Response to ALL CAPS NAME Theory

8/12/2019 Response to ALL CAPS NAME Theory

1/27


2/27

The truth about All Caps Names, Common Law Copyright 2006 by A Peaceful Solution Foundation 2

moving party to be fu r ther bound by it . See also Renunciation, Repudiation. [Blacks 5th, page1174] [emphases added]

Because one is bound by the entire contract when they receive even a minimal benefi tunderthe contract [International Shoe v. Washington; Pennoyer v. Neff] then one must refuse al l

benefits in order to exercise rescission of contract.

A few questions, if I may:

Absolutely!

A f ewis more than a coupleand less than several[an attempt at humor], however, I would like toanswer ALL of the questions if I may, and I would like to use this response on our web site (dulysanitized to protect youridentity) so others can have access to the other side of these issues in theirinvestigation into the dangerously using the UCC and Copyrighted Name, as well. I sent most ofthis rebuttal to the authors of the advertisement, and they have not responded, so I am leaving theirnames in the rebuttal. Evidently, they are still happy with their work, so I willuse theirnames.

Here is the advertisement, rebuttal, questions, and comments

Copyright - I ts Al l in the NAMEBy: Ralph Kenneth Evans & Lewis Thompson Mohr

[Rebuttal by: Bernie E. Besherse]

Recognize at the outset that you are dealing with a bunch of criminals who have abandonedtheir responsibilities as agents of the people by vacating the government and becoming acorporation to advance the commercial interests of the world. They attempt to make a corporation

out of you, too, by writing your Christian appellation in all-capital letters, which is a clear prejudiceagainst you, according to;

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TCRP) Rule 52, Alleging a Corporation:" Al legations that a corporati on is incorporated shal l be taken as Tr uth unless denied by

aff idavit of the adverse party, hi s agent or hi s attorney, whether such corporati on is publi c

or pri vate and however created."

Take note of the words "however created" because when those attorneys write your name inall-capital letters on a summons or warrant or notice, you have now been constituted as acorporation. [Assumption #1 lacks foundation in law and is contradicted by recent courtdecisions.] Your name was similarly corrupted when a constructive trust was established as you

volunteered into Social Security, making you part of the national socialist democracy and assigningyou an employee I.D. number (SSAN). [Assumption #2 Taking the Social Security number doesnot form a constructive trust. Taking the SSN means that you become liable for contributions

[see Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, for definitions for FICA and Contribution] that

will insure the Federal Bankruptcy. Nonetheless, when YOU volunteered into the contract,

YOU became bound by the entire contract as long as YOU voluntarily accept any benefit

under that contract, and YOU are not at liberty to uni lateral ly alter the contract. Because they

did not literallyhold a gun to your head and meaningfullythreaten to kill you for not signing,


3/27


4/27


One method of obtaining control over the all-capital letter fiction is to file a UCC-1financing statement with the secretary of state. [The law of contracts says that you cannot

contract with yourself, and in order to file a VALID UCC-1, you must be able to produce

proof of a valid contract in court, or be faced with charges of fraud.] Another is to bring thatfiction under your domain as private intellectual property through a copyright, which enjoys theprotection of common law when made a part of the public record with the local county recorder.

(Copyright law existed before the modern statute was created.) Compare this with a trademark,which is not a common law document since it comes under statutory law. [You cannot copyr ight

your name. The very first thing that you must do in order to copyrightsome words is to prove

that you created the words. If you gave your self the name, then you MAY be able to put a

trademark on the name, but when the name was given to you by your parents, then both

common law and statutory law say that you cannot copyright the name.]

But what if what you are copyrighting - your ALL CAPS fictitious strawman name - was

created for you by entities without your knowledge, much less your permission? Could not

the same "law" that allowed them to create that fictitious name, so as to create liabilities for

you, be used as a remedy for same?

Whosname? You say YOURall caps fictitious strawman name.?. Whos name, again?Even the advertisement for the UCC/Name service makes the admission is that it isyourname. It isalso admitted that YOU DID NOT CREATE this thing that you all ege to exist. YOU CANNOTCOPYRIGHT SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT CREATE. Read the U.S. constitutionregarding the law of copyrights. The statutes cannot expand on the authorization given in theconstitution. Youmust create the writing or youcannot copyright the writing.

The last question must be answered with NO. They used a contractofferunder the common lawof contracts in order to offer you a chance to hang yourself. You responded by signing their offer,baited by your desire for being given a perceived benefit by the government. There is nothingillegal about them offering the contract [U.S. constitution, Article 1 section 10]. Both you ANDthey have an unlimited right to contract. The fact that they used fr aud in the inducementcould be

a big problem for them, if andwhen you decide to exerci se rescission of contract, but until andunless you completely rescind the contract, and never derive another benefit out of the contract,then you are bound to specific performance on the entire contract. [Pennoyer v. Neff;International Shoe v. Washington]

The mandate since 1935 from Washington is that all the state governments standardize theirstate rules, procedures and statutes. References given here use the Texas code, however there areequivalent sections in each of the other state rulebooks from which to derive similar authority.

TRCP Rule 52 was cited in Galleria Bank vs. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest

2nd, page 5, as follows:" The fail ure of an adverse party [i.e. you]to deny under oath the allegation that he is

incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact."

So, when you receive a presentment (bill, citation, tax bill, lawsuit, summons), you arealleged to be a corporation simply by how your Christian appellation is styled (all-capital letters) onthe presentment. [Assumption #3is not supported by law. Recent court decisions have declared

that the all caps name is merely a style, and does not allege a corporation.]


5/27


But if these courts truly are operating in admiralty/maritime jurisdiction that functions well

mainly because that fact is withheld from us, is it not reasonable to assume that they will not

make rulings that will let their dirty little secret out of the bag and disallow their advantage?

Did you mean the fact that the cour ts are admiralty? Or did you mean that the fact is that theyare creating an ALL CAPS, fictitious corporation to put on tr ial f or your sins?

The Admiralty courts will never admit that they are admiralty courts. As long as any UCC or ALLCAPS NAME issue is going to end up in those courts, then your question and argument on thispoint is self-defeating. Because you know that the courts operate in Admiralty, then you arelacking any excusefor having any confidence that these courts will deliver justice, arent you?

When the higher Admiralty courts rule that the All Caps Name is merely a style, then the lowercourts and county prosecutors cannot use it otherwise, i.e.,for alleging a corporation.

If you meant that the fact that the court creates a fictiti ous corporati on to put on tri al for

contr acts that we signed, then the response above still applies. All they have to do is take silentjudicial notice of your SSN, your legal disability of bankruptcy, and your unclean hands, and ruleagainst you.

All of the foregoing having been said, I still recommend that a denial of corporate existencebemade a part of the pleadings in most court cases. It is just a good policy. The main differencesbetween what I recommend and the one advanced in the advertisement is that I recommendfollowing the statute and rules of court, to the letter, and not improvise. You dont get anywhere bytrying to make up your own law as you go along. I would also deny that they are a corporation,depriving them of a corporate shield until and unless they prove that they have protection bycorpor ate veil. There are some other legal tricks available that make the individual liable, but I amnot going to go into those, here.

