's requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among states rather than taken directly from your pocket or paycheck. When your defense counselor ignorantly raises the issue about the apparent unconstitutionality of the law, the judge will tell him to shut up and threaten to cite him for contempt if he mentions the Constitution one more time. Why? Because the Constitution does not apply to or protect Corporate US citizens.

By this example you can see the reason 26USC has never been passed into positive law. It is a nightmare for hell for the typically ignorant Union US citizen and his ignorant attorney who barely studied these issues in law school.

I encourage all Union US citizens to clarify the nature of their citizenship on all government forms, and properly to reserve rights by signing "All rights reserved. Without prejudice. UCC 1-308" (note: it used to be UCC 1-207 but the text is the same). And if you get hauled into federal court you should say "no" when you are asked if you understand the charges against you, and never answer "yes." If you want more information on this, review Howard Freeman's comments at The Two United States and the Law, Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny, and The Zip Code Issue . And by all means, read The Federal Zone and its appendices (particularly Appendix A), the case law, and Paul Mitchell's and others' legal briefs and court filings at You are in for a revelation almost on a par with The Urantia Book.

# # #

Friday, October 14, 2005

Robert M Hurt III, Dead at 36

The photo shows my son Robert M Hurt III and Linda McIntire when they came from Virginia Beach to visit me and Maria in Clearwater Florida in June 2002. I'm writing to talk a little about Robby . He died at 10:45PM on 13 October 2005.

Robby was born 30 April 1969. He was 36 years old. He and Linda lived with her daughter Kayla (13) in their condo in Virginia Beach. Robby had two daughters - Jenny (13) who lives with her grandmother, my ex-wife, Cheryl in Blackwater, a rural southern suburb of Virginia Beach, and Kristen (8) who lives with her mother Rachel in Virginia Beach. Robby and Linda had been together for the past four or five years.

For the past several years, Robby had been an excellent foreign car salesman. He did his best to be a good and loving father to Kayla, Jenny, and Kristen. He is the type of man people like to love. He was outgoing, cheerful, gentle, and affable. He had a great sense of humor, was a good cook, and a sentient romanticist.

Late in 2004, Robby contracted pneumonia and just couldn't seem to shake it off for 5 months or more. Eventually, he was hospitalized and given antibiotics and rest, after which he returned home to recuperate. His problems began to mount, so he went back into the hospital for testing. The doctors concluded he had liver problems, and he was looking jaundiced. The medication they gave him didn't seem to work. Then they discovered he had a staphylococcus infection in his blood. They treated it with antibiotics, and he went back home to recuperate. His condition worsened, so he returned to the hospital for more diagnostics. The doctor found that he had a hole in his heart, but decided not to operate. Then, Robby suffered a stroke. A few days ago he began to bleed uncontrollably from the nose. On Tuesday, he suffered a violent epileptic seizure, even though he has no history of such seizures. The doctor performed a procedure to restrict blood flow to his nose so the bleeding would stop. Then the doctor informed Cheryl that Robby's liver was failing badly.

Cheryl did not believe Robby would live long. On his last day, he was sedated, on a respirator, and unable to answer phone calls. The only thing that could be done for him was to pray for a quick end to his suffering. He had requested not to have his life prolonged artificially, and Cheryl so ordered the doctor. Cheryl called to talk with me about it, and I agreed with her.

Cheryl and I shall not be alone in missing Robby. Nearly everybody who ever met him loves him, and he will be sorely missed. Robert M. Hurt III is survived by brothers and sisters Norman, Keith, Wendy, and Lorrie. As for me and Maria, we are facing our grief over the loss, knowing we do not feel it nearly as acutely as those who have witnessed his waning vitality. I am consoled in the knowledge that Robby's suffering has ended, and that he is passing through a period of rest to awaken in a new spiritual life where he is loved and able to love, and can enjoy the eternal adventure of coming to know, love, and be like God. He would wish that everyone could celebrate his entering the next phase of his spiritual existence.

# # #

My Complaints Against President GW Bush

Recently, a female friend of mine wrote:

" I, at least, have a basis in my opinions. Bush is an idiot, a zealot, a war monger, a spoiled little rich boy with real tanks and soldiers to play with, an imbecile who can't make change for $1.00 but can't live on a 300 billion dollar allowance. He is a thief, a lazy SOB, a coward, a liar and a fratboy who throws a mean BBQ. He is a college graduate who can't complete a sentence or compose a cohesive thought without the help of script writers. My opinion, of course. I believe at least 60% of the rest of the country agrees in all or in part with me."

This is my answer:

I mean no offense by calling you a YDD (Yellow Dog Democrat), meaning you'd rather vote for a yellow dog Democrat than a human Republican. That doesn't mean I'm calling you a dog, and it isn't like I'm calling you a slut. I'm sure if only you could find a Republican you thought were honest, loyal, etc, you wouldn't be voting for any dogs. I'm just saying you have no integrity when it comes to politics. You seek only to denigrate Republicans, regardless of who they are, what they stand for, or what they do. In other words, you're against them to the point of being irrational, disingenuous, and disagreeable.

Now, you CLAIM to have "basis in my opinions," but where's your proof? Your comments seem to come more from bias than basis. You have attacked Bush's character, not his actions or presidential philosophy, and you haven't proposed ANYTHING better than what he has done. Let's look at a few facts. Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard, so he is hardly an ignoramus, and he is a natural leader, having been president of his graduating class at Yale, run his own entrepreneurship, and made his own money from his own work. Plus, I am certain you cannot fault his choice for a wife, nor his moral character or religious devotion. He is true blue, does not screw around, and is loyal to family and friends. And, he has proven himself to be highly efficient and effective manager. In many ways, he is a model husband, father, and leader. So when you say all those bad things about him, I'm wondering where you get the data to support your beliefs.

Maybe you don't have the time or interest to discuss these issues honestly. That's okay. I have a lot more time on my hands than you do. And I study all the time, so I keep myself reasonably well informed. And when I discuss these issues, I nearly always do so with the intent to propose better solutions.

In point of fact, I believe Bush did the right thing in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, regardless of the reasons he forwarded. Iraq planned and financed the destruction of the Murrah building 10 years ago in Oklahoma city (see for the lawsuit against Iraq on behalf of the victims - it documents the evidence), there were WMD in Iraq that were spirited out on the eve of the invasion via truck convoy to Syria (see for details), and militant Muslims have been trying to take over non-Islamic lands through insurrection, wars, and terrorism for 14 centuries. They've been quite successful, if you look at the map. Over 20% of the world's land mass is dominated by criminal Islamic governments that condon crimes against humanity like slavery, clitoral amputation (wouldn't you love that) to keep women chaste, and other heinous inhumanities. Don't you think it's about time some American president jumped in and started calling a screeching halt to it? How much more of America do you want to see destroyed before the problem is corrected?

In social issues, Bush's policies have resulted in record high home ownership by minorities, reduced taxes to rich and poor alike, reduced deficit as a percentage of GNP, increased GNP, prescription drug benefits for the old, assistance in Africa to combat AIDs (which I believe is what killed my son), amnesty overtures to the poor Mexicans who have come here illegally to escape the economic horrors of their homeland (hey, there are 20,000+ Mexicans from the state of Hidalgo living in the area of Clearwater Florida), record-breaking disaster relief money for the areas and victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and major results with North Korea and Gaza. These are all noble ambitions of any liberal. Frankly, I don't think any Democrat president could have done any better.

And maybe that is part of my problem with him. Just so you know I see both sides of his issues clearly, note these complaints:

1. Our monetary system is a sham, and a strong and resolute presidency can lead in its repair, but George won't do it. Nothing of intrinsic value backs our dollars, and when Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez began selling oil for Euros in 1999, the foreign demand for dollars began a nosedive, necessitating both a CIA-sponsored oil strike in Venezuela and the invasion of Iraq. The dollar plummeted in value from 87 cents per Euro to $1.35 per Euro in 4 years. Now that Iraq is selling oil for dollars again, the dollar is beginning to normalize, and its value is $1.20 per Euro. If the invasion had not happened, the Euro would cost $2 by now, so we are lucky. On the other hand, had Bush outlawed Federal Reserve Notes, nationalized all gold and silver mines and bullion reserves (even foreign-owned reserves), and made all currency redeemable in gold or silver coin, the value of the dollar would be both stable and high because it would actually be worth more than the cost of printing it (which is its only intrinsic value now).

2. The president should push for outlawing deficit spending. Every deficit reduces the value of the currency in circulation and that causes so-called inflation. While he reduced front-end taxes a little, the inflation that results from deficits is the same as a back-end tax, only it is worse. No only is your paycheck worth less in buying power, but your savings are worth less too. It would be far better to pay our taxes on the front end so our savings would keep their value. Throughout your entire life, you've never known anything but deficit spending from our nation's leaders, and therefore nothing but inflation ranging from 6% to 16% per year. Strong presidential leadership will be required to fix this problem, and George won't give it. Part of the problem is the social security payout, and it can only be fixed by investing social security taxes in indexed stocks while increasing the retirement age to the average lifespan (now 78). The enormous welfare, hospitalization (medicaid), housing, and other entitlements for the poor are bankrupting the nation because they represent not only the loss to taxpayers of their hard-earned income, but also the loss of the income welfare recipients would get if they were forced to get their butts to work. And most of the welfare abuse is a result of the existence of over 75 million stupid people in our society, many of whom resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by because they cannot compete for the better jobs. The only solution to that is to eliminate the stupid, and the only humane method to sterilize stupid parents so they can't procreate more stupid children. Of course, Bush will not discuss this, and he certainly will not do anything about it.

3. The president should completely halt illegal immigration (that is one of his main jobs - to prevent a foreign invasion), forcibly return illegal immigrants to their homelands (billing foreign governments for the expense), and set a minimum IQ limit of 90 for all legal immigrants. America simply does not need more stupid people to clog the criminal justice system and welfare roles, and subsist through theft, drug dealing, racketeering, and other crimes. Bush wants to leave the borders porous and give amnesty to illegals. I consider that to be humane to them, inhumane to the citizenry who must foot the bill, and economically insane.

4. The president should push for a Manhattan-style project to eliminate America's dependence on fossil fuels for energy. The enormous energy bill is languishing in Congress. I know of numerous inventors who have been suppressed or murdered to prevent their energy-efficient devices from reaching the marketplace, and energy companies and automobile manufacturers are complicit in buying up patents and sitting on them forever to protect their profits. I consider this to be evil to the point of criminality, and the president should push Congress to outlaw it. Any company that buys or develops a patent should be given a maximum of 5 years to produce a product based on the technology, and after that to be forced to hand over the technology into the public domain. The rule should be "Use it or Lose it." Of course, Bush's family and cronies earn a lot of money from the oil business, so he'll never promote such a sensible thing, nor work aggressively to squash anyone found guilty of suppressing technology for profit to the detriment of society. Possibly one of the major reasons is that state and federal governments earn windfall revenues from taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. If water is fractured electrically to produce hydrogen and oxygen gas for fuel, there will be no further need for petroleum-based fuels, and that will kill the associated tax revenues, a hard pill for Congress to swallow.