[continued from above] If you consent to that allegation by remaining silent during the time

given for responding, it amounts to acceptance of your corporate status (acquiescence by silence).The fact that the opposition puts a case number or file reference or license number on thepresentment constitutes a claim number that completes the process of creating a private corporationwithout your awareness. Thus, for that particular matter, you are presumed to be a corporationunless you rebut it (contest it) with an affidavit sworn under penalties of perjury. [When yourname is on a contract (SS-5, Certificate of Title, other government instrument), then the way

that your name is spelled on the bill, citation, tax bill, lawsuit, or summons is irrelevant. As

long as you signed the application or contract, then you owe the bill, and it must be paid.]

What about the argument that a bill can never be paid with FRNs, something with no intrinsic

value? Does that not give some credence to arguments that there are alternate, parallel

methods using similar paper devices, to "satisfy" a "bill"?

In this case, the FeRNs argument would not have merit. The benefits that are being sought aredenominated in FeRNs, so, in FeRNs they wil l be paid. The Article to which I was responding wasnot advancing the use of Promissory Notes, or other commercial paper for satisfying a bill. Theirprimary argument is Thats Not Me!!!

A side note: People who attempt to use Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, or other commercialpaper, for paying off a bill have been running into big problems for the past fifteen years. Pleasedont get innovative in trying to find some unknown sort of commercial paper for discharging a


6/27


debt. Some very intelligent people are in jail for life, or are being sought for prosecution for suchactivity. Examples being Hartford van Dyke, Leroy Schweitzer, and Eddie Kahn. The bankersown the government AND the courts, so any attempt to invent your own commercial paper incompetition with theirswill lead you only to grief. Keith Anderson, who is in jail for life becausehe used the UCC arguments instead of facts as a defense, told me in a private meeting that herefuses to deal with these commercial paper scams because when we know that it is illegal and

immoral for the Rothschilds, then it is illegal and immoral for us, too. I am thankful that I followedthe wisdom of King Solomon in this case, and harkened to the advice of many counselors. I justwish that Keith Anderson had listened to his best legal counsel (Don Grahn) and not used the UCCarguments in his defense. If Keith had been able to listen as well as he could talk, he might befree, today.

RULE: Never accept a presentment without contesting it, but remember that the ONLYthing you want to contest is the "style of the case," i.e. the corruption of your Christian appellationinto a corporate fiction form. [And if that is all you contest, that is the only thing that the courtcan hear. The Rules of Court say you should enter ALL of your affirmative defenses in your

ANSWER.] To argue anything else in the pleading (even a contention that you are an ax murderer)instantly causes you to traverse into the opposition's jurisdiction-and you're dead!

I tried that over the past year in a couple of cases that I have, now, before the [state] Court of

Appeals. Because I entered ALL of my arguments, including some good law that the judges

and the attorneys had not confronted before, they did not hear my jurisdiction argument. I'm

coming to believe that, had I stood on jurisdiction alone, they would have had to agree that

they could not hear the case and would have had to dismiss. I traversed in their territory and

attempted to use their courts, therefore I could not argue that they did not have jurisdiction

because I was appealing to them.

I was responding to the statement in their advertisementthat one should onlysay Thats Not Me.

I was not making a recommendation for your situation.When one wishes to challenge jurisdiction, then that is what must be challenged, and that alone.The challenge must done correctly, withjur isdiction arguments, not UCC arguments or ALLCAPS NAME arguments. In your case, if you had a legitimate jurisdiction argument, then youshould have brought it, and when the jurisdiction issue was settled in their favor [ because your SSNgives them jurisdiction], your other affirmative defenses would still be viable and you could bringthem in your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT.

If you included UCC or ALL CAPS NAME in your jurisdiction argument, then they would ruleagainst you, and with good reason. You cant succeed by using fraud. THEY might, but wecertainly cannot. Their courts belong to them, not us.

By the opposition successfully alleging that you are a corporation, you become caught in aCatch-22. Commercial courts cannot deal with flesh-and-blood People -they deal only with legalfictions (ACTORS) and you are entirely out of place in a commercial court unless they somehowmanage to join you, the Living Soul, with a corporation (ACTOR), which is how the court obtainsjurisdiction over you. [WRONG!!! The commercial courts deal with flesh-and-blood peoplewho make contracts!!!] However, corporations cannot speak for themselves; they depend upon anattorney to be their mouthpiece and represent them before the court. You have NO STANDING


7/27


before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction(ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a courtappearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may berecognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts. The judge will takesilent notice of this immediately. Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you award of the court (incompetent to handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests

(attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients).Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a memberof the BAR (perish the thought!). [The remedy is to follow the five peaceful steps to a StrategicWithdrawal out of contemporary Babylon, and to refuse to do anything that is illegal or

immoral. http://www.aPeacefulSolution.org ]

Having traversed down the slippery slope, which leads to your own destruction, it isvirtually impossible to then reverse course and disassociate yourself from the legal fiction(ACTOR). Once you've PROVED you are a fraud by agreeing to be a corporation, a powerfulprincipal of law rules your affairs: "No truth can come fr om a fr aud". [And knowing this, thepeople who wrote this advertisement persist in advocating the fraud of trying to copyright a

name that they did not create, and violating the law of contracts by contracting with ones self

by filing a UCC-1 on their own name.] Avoid that slippery slope in the first place by declaring,"That's not me!" as your AUTOMATIC RESPONSE to any presentment, oral or written, where theACTOR'S name is used instead of your Christian appellation. "I don' t know whose name you havethere, but that' s not me!" [When yousign your nameon the contract, youwill have to pay the

penalty. Dont let anyone fool you into believing such a simplistic answer they present in this

advertisement!!! The UCC says that when YOU sign YOUR name on an instrument

(contract) then YOU are obligated thereon. There is no strawman that is obligated. It is

the one who signs his name.]

WARNING: Your declaration of "That's not me!" needs to be made by affidavit when it isto become a part of an official record. Refer to Dr. Pepper Company v. Crowe, 621 SW 2nd 466,

which held as follows:Plaintiff pled defendant as a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading

pursuant to TRCP 52 and 93 that he was not a corporation. Thus, such fact was established.Presentments may be handled in any of three ways:

1. Write "Thi s is not me" in red ink diagonally across the face of the instrument and return it to thesender.

2. Write "No such enti ty exists" in red ink diagonally across the face of the instrument and returnit to the sender.

3. First, record a copyright of the ACTOR'S name and then pursue discovery with the sender of thepresentment: Inquire whether the sender is making a claim against your copyright and, if so,how they propose to handle the cost of such a claim (one million dollars in United States silvercoin per use per issuer). (The presumption is that the sender is using the ACTOR'S name in anattempt to extract something from your estate.) Claims for unlawful use of the copyright fallunder common law and not under the commercial statutes regulating negotiable instruments andcontracts. Therefore silver specie may be demanded in any settlement, instead of FederalReserve notes or credit instruments of the United States.
http://www.apeacefulsolution.org/http://www.apeacefulsolution.org/http://www.apeacefulsolution.org/


8/27


The Texas Penal Code Articles 1.03, 1.04 and 1.07 (and similar language in each of theother states' code) says that the only crime, which may be committed, by one of the People is acommon law crime. People are not "violators" of civil statutes. When someone sends apresentment, they are contending that there is a contract on file somewhere and that one of thePeople is a "violator" of some civil statute. "Violators" are persons, which includes inanimateentities like corporations, trusts, legal fictions and ACTORS, but does not include People (Living

Souls). [Is there statutory support for this allegation? If so, where?]

Bernie, what is "statutory" and why would it, presumptively, trump other legal / lawful

arguments?

The comment to which I was responding was "Violators" are persons, which includes inanimate

entities like corporations, trusts, legal fictions and ACTORS, but does not i nclude People (LivingSouls).

I was asking where in the statutesthey might be able to find that a living soul could not violate thestatutes. Also, where can they find that men and women are excluded from the definition ofperson or violator. It isnt a matter of trumping other legal or lawful arguments, or evenecclesiasticalarguments, it was a matter of finding support for their own statement, anywhere, inorder to meet their burden of proof. [following 5 USC 556(d)]

As a matter of personal opinion, based upon what I read in the law books, I believe that people(flesh-and-blood men and women) who are in contract with the government [Hale v. Henkel] CANbe violators and persons.

[continued from above] The subterfuge is confusinguntil you realize that they are operating in two separate venues-one for legal fictions and the otherfor real People. The People's venue is in the common law, which is based upon the constitution andruns with the land. The corporate government, in order to function, has codified a lot of the rights

of the People into statutes, which they attempt to enforce under the presumption that the Peoplehave agreed to be treated as corporations. The statutory side is the face that they show to the Peoplein order to distract and deceive-and thereby controls them. [Lying (breach of contract) is a

common law crime. You can be charged under common law with failure to fulfill a contract.]

Sure, but what if it's a contract that you did not knowingly agree to fully?

Even in this condition, you are still bound by the contract , and the other party has a right toexpect specif ic per formance on the contract unti l and unl ess you legally rescind the contract.When you believe that you have grounds for rescission, and fail to exercise your option, then youare AGREEING WITH and VALIDATING the contract by tacit procuration. Until that time, theother contracting party, or the court into which they will drag you, has no indication that you haveany legal grounds for failing to live up to specific performance. Neither the court nor the

opposing party has any authori ty for assuming that you do not wish to abide by the contract, even

though they might know that there was fraud in the inducement. [U.S. constitution, Article 1,section 10]

In 1935, the Social Security Act came into being. It provided that if one of the Peoplevoluntarily enrolled in Social Security and received a number, he was deemed to be an employee ofthe government. [Not so. One became a surety for the National Bankruptcy. See Proverbs 6:1-5]


9/27


The State of Texas, as a subsidiary corporation of the United States Inc. (Title 28 3002(15) etsequel), can thus point to a man's Social Security contract to substantiate their contention that theman has become a person (ACTOR) and an employee of the state corporation, subject to beingregulated and controlled by the statutes. [WRONG! Under 3002(15)(C), a SSN holder is deemedto BE the United States, which is bankrupt, and therefore taking and using the SSN creates

and affirms a legal disability for the SSN holder.] As said before, People cannot commit

violations unless they agreed to do something by contract. However, a contract may beinvalidatedif it was entered into without full disclosure-which is almost always the case in these entanglementswith the state. [The fact that a contract is voidabledoes not mean that it is automaticall y void.

It is the same as the difference between a void and a voidable marriage. One must fulfill all of

the conditions stipulated in Blacks Law Dictionary regarding rescission of contract, among

which is a refusal of any of the benefits created by the contract.]

The Penal Code sets punishments for violations but it also provides a legal remedy for thePeople. People CANNOT avail themselves of the remedy if they acquiesce to being a legal fictioncorporation/employee), so it is important to first gain control of the all-capital letter ACTOR'S nameby means of a common law copyright and remove it from commerce so the state cannot use itagainst you. This is the highest form of title one can possess once the recorder's office attaches adeed number. [WRONG!] With a copyright in hand, a man has returned control of his life tohimself and out of the hands of the state. [WRONG!] Anyone coming against the ACTOR afterthat point is required to post a bond equal to double the value of the copyright property beforecommencing action. [WRONG!]

NOTE: Occasionally[?], a county recorder will resist the idea of recording your papers bycontending that you cannot copyr ight your own name-and the recorder would be correct in thatcontention. [They admit it i n black and white, and then persist in adverti sing in their fr aud!]There is no way to copyright your Christian name (upper-lower case appellation). However, thename that is being recorded for copyright is NOT your Christian name-it is the moniker of thealleged fiction, the corporation or ACTOR, whose name just happens to sound like yours. [Looking

at Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, definitions of Name, one sees that the foregoing is inerror. The name is the name, and upper or lower or mixed cases are not a factor.]Furthermore, your papers are being submitted to the common law side of the recorder's office whichrecording takes precedence over statutory process. [And just were does one find the laws that

stipulate that there is a common law side to the recorders office filings? This appears to be

another unsupportable assumption.] Be aware that a man can copyright ANY of the fr ui ts of hi slabor, whether i t be fr om his hands or his mind, and thereby protect those fruits for his ownexclusive use by withdrawing them from commerce and the public domain. [This is anotheradmissionby the authors that one cannot copyright their own name. They admit that the ALL

CAPS name that they are trying to copyright is notthe work of their own hands or mind.]

IMPORTANT: Use care in selecting your terms. "File" a statutory term. "Record" is a

common law term. The copyright is private intellectual property "recorded for public notice." [Ihave no idea where they came up with their theory there file or record are different by

one being statutory and the other being common law terms. The fact is, that to f i le a

document means that your document is given a file number and placed in order in the public

document filing system, so it can be located again, should the need arise. When you record

a document, you give the document to the county recorder, who takes possession of the

document, gives the document THEIR book and page number, and returns your copy to you.

They now own the document. The highest level of government control is to register


10/27


something. This would include a registered sex off ender. This is one of the reasons why we

will file our corporation sole instruments in some states but not in others. We will f i le with

a state, but not record in a state. We want to control the document.]

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (TCCP) in [illegible punctuation mark in theoriginal]1.14 Waiver of Rights, says: "The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense may

waive any rights secured to him by law. If he does not object to a defect, error or irregularity ofform or substance in the indictment or the information before the date of the trial, he waives andforfeits the rights to object to the irregularity on appeal." So, if you argue anything except "That'snot me!" in response to a presentment, you're dead! If you accept the contention that you're acorporation, you've acquiesced to being treated like a corporation-and you are finished. You areabsolutely guilty of whatever they say you are because they run the courts. Your only defense isowning title to the ACTOR'S name-by copyright. [WRONG! Not possible.] Get control of yourlegal fiction and then you can get control of your life. [WRONG! You can only win by actual

sovereignty, not by fraud. Fraud, like trying to copyright something that you did not create,

voids everything that it touches.]

Agreed, but isn't that what the UCC folks are claiming, here - a mechanism whereby to notice

the courts that they did not agree to this contract that gave prima facie evidence to the courtof their presumptive non-sovereign status?

The people using the UCC-1 procedures DIDagree to the contract and they are accepting benefitsunder that contract. They can not have sovereign status as long as they are under the legal disabilityof bankruptcy because of their SSN. It is not merely a presumptive non-sovereign status. It isactual non-sovereign status. This means that the writers of this advertisement are under a granddelusionthat they have found a solution.

The laws of the nation, states, counties, and cities of the land have provided legal remedies, andthose are rescission of contr act and release of powers of appointment. One cannot succeed by

making up their own laws and remedies.

The UCC and ALL CAPS NAME arguments do not provide any sort of evidence of anythingother than that the person advancing the argument does not know the law of contracts, and is tryingto copyright something that they have no legal right to copyright. In other words, the court will notfind favor with them because the court views them as criminals, not just that the courts are ignorantand greedy.