5. The president should call a screeching halt to abuses by the IRS and Treasury Department against citizens. In fact it is a violation of the constitution for the government to tax people directly, but that is precisely what the IRS does every day. The grief and hardship to American families is enormous and outrageous. The president has a commission working on Tax reform proposals right now, but I know the IRS will be left in control of ruining Americans' lives.

These are my main complaints against Bush. Guess what? They are also my main complaints against Clinton, and all the other presidents since I was born. In my opinion, they are all derelict.

Now, the above are actual fact-based issues, really good reasons to be down on the president. All the name calling you did was disingenuous and only makes you look like a crackpot sourpuss YDD. Why not switch to fact-based issues that really are relevant? I'm sure the Republican party could use a few more people like you.

# # #

Friday, October 07, 2005

The Solution to Black Poverty and Oppression

The Solution to Black Poverty and Oppression

Jim Bernard wants to know:

As a fervent republican , how would you respond to this speech - if you were President Bush ?
NBA’s Etan Thomas, the Washington Wizards' Power Forward, delivered a blistering poetical speech as part of the weekend’s anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC.  While you peruse it, note the areas of bold typeface I added.
“ Giving all honor, thanks and praises to God for courage and wisdom, this is a very important rally. I'd like to thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts, feelings and concerns regarding a tremendous problem that we are currently facing. This problem is universal, transcending race, economic background, religion, and culture, and this problem is none other than the current administration which has set up shop in the White House.
In fact, I'd like to take some of these cats on a field trip. I want to get big yellow buses with no air conditioner and no seatbelts and round up Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Bush Jr. and Bush Sr., John Ashcroft, Giuliani, Ed Gillespie, Katherine Harris, that little bow-tied Tucker Carlson and any other right-wing conservative Republicans I can think of, and take them all on a trip to the average poor black neighborhood. Not to do no 30-minute documentary. I mean, I want to drop them off and leave them there, let them become one with the other side of the tracks, get them four mouths to feed and no welfare, have scare tactics run through them like a laxative, criticizing them for needing assistance.
I’d show them working families that make too much to receive welfare but not enough to make ends meet. I’d employ them with jobs with little security, let them know how it feels to be an employee at will, able to be fired at the drop of a hat. I’d take away their opportunities, then try their children as adults, sending their 13-year-old babies to life in prison. I’d sell them dreams of hopelessness while spoon-feeding their young with a daily dose of inferior education. I’d tell them no child shall be left behind, then take more money out of their schools, tell them to show and prove themselves on standardized exams testing their knowledge on things that they haven’t been taught, and then I’d call them inferior.
I’d soak into their interior notions of endless possibilities. I’d paint pictures of assisted productivity if they only agreed to be all they can be, dress them up with fatigues and boots with promises of pots of gold at the end of rainbows, free education to waste terrain on those who finish their bid. Then I’d close the lid on that barrel of fool’s gold by starting a war, sending their children into the midst of a hostile situation, and while they're worried about their babies being murdered and slain in foreign lands, I’d grace them with the pain of being sick and unable to get medicine.
Give them health benefits that barely cover the common cold. John Q. would become their reality as HMOs introduce them to the world of inferior care, filling their lungs with inadequate air, penny pinching at the expense of patients, doctors practicing medicine in an intricate web of rationing and regulations. Patients wander the maze of managed bureaucracy, costs rise and quality quickly deteriorates, but they say that managed care is cheaper. They’ll say that free choice in medicine will defeat the overall productivity, and as co-payments are steadily rising, I'll make their grandparents have to choose between buying their medicine and paying their rent.
Then I'd feed them hypocritical lines of being pro-life as the only Christian way to be. Then very contradictingly, I’d fight for the spread of the death penalty, as if thou shall not kill applies to babies but not to criminals.
Then I’d introduce them to those sworn to protect and serve, creating a curb in their trust in the law. I’d show them the nightsticks and plungers, the pepper spray and stun guns, the mace and magnums that they’d soon become acquainted with, the shakedowns and illegal search and seizures, the planted evidence, being stopped for no reason. Harassment ain’t even the half of it. Forty-one shots to two raised hands, cell phones and wallets that are confused with illegal contrabands. I’d introduce them to pigs who love making their guns click like wine glasses. Everlasting targets surrounded by bullets, making them a walking bull's eye, a living piƱata, held at the mercy of police brutality, and then we’ll see if they finally weren’t aware of the truth, if their eyes weren’t finally open like a box of Pandora.
I’d show them how the other side of the tracks carries the weight of the world on our shoulders and how society seems to be holding us down with the force of a boulder. The bird of democracy flew the coop back in Florida. See, for some, and justice comes in packs like wolves in sheep's clothing. T.K.O.d by the right hooks of life, many are left staggering under the weight of the day, leaning against the ropes of hope. When your dreams have fallen on barren ground, it becomes difficult to keep pushing yourself forward like a train, administering pain like a doctor with a needle, their sequels continue more lethal than injections.
They keep telling us all is equal. I’d tell them that instead of giving tax breaks to the rich, financing corporate mergers and leading us into unnecessary wars and under-table dealings with Enron and Halliburton, maybe they can work on making society more peaceful. Instead, they take more and more money out of inner city schools, give up on the idea of rehabilitation and build more prisons for poor people. With unemployment continuing to rise like a deficit, it's no wonder why so many think that crime pays.
Maybe this trip will make them see the error of their ways. Or maybe next time, we'll just all get out and vote. And as far as their stay in the Whitehouse is concerned maybe it will end soon. "
Bob Hurt responds:
Etan is driven to complain, as shown in the bold-faced areas of his speech, that blacks don't get enough free benefits from government, and that they cannot compete effectively for well-paying jobs. 
  1. He tries to blame it on flaws in the education system and on police brutality, but he neglects to mention that half the black children do not graduate from high school, and the reason is this:  many of them are unable to learn because they have low IQ because they were procreated by low-IQ parents who do not provide good role models, a proper diet, a sane environment, or a decent culture. 

  2. He fails to mention that 70% of those children have no father at home because black men are irresponsible, due in part to the enormous public assistance their mates and children receive from their rich uncle, Sam. 

  3. He ignores the reality that 20% of those children are born to children because parents do not rear their children to be moral and sexually responsible, and do not give them adequate supervision. 

  4. He sidesteps the fact most black mothers have four or more children, even though they cannot adequately feed and clothe them, because the mothers are sexually irresponsible.

  5. He acts as though all inner city blacks have an inalienable right to public assistance at the expense of others.  I do not see an inherent entitlement to welfare, nor a related government power to rob from the rich and give to the poor, enumerated in the constitution. 

  6. No where did Etan complain that the hundreds thousands of public charities (including local churches) in America are too selfish to give impoverished blacks a helping hand.  Of course, he has no complaint because few poor blacks avail themselves of such charities.  First of all, few of them attend church, and second, they don't bother asking because they see the federal government as a big fat udder laden with warm milk for them to suck whenever they like. 
Most people with any sense think it is both stupid and unethical to rely on government assistance for support.  The problem is:  people like Etan, and folks from communities like the one from which he hails, don't have very much sense.
The bottom line is this:  Most of the racial problems in America stem from gene-based low IQ, the general unwillingness to face that fact frankly, and the refusal to set up systems to accomodate the stupid of today while gradually eliminating the stupid from future generations.  In other words, the problem is not racial differences, but rather it is low IQ and the fact that people like Etan Thomas don't use their bully pulpit to get their listeners to face the facts about low IQ. 
Blacks aren't alone in their suffering.  Their IQ averages 85, but Mexican IQ averages 87, and there are about 30 million Caucasians with IQ below 85.  I consider all people with IQ 85 and below to be relatively "stupid".  The nation does not properly employ them because we have allowed manufacturing to run offshore where labor is cheaper.  And our nation's schools do not properly channel low-IQ children into apprenticeships and life-long vocational training after they finish the 8th grade, the highest level a stupid child can tolerate.
The low IQ of blacks, non-white Hispanics, and Caucasians doesn't just affect them.  It also adversely affects our nation and our civilization.  Gross National Product is directly proportional to IQ, limited only by the nature of government.  For details, read about the Smart Fraction Theory at La Griffe du Lion's web site.  Thus, an over-sized population of stupid people is a direct cause of low productivity (GNP).  Right now, there are about 90 million Blacks and non-white Hispanics (many of whom have black ancestry) in America, and about 40 million of them are in the stupid category.  Of the 200 million Caucasians, about 33 million are stupid. 
Since America's wage base has forced so many labor jobs offshore, America doesn't need as many stupid laborers as it once did. Since the stupid are the largest users of the criminal justice system and welfare, and therefore a terrible productivity burden on the nation, we should get eliminate them from future generations, humanely, of course.  The way to do that is simple:  don't let them procreate.  Within 3 generations, there will be virtually no stupid people in America.
By preventing America's 73 million stupid people from procreating, the average IQ of the USA (compared to the 100 norm of the UK) will gradually rise to 110 or 115 , making the USA the smartest country on earth.  With an average IQ of 98 (same as China and Australia), the USA already has the world's highest per-capita GNP (over $29,000).  If my recommended program (see below) were implemented today, within 75 years the USA's GNP would jump to 35,000 or $40,000 in today's dollars.  In the process, we'd see dramatic reduction in money money wasted on criminal justice, welfare, education, and lost productivity, and in loss of life and property to stupid criminals who cannot compete for the better jobs.  As a consequence, the actual spendable reserves of the GNP would become enormous, enough to retire our national debt within a generation.
I'm not a Republican.  However, if I were a second-term president like George Bush, I'd start pushing Congress to amend the constitution as necessary to pass  laws that require this: 
  1. Permanently sterilize all residents with an IQ below 90, all felons upon entering prison, and all insane people.

  2. Temporarily sterilize all fecund minors (until they reach the age of 21), and all indigents and welfare recipients (till self-sufficient for 5 years).

  3. Prohibit from voting all who are welfare recipients, felons, indigents, insane, under 25, or have an IQ less than 90.

  4. Incentivize parents with IQ above 100 to have 4 children per family, and those with IQ above 120 to have at least 6 children per family.

  5. Incentivize Northeastern Orientals, Ashkenazi Jews, and Europeans with IQ above 120 to emigrate to America.

  6. Prohibit all persons with IQ below 100 from entering the country for any reason, including asylum.

  7. Round up and eject all illegal aliens.

  8. Require all welfare recipients to work at community service projects under careful supervision in exchange for their welfare checks, food stamps, and subsidized housing.

  9. Incentivize state governments to set up separate vocational schools for students of IQ less than 90, and not educate such students acadamically beyond the 7th grade.

  10. Ban teachers unions and incentivize state governments to require all students to attend school 11 hours per day, 6 days per week, 11 months per year.

  11. Implement a crash program to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for energy.

  12. Re-establish the precious metals standard for currency, nationalize all precious metal resources, and return currency production to the US Treasury.

  13. Repudiate all indebtedness to the Federal Reserve and international banks.
I know what you're thinking:  "If there aren't any more stupid people left, who will do all the boring, labor-intensive jobs that will drive smart people crazy?"
Such a question ignores the reality that when the nation on the whole is smarter, it finds better ways to solve its labor problems than brute force.  A smarter population will handle most of its labor problems with technology.  Just one example is robotics.  Robotic vacuum cleaners are already available to clean floors in homes.
The question also ignores the fact that there will be sufficient people with IQs between 90 and 100 to handle the menial jobs with which technology has not already dispensed.  A college diploma is out of the question for nearly everyone of IQ below 110, and if primary education were properly rigorous, an IQ of 100 would be required to graduate from high school.  Because the population will be smarter, the standards of education will naturally rise, and that will still leave quite a few people in the lower IQ levels to fill available labor jobs.
In addition, the available labor jobs will also offer higher compensation because the society will be much more affluent.  As a result, laborers will not be inclined to resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by.
Oh, yes, I know some of the elements of are shocking, but so what?  For circumstances to improve, there must be changes. 
Here's the easiest intermediate step of reducing the ranks of the stupid in future generations:  A Cash-for-Gonads program.
The government could simply offer hard cash to low-IQ residents, welfare recipients, the indigent, and the insane in exchange for being permanently sterilized.  Most of them will be delighted.  I'd start with $10,000 per person.  A similar program could offer average and high-IQ fecund children $1000 for agreement to be sterilized temporarily via reversible vascectomy or tubal ligation.  Both programs should be promoted heavily on TV, Radio, newspapers, and so on.
A related program could offer large tax incentives to average and high-IQ parents to have more children.  Most such families have only 1 or 2 children, not enough to sustain the gene group.  They should be encouraged to produce 4 to 8 children, and as many as 20 if the family is wealthy.
The way to solve Etan Thomas' s complaints is to procreate fewer stupid and more smart Americans, not to give dwellers of black ghettos even more largess with which to breed ever larger families and commit ever greater abuses of our welfare, education, and criminal justice systems.
# # #

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Why Hydrogen Power Won't Work

Why Hydrogen Power Won’t Work

I see a lot of discussion on hydrogen energy newsgroups about the benefits, reasons, etc, for hybrid (hydrogen from water and fossil fuels powering the automobile engine).  Frankly I think all of you are missing the point.  Numerous patents exist for cost-effective water electrolysis systems to produce hydrogen and oxygen.  Here are the reasons we don't have non-hybrid, water-only hydrogen power right now.

1.  Oil interests will murder, harass, or pay government to suppress anybody who invents a salient technology.  It is far cheaper to do that than to lose all their profits within the few years it takes to get the technology into wide spread use.

2.  State and federal governments raise enormous revenues from taxes on petroleum products, particularly gasoline and diesel fuel.  A water-only technology will destroy that tax base virtually overnight.  Government leaders are too short-sighted to plan for the tax-base shift, and too greedy to give up the money.

There you have it.  The two most powerful economic forces in the world, one with National Guard and military to enforce its inner sanctum dictums, and the other with its own private army of hooligans, will destroy anyone who threatens their revenues.

This reminds me of the story of Jesus.  His message was simple and easy.  God exists and is our heavenly father.  All humans are each others brothers and sisters, and we should love and serve them unselfishly and lovingly.  We should have faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the Father's will - to work to become like God.

Of course, his story was immediately warped by his followers, for most Christians (his followers today) do not believe embracing the above gospel will give them eternal life.

But the message was so innocuous and compatible with all world religions that one must wonder why the Jewish Temple rulers conspired to have him arrested, convicted on false testimony of false charges, and executed.

The answer is simple.  Jesus' gospel was a dire threat to the Temple Treasury and to the wealthy Temple rulers and their minions.  Had people embraced the gospel, they would have seen no need to pay for sacrificial creatures or subscribe to a plethora of Temple services that made the Temple so prosperous.  Their treasury is estimated to have been worth a hundred million dollars in today's money.

They killed him to preserve their cushy cash flow.

We can expect any revelators of the gospel of water-only hydrogen fuel cells to meet a similar fate.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Time to be Civilizationally Correct

I know what you mean (see your below response to my my comments farther below).
Yes, I can be more diplomatic, but in the end I'll be saying the same thing, so why mince words? Using softer words to sugar-coat the issue is nothing more than an effort to mollycoddle and deceive. My words are not hateful or prejudicial. They are just frank and forthright. And it is time for frankness and forthrightness.
My point here is that the softer words you suggest are just another form of political correctness. And political correctness is the 20th century's answer to the 19th century's slavery. Our social corrections are long and arduous. The pendulum swings for centuries to slavery, then swings to the opposite extreme of political correctness, and both are utterly insane.
I have a family situation that parallels this.
My sister Claudia, bless her heart, was unwillingly separated from her father at four. I was eleven. My mother struggled to run a no-father family of 6 kids, then resorted to the second-best money making opportunity for a woman of no commercial skills: being a waitress in a night club. Before long, the night life captured her, she became alcoholic and began making even worse decisions, spending long and unnecessary hours away from the family while the older children cared for the younger. I explained the situation to one of my mother's sisters, and she promptly alerted the county officials who placed Claudia and two other young siblings in foster homes with relatives. The got shuffled into an orphanage 250 miles from our home, and that's where Claudia graduated from high school.
Thirteen year ago Claudia, then a bank supervisor, met up with a Mideasterner, married him, and bore a child. The baby was born vegetative, and the husband abandoned her. She named the baby Ethan. She became a determined mother, went on welfare for a time, and got the state to pay all the costs of her baby, including special equipment, a van for transport, and so on. Ethan grew into a young boy who slept a lot and when awake made gurgling sounds if any at all. He was blind, immobile, dumb, and possibly deaf. Claudia fed him through a stomach tube, changed his diaper, and lugged him around lovingly. Eventually Claudia went back to work, got promoted to vice president of a bank, and remarried, this time to a man who adopted Ethan. Meanwhile, the state continued paying for his expensive medical care, including a full time male nurse while she worked. When Ethan's birthday rolled around, Claudia celebrated as good parents do. She took him to "school," and made sure he was present at all family gatherings. She doted on him. A couple of months ago, Ethan died, and Claudia, now a functioning but determined alcoholic, was heart-broken. Grief consumed her. She insisted that everybody respect her grief and realize how emotionally devastated she was. She is not over it and might never be.
Here's the parallel: Claudia, seemingly normal and happy, has been deluded for years. She was so badly afflicted by the loss of her father and mother that she became determined to be a good mother, no matter what. And she was devoted to Ethan. Unfortunately, Ethan was a vegetable, not a human being, and she knew it. Just as unfortunately, the fools in the state and federal government actually spent upwards of a million dollars to care for Ethan throughout his 12-year life. Claudia preferred to abuse the government's free social services to aborting the child or removing it from life support, even though she knew the child would never be able to communicate or be normal in any other way. The family should not, through their loving complicity, have encouraged her misguided and selfish altruism, and the government should have told her to pound sand.
Similarly, when it comes to procreative prerogatives, the average and bright people of our nation need to make our government tell stupid prospective parents to pound sand. Our society should not allow the stupid to procreate, and that is because stupid people damage our civilization. We are so stuck on the idea of unbridled personal liberty of procreation that we are reluctant to demand commensurate responsibility. We seem afraid stand at stupid people's faces and tell them lovingly:
"Look, Jamiel and Tamika, you two have a combined IQ of 150. Unfortunately, neither one of you is smart enough to be a buck private in our Army. You and your kids have beautiful smiles. To be honest, though, you're getting some stiff competition from this bucket of hammers here."
The family was already befuddled by the IQ test. They look into the tilted bucket and worry this might be a new test. The kids are on their tiptoes so they can see inside. They return their vacuous, open mouthed gazes back to the speaker.
"But, we love you and so we're going to give you many free services that can help you through life - food stamps, welfare checks, emergency room services, and so on. If you're clever, you can trade your food stamps for cigarettes, booze, and street drugs. Plus, here's a sheet of paper filled on both sides with contact information for cheap or free services available locally for people like you. See, there are food pantries, soup kitchens, HIV and AIDS assistance, housing and legal assistance, shelters and emergency housing, medical and dental assistance, county human services, counseling, disability services, employment assistance, financial assistance, and even a methadone clinic. You can take advantage of all those. All you have to do is call them on your snazzy cell phones, or just drop by and ask for help.
"There's only one requirement for you to get all those free services. Just sign this piece of paper right here, then go see that nice nurse, the one over there in the white uniform. See, she's beckoning to you. You do want everything free, don't you? After all, over your lifetimes, that will amount to well over a million dollars for each of you. And if you don't sign, we're going to have to take away all the free stuff you're already getting. You'll be out on the street and the cops won't cut you any slack. One wrong move and you'll be on the chain gang for life. Besides, don't you just love the idea of being a millionaire? If you can't write, just put your X on that line there and I'll notarize it for you. Oh, and did I mention that by signing in the next minute, you also get a thousand dollar signing bonus? Is that something you'd like?"
A wad of cash is held up before their eyes. The whole family is smiling and their heads are nodding vigorously. Jamiel and Tamika, who aren't married, scramble for the pens and sign.
"Good, the medical procedure will fix you up so you qualify permanently for Millionaire Status and you'll be eligible for all that free stuff. That's right. Thanks for your signatures.
"Okay, now here's one to sign for your Davon, Lashawna, and Erastus. They are your kids, right? The nurse will give you your certificates that prove you are millionaires. Just show that to the service providers and you get the services free. Bring it back to me and I'll give you the cash. Congratulations, and welcome to the Millionaires Club."
After they sign, they follow the nurse. The medical procedure painlessly, permanently, and irreversibly sterilizes them.
The price we end up paying is well worth the benefit because the payments will end with their generation, and afterward there will be no more like them. I doubt that there is much more than a handful of stupid people who would not agree to such a generous offer.
And get this, we're paying more for that in combined costs of policing, loss of life resulting from murders, loss of property resulting from theft, jail, prison, wasted education, repair and maintenance of facilities, and the corruption of politicians, all of which are caused by allowing the stupid to procreate and proliferate. As just one tiny example, look at the cost of dealing with the human problems that resulted from Katrina's flooding of New Orleans. The cost is already $40 billion, and that's aside from all the private donations to the Red Cross and other charities.
In my opinion, the cutoff point should be an IQ of 90. Nobody less intelligent than that should be allowed to procreate and nobody with an IQ lower than 100 should be allowed to immigrate. If America were to implement that policy starting today, by the year 2100, the average IQ of America would not be 98, as it is today, but rather it would be more like 115. That alone would give America a significant brain power advantage over all the other nations in the world, and the result would be shown in our nation's productivity.
If you doubt this for even one moment, go read what statistic-and-race genius La Griffe du Lion has to say in his entertaining and informative "Smart Fraction Theory" analyses of the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations. La Griffe uses solid mathematics and statistical methods to prove conclusively that Gross National Product is a strongly correlated function of IQ. The articles are here and here. In this article he proves that open borders are reducing the IQ of our nation, and that the impact is both negative and dramatic. Journalist Steve Sailer concurs in this article that shows the damage low-IQ immigration does to our wage base, and shows many other negative effects here.
Even a bowl of Malto-Meal or a bucket of hammers should be smart enough to know that dumbing down the gene pool with a continuous stream of low-IQ immigrants and prolific births of low-IQ children is not a good thing for our wallets or our civilization. Why then aren't our politicians doing anything effective to stem the rising tide of the stupid in America? Could it be that they know the stupid are easy to hoodwink, and that their votes can easily be bought? Could it be that they have evil ulterior motives like the stupefaction and enslavement of the American populace? Or could it be that they themselves are just stupid and short-sighted?
Their motive is irrelevant, for it is insane. It is time for people who are not stupid and short-sighted to stand up and make their voices heard on this subject. It is time to stop using politically correctness as an excuse for avoiding the issue. It is time to start continuing the work of Adam and Eve. It is time to start being civilizationally correct: demand that our government begin sincere efforts to establish a benign eugenics program that will elevate the quality of our gene pool.
Bob Hurt