When one advances the UCC or copyrighted name arguments against a federal agency, Title 5 USC556(d) comes into play, and when in court, many other rules of court and settled court decisionsalso apply. The proponent of the rule or order bears the burden of pr oof. Where, in any law bookor settled decision, can one find support for the UCC argument or support for the allegation that thespelling of their name creates a corporation with all of the legal disabilities attached thereunto?Where can one find evidence to meet their burden of proof that there is a strawman that must pay

for the benefits that the flesh & blood man receives from the government? When the confused,subject of the government [14

th amendment citizen] fails in their burden of proof, then theySHOULD lose their suit, either as plaintiff ordefendant.

If the people dont want the SSN and the benefits, then they are under no obligation to have theSSN or the benefits, butthey cannot have anyof the benefits without al lof the obligations.


11/27


Do not ever answer to the all-capital letter name. Always object. If someone announcesthat they have service for you, respond with "Let me see the paperwork. Oh, that's not me." Avoidentanglements with the state. You have no rights in any statutory corporation cour t.[Sure youdo! You have the right to accept the punishment that they give you for violating your

contracts!!!]

Love your sense of humor!When you cant have fun, they have already won!

[continued from above] You only have statutory privileges and immunities. ThePeople are the created ones. The government serves the People to the People's benefit. [WRONG!First Samuel 8:4-18]

First Samuel applies when the people place themselves under a king - a foolish thing to do. Is

it the same in your eyes, however, if the people - "We the People" - instead, bind themselves

by mutual compact to govern themselves?

First Samuel 8:7 clearly shows the intent of HWHY1

*, that when anyone who chooses any form ofgovernment otherthan HIM as KING, it amounts to a rejectionof HIM as KING. It is no better towant to rule yourselfthan to want Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Prince Dubya, or congress to be

your ruler. How could it be any better to reject HWHY*as your king, just so you could rule yourself(be your ownking/God/elohim), than to desire to have King Charles or Prince Dubya rule over you?I dont understand your logic. Such logic is inconsistent with Torah, which your Greek scripturesadmit will neverpass away. [See: Matthew 5:18-19]

Furthermore, in First Samuel 8:18, we see that by merely participating in that government, HWHY*will not hear our prayers for relief from the oppression of that government.

Can you find any BIBLICAL (by this I mean Torah, Prophets, or Writings [Tanakh]) support forserving an earthly government that is notrun under Torah law, alone? I cant find any.

[continued from above] If you allow yourself[?]to be contracted into their statutory venue asa corporation, then you are going to have to abide by the fact that they have all the rules in theirfavor and that you have no rights. [And by using the UCC in the manner that they suggest, you

admit to being an item of commerce, and are completely bound by all of your contracts.]

Well, if the UCC arguments are correct, we alreadyadmitted to being an item of commerce

with our parents' filing of our birth certificate, their marriage license, our SSN applications,

our voter registration cards, DLs, etc. We are, thus, ALREADY bound, are we not? (Unless,

of course, we unbind ourselves and establish our sovereignty, to do which, I know, yourecommend another method.)

In the first place, the UCC arguments are NOT correct, and cannot be correct under either m ans

law or the law of hwhy *.

1* why (YHWH) is the Hebrew spelling of the name of the Creator of the universe. Sometimes pronouncedJehovah,meaning god of confusion,but is more correctly pronounced, Yahuwah, with the accent on the

middle syllable.


12/27


It is not what our parents did that enslaved us. It is what WE do. While it is true that our parentsmay have set us upto be slaves, it was our ownseeking of government benefits that ties usinto thecontract. Read again Pennoyer v. Neffand International Shoe v. Washington.

No, you are not already bound. You bind your self by making your own contracts or using thebenefits AS AN ADULT for which you parents registered you. You can unbind yourselfby giving

up all of the benefits, including future benefits to your heirs. [ 5 USC 552a(13)] To simply deny theobligations and retain the benefits is theft and fraud.

There are several ways to unbind ones self. The set of procedures that is advanced in StrategicWithdrawal is completely legal, tried, and proven. I can assist with other ways if and when oneunderstands and is mentally and financially ready to go through the Strategic Withdrawalmethod.However, unless they are willing to completely leave the earthly government benefits behind, thereis no hope for them, and I will not take my time in trying to explain or assist in any other way ofunbinding ones self.

[continued from above] Once you assert

your rights that you are one of the People, there are a number of things you can do to help yourcourt case to make certain that you will win on appeal. The Texas Rules of Criminal Procedurein [illegible mark in the original]1.27 states that the common law governs. [Including common-law right of contract, which binds you to their jurisdiction.] If the statutory code fails to providea rule of procedure in any particular state of case, the rules of common law shall apply.

Even if we were placed there by fraud and treachery?

Absolutely!

And, incidentally, you were not placed there by anyone other than yourself. You went therevoluntarily, as a bird goes into a snare or a bear goes into a trap. [Proverbs 6:1-5] You were led byyour own desires for benefits that with a bit of gumption, you could have provided better for

yourself. Look in your Greek scriptures in Romans 1:24; Romans 6:12; Romans 13:14; Ephesians2:3; Ephesians 4:22; I Timothy 6:9; II Timothy 2:22; II Timothy 3:6-7; II Timothy 4:3; James 1:14-15; I John 2:17. One of these enticements is f ree publi c education. You knowhow free thatis,and what the trap is. The rest of the alleged benefits are just as deadly.

I realize full well, because of my ownpast schooling in Christianity, that it is very difficult to acceptthat ones actions in this life have an eternal effect on ones soul, but I would like to point out what

your Greek scriptures say in I John 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he

that doeth the wil l of Godabideth for ever. The desire for benefits offered by the earthly, seculargovernment are included in the lust spoken of in this verse. The actual DOINGof the will of

hwhy , as stipulated in H is Torah, is what abides with our soul forever. Obey Torah and live.

Disobey Torah and die -- Leviticus 18:3-5. The choice is ours.One of the most difficult things to accept is ones own culpability for their own plight. When wequit blaming others, and accept the responsibility for our own decisions and actions, ONLY then arewe able to find a remedy.


13/27


If, from the outset, you establish that you are NOT that legal fiction, then that case doesNOT apply to you; instead, the rules of common law apply. [You can onlydo this when you have

no contracts with the government. Exodus 23:32 applies. Leviticus 18:3-5 applies]

Agreed, but what if that hampers in the extreme our right to travel, our right to participate in

local elections, our right to earn a living, our right to banking privileges, etc., mainly because

the vast majority of bureaucrats who oversee those functions have not a clue what they arereally administering? (That is certainly true.)

If you lust for the benefit of easy l iving, in county controlled by a Fascist government, you mustplay by the Fascists rules. What could ever make a sensible person think that they could go into aFascist governments courts and advance any sort of winning argument that is against the corporate

governments interests? What would Daniels answer have been? What would the answer havebeen from Shadrach, Meshach, or Abed-nego?

The things that I did worked for me, and are still working for me and others INSIDE the USA, butthey will sooncease to work. NOTHING will work, once the Fascists take the gloves off, whichwill be right after the next OKC/WTC event. Are you going to be inside the USA when thishappens? If so, and you still want your benefits, then you would be wise to burn all of your bookson Sovereignty, and quickly jump to do whatever Big Brother hints that they want you to do.

Would it not be wise to seek out a way to retain those apparent rights without accepting the

hidden nexus that comprises the contract with government but so that we can move and

operate freely without hassle from ignorant bureaucrats?

From a ministers point of view, I would invite you to read Exodus 23:32 and Leviticus 18:3 -5, andreflect on what you are seeking. There is no safe level of interaction with secular governments,unless you are completely protected under both Torah and their own law. I continue to look forother ways to legally become free, also, but having examined the UCC and ALL CAPS NAMEprocedures, I find that neither of these theories measure up. Both of them violate the laws of bothGod and man, and cannotwork.

I mean, look, Bernie, you're living in Panama where most of these US issues do not confront

you daily, but does that mean that we all have to flee the land of our birth in order to live

freely and unmolested?

I left the USA twelve years ago, peacefully and deliberately, in a strategic withdrawal,so I wouldNOT have to flee. There are problems all over the world, not just in the USA. I face differentproblems, here, thats all.

What happened in Europe that made the Jews flee the land of their birth in the late 1930s and early1940s? What is going to happen to YOU, after the next OKC/911/Pearl Harbor, even if that isbrought to you by some agency favoring Homeland Security enhancement? Are yougoing to useyour head, and flee? Or are you going to stay and go to a death camp, like the unlucky Jews?

I would really like for you to reflect on the following questions, and ponder your answers.

If you were Jewish and born in Europe in 1910, how would you have answered your own questionin 1933?



14/27



If you were born in the USA in the middle half of the 1900s, and you love your constitutional rights,how would you have answered your own question in 1988?

If you were born in the USA in the middle half of the 1900s, and you love your constitutional rights,

what do you think would be a smart answer to your own question in the year 1998?

If you were born in the USA in the middle half of the 1900s, and you love your constitutional rights,what do you think your answer will be the same question in the year 2008?

Please answer all of the questions, for yourself. I do not need a written answer.

I am a Choctaw Indian, and my feelings for the land that has been occupied by my ancestors forover 3,000 years are very hard to describe in words, but my feelings for the invading, EuropeanAristocrats that currently control the land are nothard to describe, at all. I couldmake the decisionto stay, fight, die, and losing everything, or I could make the decision to leave, seek peace, andreturn to the land of my forefathers when the smoke clears and the radiation dies down a little. It ismy choice. Which course of action seems to be most prudent to you? What you sow, you reap, and

the USA is the only nation on earth that has dropped nuclear weapons and used radioactive waste tocontaminate foreign battle fields. Do you really think that a nuclear war on American soil is notgoing to happen?

Do you have a Panama DL or vehicle registration?

The answer is NO - to both halves of the question.

You may force them to move the case into a venue in which the common law prevails (Texas Rulesof Civil Procedure [illegible mark in the original]257 and 259), back into the venue of the People,to wit: A change of venue may be granted in civil cases upon a motion by either party supported by

his own affidavit and the affidavit of three credible persons, residents of the county in which the suitis pending. (NOTE: The granting of a petition to move the case is usually automatic, unless someagent from the government corporation objects under penalty of perjury that a fair trial by a jury bydue course of the law of the land can indeed be found in a court of equity-not likely, since youraffidavit becomes the judgment unless rebutted point-for-point. If rebutted, the affidavit must betried under the rules of common law, which must be heard by a jury in the county court for thePeople. This is because a remedy for a common law controversy cannot be heard in an equitycourt.) For an example of removal of a case to common law court, see: Lone Star Steel Companyvs. Scott. [When you read the note following the old UCC 1-207, you see that this section was

placed here in order that commerce may continue along the lines contemplated in the contract

until the matter in controversy can be heard in a common law court (adding a bit of 1-103:6).

This demands an answer to the question Contemplated in the mind of whom? The answer, ofcourse, is I n the mind of the commercial cour t judge. Therefore, when you use UCC

reservation of rights, you are telling the commercial court judge that you are giving HIM the

authority to decide what the contract requires, and you are agreeing in advance to abide by

his decision until the matter can be heard by a common law court. Good luck in finding a

fair, common law court in the near future!!! Again, when you use the UCC, you are stuck!]


15/27


16/27


17/27


available on our web site, by request, fr ee for the asking. I thought that I had sent them to youbefore.

If one does not agreethat the constitution is a bankruptcy instrument, then can you answer for me,without speculati on:

1. what are the all debts contr acted that are incorporated by reference into the first sentencein clause one of Article 6?

2. what are the engagements entered in to regarding the debts that are incorporated byreference into the first sentence in clause one of Article 6?

3. what prior tr eaties(before 1787) are incorporated by reference into the Supreme Law of theLand? [Article 6, clause 2]

4. which new treaties(after 1787) are incorporated by reference into the Supreme Law of theLand? [Article 6, clause 2]

5. what is the effect of the judges in every state being bound by these debts, engagementsentered into, and the treaties, any Thing in the constitutions or laws of the states to the

contrary not WITH STANDING (in the court)? (You may already know what legalstandingis, but if not, please look it up.) [Article 6, clause 2]

The only crimes, which may be legitimately prosecuted against the People at common law,are for;

1) causing injury to another one of the People;

2) damaging your neighbor's property, and;

3) violating the rule that your word is your bond. On the other hand, if you venture intocommerce and make a contract, you become bound by the terms of that contract under the Law

Merchant. [They contradict themselves. They admit that you are bound by other contracts, yetthey tell you to use arguments that are not available to you.]

Citizens who obtain a voter's registration card become members of the County Corporation.You join the socialist democracy when you apply for a social security number and become anemployee of the corporate state. [They contradict their own conclusions, again.]

If you know that you are one of the sovereign People and you have taken control of youralleged commercial entity (ACTOR), where do you go for remedy? [As shown above, their theoryof how to control the alleged commercial entity is not viable.] The opposition has closed all ofthe People's courts. [Article 6 of the constitution, plus the first set of supreme Court rules that

were written by John Jay, Esq., show that the control of the courts has always been in the City

of London, and has NEVER been in the control of the common People of the U.S.A.]However, they cannot take them away-by law. The state constitution (corporate charter) identifiesthe county court which is a court of record consisting of 12 justices called from among the Peopleand presided over by a magistrate who keeps order and maintains the seal of the court. Thepresiding magistrate serves as chief justice of this One Supreme Court, moving in common law.Notice that the United States Supreme Court is NOT the One Supreme Court, as we have been ledto believe, having jurisdiction only over federal officers and employees in Washington, DC and thefederal territories.


18/27


Since most of the contracts which imperil your standing in law were entered into voluntarily(social security, driver license, marriage license, voter registration), making you an employee of thestate corporation and a member of the socialist democracy, consider volunteering OUT of the samecontracts to restore your sovereign status under a republican form of government. [VolunteeringOUT is not optional, it is MANDATORYbefore one can claim any aspect of Sovereignty. One

cannot be both a slave and a sovereign at the same time, any more than one can be partlydead

or partlypregnant.]

I agree...and I think they do, too. They are saying "consider volunteering out..." as an

invitation to do what they say.

They have already said that they think that their way will work (which it will not) in taking backcontrol of ones status, so, because volunteering out is a completely different procedure, then itcan only be an optional extra, that one may consider volunteering out of Social Security. Theyobviously dont have a clue about how one may legally volunteer out or they would not beadvancing their fraudulent copyright or the UCC as a viable theory.

Article 5, Section 28 of the Texas constitution speaks to the issue of filling vacancies in the"superior court" which only exists in the counties. Know what court in which you have remedy.Apply that remedy, whether the opposition pays attention or not, by creating documents to citeapplicable law and statutes that codify your contention that "That's not me-I 'm not that THI NG."