Forrest Gump may be a character but the fact remains
that low IQ people can make good choices and brilliant
beings can make bad choices, like Eve and Lucifer.
Like the hippie characters in the movie.

A less endowed mortal can follow the will of God and
be a benefit to mankind and to the Father's Plan while
a genius, or a brilliant celestial can go against the
Plan of the Father, even with the best of intentions.

Like you, Bob, you are an obviously intelligent human
being, none the less your words are not Fatherlike
towards your lesser brethen and only hurt not help the
Father's Plan.

Do you love your smarter kids, more than your less
smart kids. Would you kill your kid, if his IQ were
less than 90?

And by the way, I do believe that a humane eugenics
program can and should be implemented by those in
power, the problem lies with misuse of a good idea.

Like Hitler, like Lucifer and Co.

Even Eve made a drastic mistake.

That's all I am saying.

Your blanket labels of a portion of the population is
not Jesusonian and does a disservice to the

I actually agree with you, Bob, in essence, I just
disagree with your choice of words and manners.


--- Bob Hurt wrote:

The stupid Forrest Gump claimed his mama always said "stupid is as stupid does." Let's not forget that Forrest Gump was a movie character, not a real-life character. Nevertheless, his mama was right. The only valid claim that a person is stupid is the fact that the person does stupid things.
It is not stupid rightly to identify stupid behavior. In fact, it is stupid or duplicity to recognize stupidity, and claim it is irrelevant.
Yes, in God's eyes, the smart and stupid alike, so long as they are human, are spiritually equal. And there is little doubt that many stupid people are nevertheless more highly spiritually achieved than are many smart people.
But let's be clear as to the meanings and relevance of the words we use . Smart is the opposite of stupid. Smart means intelligent - able to solve problems. Stupid means unintelligent - unable to solve problems. IQ is the measure of one's ability to solve problems. IQ is relative. Race enters the picture because it so happens that on average Indigo people are far less intelligent than are Caucasians and Northeastern Orientals (Japanese, Koreans, certain Chinese). We have no choice but to generalize about IQ and races because so many people of so many genetic and cultural endowments populate our world and affect its evolution.
You might recall reading the story of Adam and Eve. They were to be biological uplifters of the human races. They were originally slated to have 2 million direct-line descendants before mixing in with humans, then the plan was changed to 1/2 million. The result would be a biologically (genetically) superior array of humans.
It would be instructive to put yourself in Adam and Eve's shoes. How would you go about mixing in with humans? I'm guessing the wisest approach would be first to publicize the characteristics and achievements of the violet race, then to initiate a competition among other races to earn the right to be a prospective mate of one of the violets. Would you allow the stupid to enter the competititon? I doubt it. You'd allow only the average and bright with a balance of other good characteristics.
Why would God, through his agents in charge of our Constellation, set forth to uplift the races biologically? Might it not be to eliminate defective, degenerate, and inferior people from the gene pool?
Now that Adam and Eve have blown their mission here, who will rise up to take their place in the biological upliftment program? Will you do it, Cheryl? Frankly, until you are willing honestly to face the reality that Blacks are relatively stupid, as are Mexicans and certain groups of Caucasians, and that their low-IQ natures are neither needed nor wanted in future generations of humans, you will not be qualified to participate in the planning for such a program. Why? Because getting rid of the stupid is one of Adam and Eve's purposes for coming to this world.
It is only a coincidence that the vast majority Blacks and Mexicans have relatively low IQs, but it is a reality. It is true that, out of 45 million Blacks, a good 6 to 7 million have IQs higher than the average Caucasian IQ of 100. I do not think such people should be excluded from a biological upliftment program. But I do think all of those Blacks and Mexicans and Caucasians with IQs lower than 90 should be prohibited from procreating, as should all welfare recipients, criminals, crazy people, and children under 21. If such a law were implemented, our nation's genetic, family, and crime problems would diminish dramatically and within 3 generations.
That is only half of a good gene-pool enrichment program, for the other half would encourage smart people to meet and procreate a lot of children, rather than 1.7 per family as they are doing now. 3 per family is required to sustain a race or gene group. The stupid generally procreate at greater than 3 children per family.
Why is there no decent and benign eugenics program in America? For one reason: people like you, Cheryl, say it is stupid to call people stupid. It has become politically incorrect to tell the truth about IQ and genetics because that might offend someone. I think it is far more important to be loyal to truth than to be concerned over offending someone with the truth.

Back to the issue of New Orleans, it has never been a city of intellectuals, and the average IQ of Blacks there is lower than the national average. It is more like Haiti, and so is the lawlessness there-New Orleans has one of the highest murder rates in America, and its police force and government are corrupt. I consider that an embarrassment. It is almost like a third-world country.
Let's face one central reality. If the people of New Orleans had left when they were told to, none of them would have been killed by the hurricane, and the leftist Democrats of America would have one less reason to badmouth President Bush. If the governments over New Orleans had refused to allow subsidized housing to be built within 20 miles of the city, and if they had properly taxed visitors and the buyers and renters of dwellings, then the impoverished of New Orleans would be living 20 miles from the city, out of reach of the worst ravages of seawater floods and hurricanes. Had the goverments of the city and state forced a land-fill elevation of 30 feet above sea level, and the erection of a 20-foot seawall (as did the residents of Galveston after the 1900 hurricane - landfill was 14 feet, and the seawall 17 feet), the city would not have been flooded, and the taxes could easily have paid the cost. Which expense would be better - that one, or the astronomic expense of relocating people and rebuilding the city?
That none of these were done is a screaming testament to the stupidity of the residents and leaders of New Orleans. In the end, Forrest Gump's mama is right. Stupid is as stupid does, and much stupid has been done in New Orleans.
I think the whole northern gulf coast should be turned into a National Park, and no permanent dwellings should be allowed within 10 miles of the coastline. In the future, that will matter more than ever before. If and when the government shuts the border from Mexico, there will be a deluge of illegal aliens from the sea.
Bob Hurt

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

What to Do about the Stupid

This morning I listened to President Bush's UN speech. I agreed with it. He appealed to the basic goodness in people to reach out and help others while at the same time working assiduously to defeat terrorism. He mentioned many programs that are in play to accomplish this, such as the Monterrey concensus which seeks to eliminate protective tariffs and other trade barriers between nations, forgiving all debts to impoverished nations, encouraging the spread of freedom through developing republics (he called it democracy, but I knew what he meant), stomping out AIDS, improving the education of people worldwide, and so on.

One thing he neglected to mention, however, is the same omission that is plaguing America: the responsibility that must be commensurate with liberty.

Let us look briefly at the plague of liberty without responsibility.

The clearest example is found in the native black and Hispanic communities, particularly inner city areas, of America. The most profound example was revealed in Katrina-battered New Orleans.

Like the people of Haiti, the residents of America's Black and Hispanic communities typically have an IQ below 80, more than a full standard deviation lower than the 100 average IQ of Caucasians. They are born stupid. Their affliction is genetic.

When low-IQ teenage girsl are impregnated by low-IQ males, they produce low-IQ children. What is so terrible about this?

1. The parents are themselves children, and they make notoriously irresponsible and bad parents.

2. Because the parents are stupid, they are relatively unable to learn, to make wise choices, or to solve problems, and so they never stop being bad parents.

The children will perpetuate the stupidity because they are stupid, and there is no cure for stupidity.

4. Both stupid parents and their stupid children cannot compete for the better jobs or mates, so they have a high likelihood of resorting to crime and welfare abuse to get by.

Worst of all, it is both immoral and unethical intentionally and knowingly to inflict stupidity on another person, particularly a helpless child.
Let's say you're a high school student with a part time job and have an IQ of 115, just over the 110 level necessary to get you through college. Imagine yourself walking down the street, minding your own business, when up walks a street thug with a hypodermic needle loaded with a DNA compound that will render you stupid for the rest of your life. He injects you with the serum and that immediately lowers your IQ 35 points.

From then on, you start exhibiting behavior problems. You fail at most of the things you try. You quit high school. You involve yourself with the wrong people. You lose your job and can't find a decent-paying replacement job. You get angry and stay that way, blaming the world around you, particularly the smart rich people, for all your problems. You decide you want to have all the luxuries of life you see on TV and in the movies. People won't give them to you because you can't deserve or earn them, so you sign up for welfare, start swapping your food stamps for whiskey, cigarettes, and drugs. You start mugging people on the side for some extra dough. You begin to sell dope. You impregnate or get impregated by another stupid, criminal-minded indigent. You get caught for your crimes and imprisoned. You get out and have your baby (or the other parent does). You live in a matriarchal household that no man could tolerate. The baby has no father at home.