[There is no government court in which a Social Security Number holder has a remedy for

loss of liberty. Get over it.] You have the right to make dilatory pleas and point out their errors.What are their errors?

1) That's not me on that piece of paper.[As long as you signed the papers, and you have a

SSN/Voter Registration Card/Drivers License or any other instrument issued by a 28 USC

3002(15) entity, then you are legall y disabledand they can do as they wish.]

2) In fact, that's not YOU on that piece of paper. (Recall the fictitious plaintiff that has nofoundation in either the constitution or the statutes.) [As long as YOU signed the application for

the benefit, then the defendant is certainly YOU.]

Don't go into their courts; simply return their process to them with an appropriate notation.Remember that if;

1) the opposing side does NOT use your Christian appellation, and; [They dont care whatname that you use. They just want you to pay your bill.]

2) you do NOT make an appearance, and; [When you dont appear, they issue a bench

warrant, and are taken to jail the next time you get stopped by a cop.]

3) you do NOT waive process-then they have NO jurisdiction over you. [They certainly have

jurisdiction, because you are a U.S. citizen/subject, and you signed their application forbenefits.] Don't argue on behalf of or against the ACTOR or the charges-it's of no consequence andyou risk traversing into their jurisdiction. The only issue is "That's not me!" [When you signed

the application for the benefits, the not me argument is frivolous. ]

The ACTOR, being a fiction, has no capacity to speak, or write, or act, or pay fines, or servetime in jail. For those purposes, the system needs a real live man to step forward and agree tobecome the agent for the ACTOR, thus responsible to the principal to indemnify the obligations ofthe fiction (see "indemnifying party" and "accommodating party" in the Uniform Commercial


19/27


Code). [The real, living man or woman has alreadystepped forward and signed the application

for the benefits, using their SSN. To back out now is fraud.]

Again, if what I signed was an application for a driver's license that I was always taught to

believe was necessary in order to travel up and down the highways in an automobile, or an

application for a marriage license that the preacher told me I had to have in order to get

married, but beneath it all was a contract that was deliberately withheld from me, then the

first fraud is on their side. Does not fraud void all contracts? If the only way to do those

things without being hassled or treated as a criminal and I get rid of all of those items because

of the hidden contracts that underlie them, I will have to give up a lot of things that I have a

natural or common law right to simply because of the enforcement agents who will lie in wait

for me. There has to be a middle ground...

We were all lied to about the requirement for a SSN, drivers license, marriage license, public

school attendance, vaccinations, and so forth, but are we going to continue to follow the lies? Fraudmakes a contract voidable, but not automatically void. When you realize that there is fraudinvolved, and you continue to participate, KNOWING that you are committing fraud, you aremore culpablethan the public sloth that is behind the desk or gun that is enforcing the fraud from

their side. Righteousness MUST begin wi th the one who has knowledge. In this case, it is YOU.In your book of James (who is thought by some to have been Jacob, the brother of Jesus) it says inchapter 4, verse 17 Thereforeto him that knoweth to do good, and doeth i t not, to him it i s sin .You must make up YOUR mind, based upon your real, internal, un-feigned religion. Are you goingto participatein a fraud, or not? There is no middle ground.

If you believe that you have a common-law right, then exert that right and vigorously defend it.Others have defended this right and met with success. There are still people in the USA that areusing the Strategic Withdrawalmethod of obtaining these rights, and are traveling in unlicensed (bythe state) autos, without a state drivers license, and not being ticketed.

The fact is, in the Fascist country in which you live, they ignore their own law as well as the

common law, and if you want to find peace, you will most likely have to either die or leave. Fromwhat I have been given to understand, the grave is quite peaceful. Your own bible, in both theTanakh and in the Greek part, tells you that at some point, nothing that you do is going to work, aslong as you are interacting with the secular government. Strategic Withdrawal deals with theseissues. I suggest that you set apart some time and read the book again, CAREFULLY, thr ee timesin quick succession. You will be amazed at how much clearer these issues are the third timethrough. So much clearer, in fact, that many people choose to continue re-reading the book for asmany as twenty times, and dont let a year go by without reviewing the book in light of newlegislation and current events.

I wonder where, in the bible, you find that there is a middle groundbetween secular slavery andGods blessing of Liberty to those who choose to obeyHIS commandments. Again, I would refer

you to Leviticus 18: 3-5to see how much middle-ground is allowed by the Creator of the universe.

[continued from above] The systemconvicts the fiction and the live man serves time in jail! The state creates the fraud, but a real, liveman must agree to it for it to be carried to execution. [The state OFFERS the fraud, but you have

voluntarily participatedin the fraud. Until and unless you legally rescind your participation in

the contracts, then, you are stuck!]


20/27


The military, by reporting to the civil authority, is supposed to come in and protect thePeople when the court and legislative systems break down. [Nice theory, but not true. ALL of the

police powers are to enforce the constitution, which incorporates the Treaty of Peace of 1783,

by reference. The primary purpose of the military is to collect the debt for the Rothschilds,

under Article 4 of the Treaty of 1783.] There are powerful forces arrayed on the other side,whose very existence depends upon their continued ability to fleece the sheep. They won't

relinquish power or control easily. [They will NOTgive it up, at all, ever.] Taking back the systemhas to begin somewhere and the starting point is for the People to record affidavits into the countyrecord with copy to the government, which then become the basis for prosecuting actions in law. [I tis not possible to take back something that you never had.] An affidavit, properly recorded, holdsas much sway as a grand jury indictment. (The county attorney referred to in the Texas constitutionis not the district attorney-it's one of the people.)

The state grand jury can only indict for misdemeanors because that's the only thing overwhich a district court has jurisdiction. If a felony is involved, it must by law be handled in thecounty court (common law). That's why cases are moved to contract law (equity courts) where thestate attaches criminal penalties to civil contracts. The penal code is civil so that they may takefelonies into the district court. Reason: They don't have constitutional or statutory authority to dealwith one of the People charged with a felony in a state district court. So, how do they getjurisdiction? They claim that that the real man is an ACTOR (corporation) and an employee of thegovernment, just like all judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks and officers are ACTORS andemployees. [Wrong again. They indict their SSN-holding, legally-disabled slave with thecharge of violation of the contract that he signed when he applied for government benefits.]

Unless the claim is rebutted, the real man finds that he has contracted away his right to a republicanform of government and joined the socialist democracy with responsibility to adhere to the rules ofthe corporation and opportunity to enjoy a perceived benefit. It's all in the NAME. [It is in thehand that signed the name, not how the name is signed. NO STRAWMAN OR ACTOR EVER

SIGNED AN APPLI CATION FOR GOVERNMENT BENEF ITS!! !]

The copyright is your private property and it is your right to get it recorded with the countyrecorder. [They have already admitted that you cannot copyright your name.] Challenge thereluctance of any county recorder to accept your paperwork by citing [I was unable to decipher themeaning of the marks by the authors, here]5407 and 5408 of Revised Statutes of the United States, 1stsession, 43rd Congress, 1873 -1874 (see website for sanctions available for non-compliance withduties to record). The clerk has NO right to make a judicial determination on whether to accept orreject your papers. That determination would have to come by convening a common law court andhave 12 justices rule on the issue. [They are actually doing you a favor when they refuse to file

your fraudulent papers.]

The legal fiction is an ACTOR, a corporation, an employee, a Strawman-it's all of thosethings-but, it's not you! [According to the UCC, the one obligated is the one whos hand held

the pen that signed the paper, which is the flesh-and-blood man or woman, not an Actor orStrawman.] However, so long as you have NOT staked your claim to its exclusive use, the worldof commerce will infringe on it for their purposes. But, once you copyright the legal fiction andremove it from the public domain, the use of that property without your permission will cost theuser a price, which you set in the public record when recording your copyright. [Even if the name

is a legal fiction, when you did not create it, you cannot copyright it. These people are

encouraging you to commit a fraud.]


21/27


A discussion of idem sonans is appropriate. [It is also irrelevant, as the soundof a name

does not sign documents, and you give up your rights with your own hand signing your own

signature to any document with your SSN on it.] It means "sounding the same or alike" and isthe means by which the real man is tricked into answering to the illegal conversion of his Christianappellation (name). When a case is called in court by the bailiff announcing the defendant's name,he is reading the all-capital name of the ACTOR (corporation) which SOUNDS exactly like the real

man's name but is NOT his name. The natural reaction is to respond by walking forward. Themoment the real man enters the bar; he has just left the venue of the People and entered theadmiralty court, where by presumption of contract he comes under some obligation to obey astatutory code, rule or regulation and that he failed to comply with it. [And when he does NOTenter the bar and ANSWER the charges, a bench warrant is issued for him, and he is

arrested.] Idem sonans amounts to criminal conversion (contract made without your consent andlacking full disclosure) that is willful, malicious and deceptive trade practice. [You signed thecontract. Dont try to back out now!!!] The opposition assumes that you will not know the truth,will traverse to that fiction and will automatically be captured into their venue-and be the means tocreating additional revenue to fund the state machine.

So, how does one avoid falling into the idem sonans snare? One way is to file a petition foran identity hearing-in advance-to clarify which party the opposition really want to appear in court.[The simple answer that the District Attorney can give to your question is to say Whoever

signed the application for the benefit is required to appear. No Actor/Strawman has ever

signed an application for a benefit. When you dont appear, you will be arrested and taken to

jail until you make bail or go to court.] This is a deal killer for them because, if they maketruthful disclosure, it exposes their fraud. (You can help dissuade them from proceeding byattaching a copy of your recorded copyright when you file your petition.) [When they see a

fraudulent copyright on a name that you did not give to yourself, they laugh, and know that

they have some easy money coming in, soon.]

Any attempt by a real man to appear in court is foolhardy. The ACTOR is the one on trial

and he needs legal representation (a BAR attorney) to mount a defense. The real man, not being aBAR attorney, cannot come into the court without permission and thus he cannot speak for theACTOR. Nothing the real man attempts to put into the record will have any effect. The judge andthe opposing attorney will take silent notice of the fraud the real man is attempting to perpetrate onthe court, but no one will tell him the reality of the situation. Result: The ACTOR is recorded asNOT having appeared and nobody made a legitimate appearance for the ACTOR, which leads thecourt to award a declaratory judgment in favor of the opposition. Nothing can stop this processbecause real man cannot object without having a BAR card. Even if the judge wanted to rule in theACTOR'S favor, he cannot, being constrained by the rules that govern the court. HINT: If youwant to go into their court, first get a BAR card and obtain standing with the court.

Stay out of their courts! Only attorneys can appear in their courts. They are moving by

contract and statute and regulation, not law. [When you signed the contract, you submitted to thejurisdiction of that court and you are volunteering to appear on demand by the court. You

signed the contract, so dont try to back out, now.] If invited to appear, choose to abstain.

[and be arrested on a bench warrant.]

1. Send their citation back within 72 hours, with an appropriate notation. Wait for a warrant.

2. Receive the warrant and insist without hesitation, "That's not me!"


22/27


3. If taken into custody, be prepared to contest jurisdiction when asked to give your name. Thecorrect response is, "I am me." When queried about being JOHN DOE, you respond, "I'm not theJOHN DOE you have on your paperwork. I am me. Do you have a claim against me? Do youknow anyone who has a claim against me?" They can't have a claim against you because they don'thave title to you, like they do have title to the ACTOR (unless you have recorded your copyright).

[This is a variation of the Roger Elvick questions , and is a sure ticket to jail. They DO have

a claim against you, over your own signature, or you would most likely not be there.]

4. Who is the bondholder indemnifying the case? "I claim the bond because I own the propertyas evidenced by title to a deed recorded in the county." [Your SSN/Voter Registration/DriversLicense number on file proves that you do not own yourself, and that you are committing

fraud.]

5. I own exclusive title to the ACTOR being charged in the action. [NOT TRUE, in over 99%of the cases.] What commercial purpose do you have for that ACTOR and how do you propose topay for the privilege? [You have alreadygiven them the right and power. Dont try to back out,now. The citation is U.S. v Kuball, an Anchorage, Alaska IRS case.] The fee is one millionUnited States silver dollars per use per issuer. [A legally disabled man or woman cannot make

this kind of determination without permission of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is theholder of their ownership papers.]

6. Resist the urge to sign a bond for your release. [And stay in jail.] You are signing acontract whereby you agree to hire an attorney and give up all your rights. [You have no rights, sosigning the paper will not change that.] Even if a friend agrees to post a cash bond, you theaccused are asked to sign the bond prior to release. A proper response might be, "No thanks. I don'tcontract with demons." [And you will stay in jail.]

Send a bill to anyone infringing on your copyright without permission. Typically, apresentment involves two parties, assuming an attorney is in the picture, so the minimum fee is twomillion silver dollars. Wait 30 days to receive payment and then record an Affidavit of Non-

Payment, with your bill attached, into the county recorder's office. (An unrebutted affidavitbecomes a judgment nihil dicit after 30 days and you don't need a court to collect on it.) [And anaffidavit containing fraudulent information can be used against you in the court. When you

have a SSN or other federal/state instrument that obligates you, you are in danger of having

the courts rule against you for whatever reason they wish to state, and not tell you the real

reason. After all, they want to protect the income they can gather from other followers of the

I ts All I n A Name and UCC-1 scams.] In this way, you are generating paperwork in theirvenue, which will eventually be noticed by the bonding companies who indemnify the actions ofgovernment employees. [People who use this approach traditionally make good, permanentinmates in prisons.] The bond company mayrefuse to renew coverage at some point because ofunacceptable risk. [The operative word is may.] Without a bond, a government employee

cannot fulfill the duties of his office and conduct his commercial business.Nihil dicit means that when a party is under the obligation to respond and cannot-or does

not, you have created a controversy, which can only be settled in a common law court (nonexistent)and that puts the opposition in a severe bind. [Most of the time, the courts are not required to

respond to someone under legal disability, such as an SSN holder. If they respond to

something from these Texans, it is because the court is being courteous.] You can add fuel tothe fire by filing a criminal complaint charging deceptive trade practice through the fraudulent useof commercial paper and fraudulent commercial process. [This is a ticket to jail, on any sort of


23/27


crime that they may wish to allege.] It is up to the court to determine what the criminal penaltiesamount to, however, by your bill and affidavit, you have already set the civil penalty at one millionsilver dollars-plus. [And the Admiralty court is free to assess the fines against YOU, as you areco-criminal. Admiralty courts have the power of assessing joint or shared responsibility and

liability for damages.] The opposition is caught between a rock and a hard place because theycannot legitimately answer or dispute your claim and it becomes a judgment by their silence. [They

dont have to worry about anything, because they are friends with the judge, and the appealscourt judges. You are the one that should be worrying, not them.] "You have used mycopyright without my permission to extort some benefit or money or property from my personalestate and I am lodging a claim for damages. I have taken steps to protect my estate and you haveused my copyright without my permission and you owe me one million silver dollars." [You allegeyour fraudulent copyright on something that you did not create, and they may well throw the

book at you. If you just shut up and dont mention your fraudulent copyright, they may be

happy to let it go, but if you push it, they will hit you, -- HARD.]