Obviously that little injection of bad DNA did a lot of damage, but do you imagine it is illegal?
It is if you do it with a hypodermic needle, but not if you are stupid. Then it is perfectly legal to do it with your penis or vagina: the serum is in the form of sperm or eggs.

We do not have political or social leaders who are forthright about the abominable, abhorrent, irresponsible liberty of stupid people to inflict innocent children with stupidity through such injections. The stupid are allowed to vote, so naturally politicians pander to them. The stupid are allowed to procreate without impediment or restriction, and, being stupid, they out-procreate the smart. By his lack of effective leadership and law enforcement, our President encourages the stupid to immigrate from Mexico and Central and South America to supply our farms and businesses with cheap labor.

It is not racial discrimination to point out that the most egregiously stupid and most troublesomely criminal people in America are identifiable by skin color - they are black or brown, and they are African or Ibero-American in genetic origin. There race is just a coincidence.

And the most profound example was revealed by Katrina. It effectively ripped the covers off the bed of the stupid people of New Orleans' welfare projects and inner city ghettos, and showed them to be a nest of parasites, indigents, welfare abusers, and criminals. More than 95% of them were black. More than a few took to the flooded streets to loot. More than a few jumped headlong into the crimes of robbing, mugging, murdering, sniping, and rampaging. Had the flood waters not impeded them, thousands more would have rioted and done their best to burn the city, just as happened in Watts back in the 60's. They are all angry because the nation did not promptly help them. They were all too stupid, hapless, feckless, clueless, and/or lazy to prepare for the inevitable destruction that has threatened New Orleans for decades.

Remember that New Orleans has been flooding regularly for centuries. It was flooded badly during hurricane Betsy, and damaged considerably by Camille. Destruction by hurricanes is nothing new. They knew it would happen. But they did nothing to prepare, being concerned only for their next welfare check, robbery, or drug deal, and barely scraping by on the low-paying jobs they could muster.

New Orleans is populated largely by stupid people. Even the cops are stupid, for they are required to be residents of the city in order to be members of the police. In general, only the stupid would live there, knowing the imminent danger that threatens them every year.
America's problem with its stupid residents is that they are accorded the same rights as everyone else, but our legal system has not mustered the courage to demand of them the same level of responsibility expected of the more intelligent people. In a sense, America's intelligensia has a responsibility to impose restrictions on the endemically stupid, just as it does on children. An intelligent child's main handicap is experience, and a properly educated child can quite often make much more sensible decisions than a stupid adult. In other words, experience does not help the stupid very much - since they are stupid, they will make mistakes, but fail to learn the right lessons, so they will keep making the same mistakes.

Maybe we need a dose of Earl Pitts in the white house. Somebody like Earl would snap a little common sense into the place. America simply cannot keep importing and breeding stupid people. The stupid cannot be educated sufficiently to enable them to become wise and worthy citizens. Stupid people cannot and will not evolve a superior civilization. As proven in the ex-European colonies of Africa, a stupid populace will destroy any superior civilization bestowed upon them. The upshot of this is that our government must curtail the immigration of the stupid and curtail the procreation prerogatives of the stupid.
  • The technology exists to sterilize fecund children till they are 21, the minimum age at which one can be expected to be a decent parent. Perhaps the age should be 25. According to insurance actuaries, anyone under that age is a high risk against good judgment and emotional stability.
  • The technology exists to sterilize all welfare recipients as a condition to their receiving a welfare check or food stamps - if they can't adequately care for themselves, then they cannot be expected to care for any children they procreate.
  • The technology exists permanently to sterilize the stupid, felons, the insane, and the habitual substance abuser. None of them should be allowed to procreate, for they will simple produce more of their kind.
The bottom line is that nobody with an IQ below 90 should be allowed to procreate a child or immigrate to America. We have the technology to implement a wise and benign eugenics program. We are derelicts for not using it.

America should not be a nation of dumbasses. We-the-people are dumbasses for allowing our legislature and president to continue ignoring their responsibility to protect us from an invasion of the stupid, either through procreation or immigration.

As illustrated in New Orleans, we are now reaping the harvest of our own widespread irresponsibility and laziness. Maybe we need a few more hurricanes to rip the bed covers off of our inner city ghettos so Americans can see how terrible is the genetic rot that infests our nation. People are impoverished because they are stupid. Our prisons, jails, and welfare roles are packed with stupid people. They are terrible burden on our society. The obvious conclusion we must eventually agree upon is that if they did not exist, they would not be a burden.

The stupid are free to procreate other stupid people. They do not excerise their responsibility to restrain themselves from breeding more stupid people. The financial and emotional burden on us will increase, and our liberties will continue to disappear to the extent that we allow the stupid to proliferate. Our president is right to show a tender heart and helping hand to those in need. He is wrong to ignore his responsibility to push for wise and benign eugenics programs that elevate the IQ of our gene pool.

I encourage the President, our legislators, and all Americans to make eugenics the number one thrust of the remainder of this millennium. Only three generations of rigorous and benign eugenics will be necessary to rid our nation of the bulk of its stupid people, without doing actual harm to anyone.

  • There needs to be a law prohibiting the injection of any unborn child with a serum that makes him stupid.
  • Our Congress and our president should require all recipients of American foreign aid to implement eugenics programs in their own nations so as gradually to eliminate the most defective and degenerate members of their gene pools, and to elevate the average IQ of their nations.
Then all the education the president wants to encourage in our states and foreign nations will do some good and bear some fruit. To do otherwise is to cast pearls before swine, and to sow seeds among the rocks.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny

I'm posting this on my blog because I want to remember it
and share it with others. The author, Howard Freeman,
passed on, and I'm sorry such a diligent researcher
and able writer had to go. I know you'll enjoy this.

Bob Hurt

The UCC Connection:

Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny

September 22, 1991


This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased
transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman.
It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of
Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and understandable
explanation of the confusing state of the government and the
courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty
learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a
deeper understanding of this information without having to listen
to three or four hours of recorded material.

The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial
system can be overwhelming and often frightening and, as most
fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of
us who have chosen a path out of bondage and into liberty are
faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some
governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the
courts. We have been taught that we must "get a good lawyer,"
but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible.
If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that
the lawyers quickly take our money and then tell us, as the ship
is sinking, "I can't help you with that -- I'm an officer of
the court."

Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a "snowball's
chance" is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME and to come to an
understanding of the true nature of the Law. The lawyers have
established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of
human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too
difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a
separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common
usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it
is not that difficult to grasp. Are lawyers really as smart as
they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through
a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer
has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about
law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer and, as such, he
has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within our
reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote
in language simple enough that the people could understand,
specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted.

So, again we find, as in many other areas of life, that "THE
BUCK STOPS HERE!" It is we who must take the responsibility for
finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must
claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those
who would take them from us. It is we who must protect
ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable
intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically off the
labor, skill and talents of others.

To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful
explanation of our plight, and a peaceful method of dealing with
it. Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in
the book of his understanding, which he is always refining,
expanding and improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a
point of departure from which to begin our own journey into
understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others
greater knowledge and hope, and to God, the gift of lives lived
in peace, freedom and praise.

UCC Connection

"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves,
be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."


When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If I
had tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted.

I was involved with a Patriot group and I studied supreme
Court cases. I concluded that the Supreme Court had declared
that I was not a person required to file an income tax -- that
the tax was an excise tax on privileges granted by government.
So, I quit filing and paying income taxes, and it was not long
before they came down on me with a heavy hand. They issued a
notice of deficiency, which had such a fantastic sum on it that
the biggest temptation was to go in with their letter and say,
"Where in the world did you ever get that figure?" They claimed
I owed them some $60,000. But, even if I had been paying taxes,
I never had that much money, so how could I have owed them that

Never Argue the Amount of Deficiency

Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of
information: NEVER ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're not
required to file, what do you care whether they say you owe sixty
dollars or 60,000 dollars? If you are not required to file, the
amount doesn't matter. Don't argue the amount -- that is a
fact issue. In most instances, when you get a Notice of
Deficiency, it is usually for some fantastic amount. The IRS
wants you to run in and argue about the amount. The minute you
say, "I don't owe that much," you have agreed that you owe them
something, and you have given them jurisdiction. Just don't be
shocked at the amount on a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is
ten million dollars! If the law says that you are not required
to file or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter.

By arguing the amount, they will just say that you must go
to tax court and decide what the amount is to be. By the time
you get to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are
only there to decide how much you owe. They will not listen to
arguments of law.

So, I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't
required to file. He said, "You are required to file, Mr.
Freeman." But I had all these supreme Court cases, and I started
reading them to him. He said, "I don't know anything about law,
Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and
you're going to pay that amount or you're going to go to tax
court." I thought that someone there ought to know something
about law, so I asked to talk to his superior. I went to him and
got out my Supreme Court cases, and he wouldn't listen to them.
"I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman ...." Finally, I
got to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same
thing. He said that the only person above him was the District
Director. So, I went to see him. By the time I got to his
office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was out.
But, I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there.

I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal
Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl
sitting there at a desk, and she asked if she could help me. I
told her my problem. I said that I really thought the District
Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS and tell them
that it was Senator Simpson's office calling, and to ask if the
District Director was in. I said, "If you get him on the phone,
tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a
person whom you are sending over to speak to him -- if he is,
can he wait just five minutes. His secretary met me when I came
in and said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky -- the Director just

The Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies
and we sat and talked. So, he asked me what I wanted to talk to
him about. (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the
government and I'm here to do you a favor," watch out! But, we
can turn that around and approach them the same way.) So, I
said, "I thought you ought to know that there are agents working
for you who are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't
agree with. Do you read all the mail that goes out of this
office over your signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't
read everything -- it goes out of here by the bagful." That
was what I thought. I said, "There are some of your agents
writing letters which contradict the decisions of the supreme
Court of the United States. And they're not doing it over their
name; they're doing it over your name."

He was very interested to hear about it, and asked if I had
any examples. I just happened to have some with me, so I got
them out and presented them to him. He thought it was very
interesting and asked if I could leave this information with him,
which I did. He said he would look it over and contact me in
three days. Three days later, he called me up and said, "I'm
sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will be glad to know that your Notice
of Deficiency has been withdrawn. We've determined that you're
not a person required to file. Your file is closed and you will
hear no more from us." I haven't heard another word from them
since. That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1969.

The Supreme Court on Trial

I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got
charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me
to help him. I told him that they have to prove that he
willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me
on the witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain
time and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the
audience. He should then ask me what I spoke of that day. When
I got on the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases
I had used with the District Director. I thought I would be
lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off,
but I was reading whole paragraphs -- and the judge didn't stop
me. I read one and then another, and so on. And finally, when I
had read just about as much as I thought I should, the judge
called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we had it
made. There was just no way that they could rule against him
after all that testimony. So we relaxed.

The prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest
his defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not
required to file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this
position. The prosecution then presented its closing statements
and we were just sure that he had won. But, at the very end, the
judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts
of this case, and I will give you the law. The law required this
man to file an Income Tax form. You decide whether or not he
filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted him. Later, some
members of the jury said, "What could we do? The man had
admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict

As soon as the trial was over, I went around to the judge's
office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said,
"Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions
of the United States supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I
read that case law. Now, how do you, a District Court Judge,
have the authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?"
He says, "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are
standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don't
care how old they are. You have no right to overturn a standing
decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court."

Public Law vs Public Policy

He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938
and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to
1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened
in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing
with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with
Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a
Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court
cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him what happened
in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much -- he
wasn't going to tell me any more.

1938 and the Erie Railroad

Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the
year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court.
It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with
Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie
railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out
of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district
court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable
Instruments) Law that this man was not under any contract with
the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the
company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have
had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred
years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case and the
decision of the supreme Court was that in any case of this type,
the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the State
where the incident occurred -- in this case, Pennsylvania.
But, in the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all
federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments
Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at
the federal level. So, here we find the blending of Law with

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces
together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were
Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still
some pieces of the puzzle missing.

A Friend of the Court

Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now, you won't
make friends with a judge if you go into court like a "wolf in
black sheep country." You must approach him as though you are
the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf,
you make demands and tell the judge what the law is -- how he
had better uphold the law or else. Remember the verse: I send
you out as sheep in wolf country; be as wise as a serpent and as
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and
harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and
ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and
boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a
victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case,
and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get
some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're an
interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by,
and if I'm not sitting on a case, we will visit."

America is Bankrupt

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my
problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy
rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher
judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into
a secret meeting and this is what we were told:

America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned completely by
its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the
Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State

Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal
it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty
Jurisdiction -- call it anything you want, but do not call
it Admiralty.

Admiralty Courts

The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is
that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty
Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In
Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there
is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is
Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that
you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the
international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a
party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into

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

So, you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew
that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I
deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking
jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence,
so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they
would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They
would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole
nation, and that we are their slaves.

No Expedient

But, the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to
admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every
nation of the world. The reason they don't want to tell everyone
that they own everything is that there are still too many
privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other
military forces. So, until they can gradually consolidate all
armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD
COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts
are operating under. When we understand these things, we realize
that there are certain secrets they don't want to admit, and we
can use this to our benefit.


The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas
of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

Common Law:

Common Law is based on God's Law. Any time someone is
charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party.
You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please,
as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or
property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool
of yourself, provided you do not infringe on the life,
liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does
not allow for any government action which prevents a man
from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross
over State lines in most States, you will see a sign which
cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you
did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled
performance. But, Common law cannot compel performance.
Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is

Equity Law:

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you
to perform the exact letter of any contract that you are
under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be
a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform
under the obligation of the contract. Now, this can only be
a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction,
you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to
perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to
perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with
contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are your
seat belt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you
cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the
letter of a contract.

Admiralty/Maritime Law:

This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which
also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter
of the contract, but this only applies to International
Contracts. Now, we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt
laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax
codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for
failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that
is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid
international contract in force.

However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating
under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the
international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes.
That is what the supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case
-- that the decisions will be based on commercial law or
business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated
with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty
Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

Courts of Contract

You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be
charged with failure to wear seat belts and be fined for it.
Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is.
But, you must understand that the Constitution, in Article 1,
Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as
we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone
else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two
jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced -- Equity and
Admiralty. But, we find them being enforced in Statutory
Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but
we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own
courts. We will cover this more later.

Contracts Must Be Voluntary

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties, or it
is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common
Law contract. There is another characteristic -- it must be
based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For
one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your
house, etc." That was a valid contract -- the dollar was a
genuine silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that
said, "For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I
will paint your house ...." And suppose, for example, I painted
your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court
and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve
Note is a "colorable"1 dollar, as it has no substance, and in a
Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

Colorable Money -- Colorable Courts

The word "colorable" means something that appears to be
genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it
spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful
money (silver or gold) it is "colorable." If a Federal Reserve
Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a
"colorable" contract. And "colorable" contracts must be enforced
under a "colorable" jurisdiction. So, by creating Federal
Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to
cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is
called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty
jurisdiction. It is "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the
judges are enforcing because we are using "colorable money."
Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.
Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

Uniform Commercial Code

The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the
"colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or
the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper
which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once
Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a
system of law which was completely "colorable" from start to
finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform
Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every State. This is
"colorable" law, and it is used in all the courts.

I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the
country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says
"Jump!" then the slave had better jump, because the master has
the right to cut his head off. As slaves, we have no rights.
But, the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created
a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This
"colorable" jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the
next key to understanding what has happened.

Contract or Agreement

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial
Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1)
knowingly (2) voluntarily and (3) intentionally.

Under the UCC, this is not so. First of all, contracts are
unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding,
and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement," it is
presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations
associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered
by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter,
each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method
has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don't
even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people
think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the
birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.

Compelled Benefit

I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given
the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead
of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for
substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that
dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar --
substance for substance. But, if I use a Federal Reserve Note to
buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in
the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in
exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us
this benefit:

Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be
spent all over the continental united States; it will be
legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the
limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying
your debts.

So, now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can
just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When we
use this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we cannot use
a Common Law court. We can only use a "colorable" court. We are
completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code
-- we are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are
discharging debt rather than paying debt.

Remedy and Recourse

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics:
Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that
law. The Recourse is if you have been damaged under the law, you
can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and
even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse,
but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law
library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will
show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform
Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read
it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be
confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy
and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the
first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.


The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves
whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the
loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or
estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7)

It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we
are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into
court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge
will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and
I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then, we don't understand
how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution?
The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction,
and defend under another. For example, if the French government
came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a
certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I
demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is:
make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which
you are charged -- not under some other jurisdiction. So, in a
UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the
UCC 1-207.

UCC 1-207 goes on to say:

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to
make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and
bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9)

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

The Sufficiency of the Reservation -- Any expression
indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve
Notes -- in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature
write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.2 This reserves your rights.
You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved
your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means.
For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket
was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without
prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He had not
tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use
it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant.
When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he
told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone ....
The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he
lost the case. You must know what it means.

Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

When you use "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection
with your signature, you are saying:

I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And,
furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed
commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead
of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful
money, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes -- you have to
accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to
discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have
to pay your debts. How nice they are! But, if you did not
reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept
the benefit, and therefore obligated to obey every statute,
ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of
government -- federal, State and local.

If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to
the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to
explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC
1-103 -- the argument and recourse.

If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library
and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important
to get the Anderson3 edition. Some of the law libraries will
only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult
to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into
ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.


The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at
1-103.6, which says,

The Code is complementary to the Common Law, which remains
in force, except where displaced by the Code. A statute
should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless
there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common

This is the argument we use in court.

The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize
the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the
United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its
creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code
was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the
statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the
court produce the injured person who has filed a verified
complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to
buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court who was injured as a
result of your failure to "buckle up."

However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves
ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last
sentence of 1-103.6, which states:

The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

Tell the judge:

Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for
violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code. I
have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the
Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must
construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be
in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with a
damaged party.

If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act
confused and ask this question:

Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court made
a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the
Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are
operating under, are not valid law before this court?

Now, the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one
part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers "yes," then
you say:

I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal

Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The
judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.

Practical Application -- Traffic Court

Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let
us look at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume
you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic

1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at
least three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and
cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that you are
very busy and ask if he could please set your court
appearance for about three weeks away.

(At this point, we need to remember the government's trick: "I'm
from the government. I'm here to help you." Now, we want to use
this approach with them.)

2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and
to say:

"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I
want to save the government some money (this will get his
attention). I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As
you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the
traffic court doesn't have a court reporter. It would be a
waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this court and
then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of
record. I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save
the government some money, maybe you could schedule me to
appear in a court of record."

You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually
agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a
court of record. Now, your first appearance is in a court of
record and not in a traffic court, where there is no record.

When you get into court, there will be a court reporter
there who records every word the judge speaks, so the judge is
much more careful in a court of record. You will be in a much
better situation there than in a traffic court. If there is no
record, the judge can say whatever he wants -- he can call you
all sorts of names and tell you that you have no rights, and so
on -- and deny it all later.

3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges:
driving through a yellow light, or whatever, and this is a
violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, "Do you understand
the charge against you?"4

4. "Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask
before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it
could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand
for a moment and ask him a few short questions."

Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in
and have him take the stand."

5. "Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (handing him the
traffic citation)

Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the
other portion of it."

"Where did you get my address that you wrote on that

Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license."

(Handing the officer your driver's license) "Is this the
document you copied my name and address from?"

Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."

"While you've got that in your hand, would you read the
signature that's on that license?" (The officer reads the
signature) "While you're there, would you read into the
record what it says under the signature?"

Officer: "It says, 'Without Prejudice UCC 1-207'."

Judge: "Let me see that license! (He looks at it and turns
to the officer.) "You didn't notice this printing under the
signature on this license, when you copied his name and
address onto the ticket?"

Officer: "Oh, no. I was just getting the address -- I
didn't look down there."

Judge: "You're not very observant as an officer.
Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept your testimony in
regards to the facts of this case. This case is dismissed."

6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out -- he
could say that the officer was not observant enough to be a
reliable witness. He did not want to admit the real nature
of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record
that you had written "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" on your
license, the judge knew he would have to admit that:

a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;

b. you had one it sufficiently by writing "Without
Prejudice UCC 1-207" on your driver's license;

c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with
the Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute
exists, but there is no injured party; and

d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness,
the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.

7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the
case, then you will want to ask him the following question:

Your Honor, let me understand this correctly. Has this
court made a legal determination that it has authority under
the jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two
sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been
called to its attention?

If he says "yes," tell him that you put the court on notice that
you will appeal that legal determination, and that if you are
damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common law action
-- under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work just as
well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use the
UCC with the IRS before we get to court.

Using the Code with the IRS

If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called
a "presentment" in the Uniform Commercial Code. A "presentment"
in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First, we must
understand just how this works in the Common Law.

Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book -- someone I
have never met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice
letterhead which says, "For services rendered: $10,000.00." I
send this by Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the
phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so
I get a receipt that he received it. When he opens it, he finds
an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have
any questions concerning this bill or the services rendered, you
have thirty days to make your questions or objections known."

Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the
bill away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of
thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment against
him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to
respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about
it. Now, he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect
the $10,000.

That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle.
The minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you
return it immediately with a letter that says:

The presentment above is dishonored. [Your name] has
reserved all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial
Code at UCC 1-207.

This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more
that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona
who received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such
as this, dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back that
they could not make a determination at that office, but were
turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was
attached from the Collections Department which said they were
sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the
Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn. So, you can see that,
if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

Impending Bankruptcy

On my way here, I had a chance to visit with the Governor of
Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he runs for office this
November, that there won't be a State of Wyoming at the end of
four years. He believes that the International Bankers might
foreclose on the nation and officially admit that they own the
whole world. They could round up everybody in the State Capitol
building, put them in an internment camp and hold them
indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they may not. They
will do whatever they want. As I explained earlier, it has not
been expedient to foreclose on the nation until they could get
everything ready. This is where the Federal Emergency Management
Agency comes in. It has been put in place without anyone really
noticing it.


F E M A, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been
designed for when America is officially declared bankrupt, which
would be a national emergency. In a national emergency, all
Constitutional Rights and all law that previously existed, would
be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps where
they would put anyone who might cause trouble for the orderly
plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation.

Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment
camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now,
and they are just waiting to declare a national emergency. Then,
even State governments could be dissolved. Anybody who might
oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of laws
could be written and a new government set up. The Governor knows
all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't want to be in
office when all this happens.

I visited with him and told him that there are certain
actions we should take right now. I think we should consider the
fact that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is
an accommodation party5 to the national debt. To understand
this, we must realize that there are two separate entities known
as the United States.

The Rothschild Influence

When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy
because it was founded on the Common Law. The Common Law is
based on substance, and this substance is mentioned in the
Constitution as gold or silver. America is a Constitutional
Republic -- that is, a union of the States under the
Constitution. When Congress was working for the Republic, the
only thing it could borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild
banks did not loan gold or silver. Naturally, they did not like
this new government.

The Rothschilds had a deal with the King of England. He
would borrow paper and agree to repay in gold. But, these united
States, with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and it
was much to the Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies back
under the King. So, the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812 to
bring America back under England. Of course, that didn't work,
so they had to find another way.

The Flaw in the Constitution:
Two Nations in One

It was around the time of the American Civil War that they
discovered a flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 17.

Remember that there are two nations called "United States."
What is a nation? See if you would agree to this definition:

Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed
territory containing a body of people.

Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the Republic
-- the three-branch government. They are the legislative, the
executive, and the judicial branches, with a constitution. There
is a prescribed territory containing a body of people. This is a
Constitutional Republic.

But, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 gave Congress, which is
the legislative branch of the three-branch government, exclusive
rule over a given territory known as the District of Columbia,
containing a body of people. Here we have a nation within a
nation. This is a Legislative Democracy within a Constitutional

When Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it
had the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold or silver. Anyone who had a piece of gold
or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into coin.
This was the medium of exchange for the Republic.

But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington, D.C.),
Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has
exclusive rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators
can make the law by a majority vote -- that makes it a
democracy; they have the authority to have administrative agents
to enforce their own law; and they have courts in the
legislative branch of government, to try their own law. Here, we
have the legislature making the law, enforcing the law and trying
the law, all within the one branch of government. This is a one-
branch government within a three-branch government.

Under the three-branch government, the Congress passes law
which has to be in harmony with the Constitution, the executive
enforces the law passed by the Congress, and the judiciary tries
the law, pursuant to the Constitution.

the federal United States, and the other is the continental
united States.

Are You a United States Citizen?

If you say that you are a United States citizen, which
United States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the
District of Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining
population in the fifty States is the national citizenry of the
nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign States, protected
by the constitutions of those States from any direct rule of
Congress over us. In the democracy, anyone who lives in those
states known as Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, or any of
the other federally held territories is a citizen of the United
States (D.C.).

We must be careful with our choice of words -- we are not
citizens of the United States. We are not subject to Congress.
Congress has exclusive rule over a given territory, and we are
not part of that territory.

When did Congress get the authority to write the Internal
Revenue Code? It is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of
the Constitution. To pass that law, they only needed a majority
vote. There is no other way that they could pass laws directly
affecting individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, was
passed as law for another nation (remember our definition of
"nation"), but Title 26 is not consistent with the Bill of
Rights. If you try to fight the IRS, you have no rights -- the
Code does not give you any of your constitutional rights. It
simply says, "You failed to file an income tax form. You failed
to perform in some specific manner."

Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do whatever
you want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty,
or property of anyone else. If you do not want to perform, you
don't have to. The only way you can be compelled to perform
under the Constitution in the continental United States, is if
you have entered a contract. But, if you are not under a
contract, you cannot be compelled to perform. How can you be
compelled to file an income tax form, or any form?

When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes
must be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
but when Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it
passes becomes the law of the land. (Remember, Congress has
exclusive legislative control over federal territory.)

If you are charged with willful failure to file an income
tax 1040 form, that is a law for a different nation. You are a
nonresident alien to that nation. It is a foreign corporation to
you. It is not the Republic of the continental united States
coming after you; it is a foreign nation -- the legislative
democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.

If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a
presentment from the federal United States, so then you can use
the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you are
among the national citizenry of the continental united States,
and you are a nonresident alien to the federal United States.
You never lived in a federal territory and never had an income
from the federal United States.

Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes
under the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes,
because you have reserved your rights under the Common Law
through the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.

Original Intent of the Founders

The Founding Fathers would never have created a government
that was going to boss them around! There were 13 sovereign
States. They were nations, and they joined together for
protection from foreign enemies. They provided a means by which
the union of the sovereign States could fend off foreign enemies.
But, they never gave the Congress of the federal United States
direct rule over any Citizen of any State. They were not going
to be ordered around by that government they set up.

Federal Regions

The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what
Congress creates. Congress did not create the States, but
Congress did create federal regions. So, Congress can rule the
federal regions, but Congress cannot rule the States. How have
we been tricked into federal regions?

The ZIP Code Trick

Remember how the government always come to us and says, "I'm
from the government and I'm here to help you." The government
went out into the various States and said, "We don't want you to
go to all that trouble of writing three or four letters to
abbreviate the name of the State -- such as 'Ariz.' for
Arizona. Just write 'AZ' instead of 'Ariz.' Or, you can just
write 'WY' for Wyoming, instead of 'Wyo.'" So, all of the States
of the union have got a new two-letter abbreviation. Even a
State such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is "RI"
instead of "R.I." They have just left off the periods. When you
use a two-letter State abbreviation, you are compelled to use a
ZIP code, because there are so many States, for example, which
start with M. ME is Maine. MI is Michigan. How many people dot
every "i" or make an "i" that looks like an "e"? With MA, MO,
MN, MS, etc., and some sloppy writing, you could not tell one
from another. So, we have to use the ZIP code in order to tell
them apart. But, if you wrote "Mich." or "Minn." or "Miss.",
there would be no real problem telling which State it was.

There is no harm in using the ZIP code, if you lawfully
identify your State. I found out that no State legislature has
met to lawfully change the abbreviation of the State from the old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the lawful
abbreviation for your State, but use the shorter new
abbreviation, you have to use the ZIP code.

Look on page 11 of the ZIP Code Directory and it will tell
you that the first digit of your ZIP code is the federal region
in which you reside. If you use 'AZ' for Arizona, you cannot use
the State Constitution to protect you, because you did not
identify your State. You used the ZIP code, which identifies
which federal region you live in. And Congress may rule federal
regions directly, but it cannot rule the Citizens of any State.

Accommodation Party

Let's look at how the States have become the accommodation
party to the national debt. There are many people I have talked
to, including the Governor, who are very concerned about this,
and who know that it could happen very soon.

If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a
national emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency will
take over, and anyone who opposes the new government of the
creditors can be sent to a detention camp in Alaska. We will
have no rights whatsoever. They have already set up prison camps
with work camps nearby so the people can be used for slave labor.
It could be the governors, legislators, and other leaders who
would be hauled away to Alaska, while the people now
disenfranchised from power would likely be chosen to run the new
government. This could all happen very soon, as the national
debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the interest on the
debt is virtually unpayable.

As I explained, the national debt -- more than three
trillion dollars -- is not owed by the continental united
States. It is the federal United States that had authority to
borrow bank credit. When Congress worked for the continental
united States, it could only borrow gold or silver, so the
national debt was borrowed in the name of the federal United
States. The federal United States has been bankrupt since 1938,
but the federal United States had to trap the States into
assuming the debt obligation of the federal debt.

In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term
"accommodation party."6 How did the States become the
"accommodation party" to the federal debt? The federal
government, through our money system, made the States deal in
Federal Reserve Notes, which means that everything the States do
is "colorable." Under the "colorable" jurisdiction of the
Uniform Commercial Code, all of the States are the accommodation
party to the federal debt.

Now, the concern is to find how we can get out of this
situation. I told the Governor that, in the Common Law and the
Law of Merchants -- that's the International Law Merchant --
there is a term called no-interest contract. A no-interest
contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest

No-Interest Contract

If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me, that
would be a no-interest contract. I would just want the house to
burn down. I would pay a small premium, perhaps a few hundred
dollars, and insure it for 80,000 dollars against fire. Then, I
would be waiting for it to burn so I could trade my small premium
for $80,000. Under the Common Law and under international law of
the Law Merchant, that is called a no-interest contract, and it
is void and unenforceable in any court.

Unconscionable Contracts

In the Uniform Commercial Code, no-interest contracts are
called unconscionable contracts. The section on unconscionable
contracts covers more than forty pages in the Anderson Code. The
federal United States has involved the States as the
accommodation party to the federal debt, and I believe we could
prove this to be an unconscionable contract. We should get some
litigation into the courts before the government declares a
national emergency, claiming that this State has no lawful
responsibility for the national debt (of the federal United
States), because it became an accommodation party to this debt
through an unconscionable contract. If we have this litigation
before the courts under International Law when the nation is
declared bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this matter
first, and it would delay them. They would want the new
government to appear to be legitimate, so they could not just
move right in and take over the State, because it would be in an
International Court. This is very important at this time.

Questions and Review

Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main
lecture. Some are re-statements of material presented earlier,
but they contain very valuable information which is worth

Courtroom Techniques

Question: How did you "box in" the Judge?

This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't
know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little dumb.

If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember
that in a criminal action, you have to understand the law, or it
is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't
understand the law, they can't try you.

In any traffic case or tax case, you are called into court
and the judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the

Defendant: No, Your Honor. I do not.

Judge: Well, what's so difficult about that charge?
Either you drove the wrong way on a one-way street or
you didn't. You can only go one way on that street,
and if you go the other way, it's a fifty dollar fine.
What's so difficult about this that you don't

D: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but
rather the nature of the law that I don't understand.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the
right to request the court to explain the nature of any
action against me, and upon my request, the court has
the duty to answer. I have a question about the nature
of this action.

J: Well, what is that -- what do you want to know?

Always ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes
that they are answering. You ask:

D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action?

J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action, there
could be no fine, so it has to be criminal.)

D: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the
record will show that this action against [your name]
is a criminal action, is that right?

J: Yes.

D: I would like to ask another question about this
criminal action. There are two criminal jurisdictions
mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common
Law, and the other deals with International Maritime
Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is
civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it
seems it would have to be under either the Common Law,
or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your Honor, is
that there is no corpus delecti here that gives this
court a jurisdiction over my person and property under
the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me
that this court is moving under the Common Law.

J: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the
Common Law.

D: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the
charge against me even more difficult to understand.
The only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only
if there were an International Maritime Contract
involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached,
and the court was operating in an Admiralty

I don't believe I have ever been under any
International Maritime contract, so I would deny that
one exists. I would have to demand that such a
contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so
that I may contest it. But surely, this court is not
operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.

You just put the words in the judge's mouth.

J: No. I can assure you, we're not operating under an
Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean
somewhere -- we're right here in the middle of the
State of [any State]. No, this is not an Admiralty

D: Thank you, Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than
ever. If this charge is not under the Common Law, or
under Admiralty -- and those are the only two
criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution
-- what kind of jurisdiction could this court be
operating under?

J: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.

D: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that.
But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I
have to defend under that, I would need to have the
Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction.
Can you tell me where I might find those rules?

There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will
get very angry at this point and say:

J: If you want answers to questions like that, you get
yourself a licensed attorney. I'm not allowed to
practice law from the bench.

D: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you
of practicing law from the bench if you just answer a
few questions to explain to me the nature of this
action, so that I may defend myself.

J: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more
questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any
more questions in regards to this, I am going to find
you in contempt of court! Now, if you can't afford a
licensed attorney, the court will provide you with one.
But, if you want those questions answered, you must get
yourself a licensed attorney.

D: Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got
this straight.

Has this court made a legal determination that it has
authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the
accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of
which are known only to this court and licensed
attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend my
own person?

He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone the
case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as
wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you must not go
into court with a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black
sheep" country. Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out as sheep
in wolf country. Be as wise as a serpent, and as harmless as a
dove." Sheep do not attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent
little lamb who just can't understand the charge, and remember
-- they can't try you criminally if you don't understand the
charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on

The Social Security Problem

If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting
out in my first job, I would not want Social Security. With my
signature on the application I would write, "Without Prejudice
UCC 1-207," and I would reserve my Common Law rights. But, why
wouldn't I want Social Security today?

I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I
paid into it dollars that had good purchasing power. Now, I'm
getting a promised return in Federal Reserve Notes which have
considerably less value. For example, in 1940, you could buy a
deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today's Federal Reserve
Notes, that won't buy the rear fenders and trunk on a new
Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I would not want to put
Federal Reserve Notes into Social Security now, and get back
something later like the German mark after World War I -- when
it took a billion to buy a loaf of bread. They will give you
every Federal Reserve Note back that they promised you, but it
might not buy anything.


Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right, in
any agreement, to demand a guarantee of performance. So, don't
go to them and say, "I want to rescind my Social Security
number," or "I refuse to take it." Just take it easy and say, "I
would be happy to get a Social Security number and enter into
this contract, but I have a little problem. How can I have
assurance before I enter into this contract that the purchasing
power of the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at the end of the
contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the
beginning? They can't guarantee that, and you have a right under
the UCC to assurance of performance under the contract.

So, tell them, "Well, I cannot enter this contract unless
the government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the
contract with the same value Federal Reserve Notes that I'm
paying in. Both may be called Federal Reserve Notes, but you
know that these Federal Reserve Notes don't hold their value. I
want assurance on this contract that the Federal Reserve Notes
that I get in my retirement will buy as much as the ones that I'm
giving to you now in my working years." They can't make that
guarantee. If they won't give you that guarantee, just say, "I'd
be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee performance
under the contract, I'm afraid I cannot enter the contract.

Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the
sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which grant the right to
have assurance that the contract you have entered will be
fulfilled properly -- that the return will equal the
investment, and you can reject the contract using the Code.
Using their own system of law, you can show that they cannot make
you get into a contract of that nature. Just approach them
innocently like a lamb.

It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings
with the government and the courts -- never raise your voice or
show anger. In the courtroom, always be polite and build the
judge up -- call him "Your Honor." Give him all the "honor" he
wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather be
cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to
say the things which you need to have in the record.

The Court Reporter

In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He
gets his job at the judge's pleasure, so he doesn't want to
displease the judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an
accurate transcript of every word that is spoken in the
courtroom. But, if the judge makes a slip of the tongue, he
turns to his court reporter and says, "I think you had better
leave that out of the transcript; just say I got a little too
far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything in." So,
this will be missing from the transcript.

In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us
and the judge got very angry and said, "This court has a licensed
court reporter right here, and the record of this court is this
court reporter's record. No other court reporter's record means
anything to this court."

We responded with, "Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly
glad to use your regular court reporter. But, you know, Your
Honor, sometimes things move so fast that a court reporter gets a
little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't
it be nice if we had another licensed court reporter in the
courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind,
so that we could fill in from this other court reporter's data.
I'm sure, Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I
like to use the saying: give a bad dog a good name, and he'll
live up to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that
moment on, he was very careful of what he said.

These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is
how to be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove when we
enter into a courtroom. There are others using the same
information presented here who end up in jail, handcuffed and hit
over the head, because they approach the situation with a chip on
their shoulder. They try to tell the judge what the law is and
that he is a no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and

UCC 1-207 Review

It is so important to know and understand the meaning of
"Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature,
that we should go over this once more. It is very likely that a
judge will ask you what it means. So, please learn and
understand this carefully:

The use of "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with
my signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law
right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that
I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and

And, furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated
with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
commercial agreement.

Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear. Under
the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily and intentionally by both parties, or it can be
declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not
to be compelled to perform under any contract that you did not
enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And you do
not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of
any unrevealed contract or agreement.

The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal
Reserve Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability,
rather than to pay your debts with silver coins. It is a
compelled benefit, because there are no silver coins in
circulation. You have to eat and you can only buy food with the
medium of exchange provided by the government. You are not
allowed to print your own money, so you are compelled to use
theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed
commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely and
explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and you
simply exercise this benefit rendered by government, you will be
obligated, under an implied agreement7, to obey every statute,
ordinance and regulation passed by government at all levels --
federal, State and local.

In Conclusion

The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in
putting it to paper, in an effort to make it readable and
somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard
Freeman for the opportunity to work with information so
absolutely vital to our survival as dignified, unenslaved human
beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgiveness for any
errors committed in getting this in print.

The purpose of this transcript, as stated in the Foreword,
is to make this knowledge and wisdom available to as many people
as will take the time and trouble to read it. It is meant to be
supplemental to Mr. Freeman's recorded lectures, not a
substitute. Indeed, there is no substitute for hearing him
present this material in his own words. It is not just the law
and the facts that are important here, but the way they are used.
His numerous reminders of Jesus' commission to be "... like sheep
among wolves ..." cannot be overstated, and is certainly good
advice to us in all dealings -- not just in court or with the
government. Hearing him explain this in his own words brings to
life the practical application and usefulness of being "wise" and
"harmless." In fact, after being introduced to this approach, it
becomes difficult to imagine that any other way of defending
oneself from the government would be effective.

It goes without saying that none of this information
presented here is in any way, shape or form offered as legal
advice. For that, as you know, you must "get yourself a licensed

Having said that, I feel obligated to point out that one of
the most difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney
-- even a good one -- may be knowing just whose side he is on.
(He is, after all, an officer of the court!) So, for those of us
who have concluded that having an attorney means that you will
soon be chained, gagged and led to the gallows, this information
may be indispensable. For the extraordinary challenges of
appearing in court in one's own person -- in propria persona
-- there are few reliable sources of information. Learning to
defend ourselves, that is, being responsible instead of turning
over one more area of our lives to "professionals," may be the
only way to have any chance of digging ourselves out of this pit
of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we face in
education today is the matter of widespread legal illiteracy.

Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just
don't care about these issues who either:

(1) have a soft life which is supported and maintained by
this secret system of law and the institutions which
have grown up around it ("I can make a bundle buying
these IRS-seized homes cheap and reselling them."), or

(2) don't believe that anything can be done about it ("You
can't fight city hall."), or

(3) simply don't have the energy or inclination to do
anything about it ("That's nice, but let's see what's
on TV.").

For those good "citizens," this whole effort may seem useless, or
even threatening. But, it is this writer's view that God did not
intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the
benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even if the
"masters" grant us some token pleasures and diversions. Human
dignity requires much more than entertainment. The door is there
and the key exists. We must find it and we must use it to return
to freedom!

Let us discover the mistakes we have made. Let us find
truth. Let us apply it with meekness and wisdom, and let us
gently but firmly reclaim the precious freedom which we have so
foolishly given up.

September 22, 1991

For More Information

I encourage anyone who is interested enough to read this far
to obtain a set of tapes of Howard Freeman and listen to them
carefully. A donation of $4.00 per tape would be appropriate.
This information was taken from tapes numbered 90-30, 90-31,
90-32 and 90-33, which may be ordered from:

America's Promise Ministries
c/o P. O. Box 157
Sandpoint, Idaho
Postal Zone 83864/TDC

(208) 265-5405

The next set of tapes (from 1991) are numbered 1004, 1005
and 1006, and contain vital material not found in this


1. Colorable. That which is in appearance only, and not in
reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned,
having the appearance of truth. Black's Law Dictionary,
Fifth Edition.

2. Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this
demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights.
The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to
order and get a stamp, shows that you had reserved your
rights before signing the document.

3. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative
Publishing Company.

4. It is very important to get it into the record that you do
not understand the charges. With that in the record, the
court cannot move forward to judge the facts. This will be
covered later on page 19.

5. For more about this, see page 18.

6. UCC 3-415. "Accommodation Party." One who signs commercial
paper in any capacity for the purpose of lending his name to
another party to the instrument. Such a party is a surety."
(Surety: "One who undertakes to pay money or to do some
other act in the event that his principal fails therein.")

7. See UCC 1-201. General Definitions (3): "Agreement means
the bargain of the parties in fact as found in their
language or by implication from other circumstances
including courses, dealing or usage of trade or course of

# # #