Maxim of law:"For the defacto officer to have the presumption of office, there must first bethe dejure office." This means that the government may not wish to use the constitution or dealwith real law-but their lifeblood is determined ultimately by their adherence to the law. They willget as far away from real law as the People will allow, but at some point they have to answer to thelaw because they know they cannot exist without the dejure office being there. So, when affidavitsalleging crimes against the People begin to pile up, it will begin to have a snowball effect. [The

constitution supports THEM, not YOU. Read the entire constitution, including the

documents and treaties incorporated by reference into Article 6, and you will see that the

constitution is a bankruptcy instrument that installs the Bank of England as the government

of Washington, D.C., and the We, the People of the United States in the Preamb le means

we, the Aristocrats that own the United States.]

Wow, that's heavy! Some support for that?

When you understand the reason for Article 6 of the constitution, and what it does to the

meaning of the entire document, then the identity of We, the People becomes crystal clear.

The highest form of complaint (even higher than a grand jury indictment) is a swornaffidavit placed into the public record by one of the sovereign People. Actions commence in thecounty court (common law) by affidavit of the sovereign. [You cant be the sovereign and a slaveat the same time, and your SSN or other government instrument proves that you are the slave.

Get over it.] There is no need for a grand jury to be convened and no cause for the police to go outand investigate-all that's required is for a sovereign to write an affidavit and declare, "This crimeoccurred to me" and put it into the county recorder's office. Already, we have seen decisions toresign made by a number of recalcitrant Texas public officers in lieu of contesting the complaints

made against them. [I have heard this alleged in many cases, but have never actually seen ithappen, in spite of being active in this field of research for over 20 years.] It is incumbent uponeach of us to refuse to allow public officers to get away with their crimes and to hold the truth up totheir face at every opportunity. [The constitution protects them. Find all of the incorporations

by reference in Article 6, and you can see that the people who try to use the UCC in this

manner are the criminals, not the government and the courts. If you want liberty, then you

must get completely out of the contracts that have placed you in subjection to them.] We havegot to start asserting our rights and the way we do that is to take control of the presumption that we


24/27


have a commercial identity (ACTOR) that belongs to them and for which they make us theindemnifying party. [Dont look now, but until you get rid of the SSN, you dont HAVE anyr igh ts to assert.]

I haven't gotten the "how do I do this" answer from you yet, I don't believe...

If you dont yet understand how to get rid of the SSN, then it is because you are still wanting to

retain the benefits, and are not allowing yourself to give up the attachment to the seculargovernment mammary gland. The answer is in Strategic Withdr awal, which you have, and issummarized by the full meaning of the legal phrases rescission of contract and release ofpowers of appoin tment. In most cases, it is the refusal to give up the benefits that requires the

payment of the premiums (still bound by the contracts).

When you copyright that ACTOR, you take away their power. [So, because you cannotcopyrightthe ACTOR, you must look elsewhere for a way to take away their power.] By not answeringto that fiction, you take away their power. [They are not asking you to answer to a fiction. Theyare asking you to live up to the contract that yousigned.] By sending them a bill every time they

use the ACTOR'S name without your permission, the accumulating weight of the civil and criminalaffidavits that lie in the county recorder's office will take away their power. [By sending them abill, you will continue to make them angry, and they will have their police pick you up every

chance they get.] They will have to come back and be responsive to the People. [They never have

been responsive to the people, and they are not about to become responsive just because you

file a f raudulent copyright noticeand send them a bill.]

Once your copyright is recorded, you have the ability to stop the progress of cases beingbrought against you. [Wrong!] You load the record with affidavits and counter every move of theopposition. This may not halt the psychological warfare they wage against you and, at some point;you may be intimidated into hiring an attorney. You do this at your own peril because the judgewill likely order your attorney (an officer of the court) to purge offensive documents from the

records-and you will have nothing to say about it-to be replaced with documents of the attorney'schoosing. [At least this part of their document is true.] A better way to go is to stand before thecourt as yourself and to always proclaim, "I am me. I 'm not that fiction or any other entity onGod's green earth . I am only me." [And because you signed documents with the SSN on it, you

will be held responsible for performing on the contracts that you signed.]

The Christian name (title) given to you when you were born is your "address". If questionedas to your address, it is proper to respond, "You may address me as Ralph. I am Me." "Ralph" isnot your mailing location; it is your address. If they attempt to label you a resident, declare that youare an inhabitant. Inhabitants have domiciles, not residences. Where do you live? You live in your

body, where else? You SIGN NOTHING that is placed before you unless you understand the fullimplication of the act. By giving your name to someone else, you relinquish title over yourself. Bygiving your date of birth, you relinquish your birthright. With neither title to yourself nor yourbirthright, you have given over total control of yourself to others. Remember the trickeryperpetrated with idem sonans. The cop in the processing section, the property office clerk, theguard in the prison-are all in on the ruse to get you to traverse to being the fiction. If successful,they own you and you become a ward of the state. [Dont look now, but you are ALREADY award of the state, under legal disability, and you do not have the legal standing or capacity to


25/27


make the arguments alleged above. You have alreadythrown it all away.] "I can't give you myname (my title) because then I wouldn't have one. I can't give you the date of my birth withoutgiving up my birthright." All judges, prosecuting attorneys, policemen, and officers of the court areACTORS with jurisdiction only over other ACTORS (employees of the government)-unless yougive them permission to exercise jurisdiction over you. [Again, you have ALREADY given them

this right. Your only remedy is to be a good slave until you get ready to leave their system,

entirely. By this, I mean use the five step, Strategic Withdrawalprocess.]

Get the common law copyright of the fiction recorded with your county. [If you do, YOURfraud can be used against YOU. Reminding you one more time, - the fraud is over your own

signature and cannot be deni ed.] Remove that ACTOR from commerce. [This cannot be done, atleast by you.] It is the highest title over yourself you can possess. [Wrong.] You own yourself atthat point. [Wrong. Your SSN contract over-rides your allegations, and the fact that you

continue to be eligible for Social Security benefits makes you liable for criminal fraud by

acting otherwise.] You determine who will use that fiction and when and at what price. [Wrong.]It is the ultimate device for protecting yourself. [Wrong again. Only complete obedience to all ofthe laws of the Almighty ONE will provide that kind of protection.] It is more powerful-andmore useful-than a UCC-1 because the copyright is under the common law. The UCC-1 comesunder the commercial code, which may be changed without notice and is overseen by attorneys whoare the fiduciaries for the corporate bankruptcy. They all work for the bankers and they'reprimary job is to collect the debt.[To Collect the Debtthat is defined in the Treaty of 1782,is the purposeof Article 4 of the Treaty of 1783, and is enforcedin Article 6 of the Constitution

of the United States. When you become a U.S. subject under legal disability of the SSN, you

have agreed to pay the debt, and accept the penalties associated with failing in your duty to

pay the debt. You have alreadygiven the courts their jurisdiction, so quit whi ning and pay up.]

Find your remedy for anything that occurred within the boundaries of your county in thevenue of the county court (common law). [Your lawful remedies are called rescission ofcontract and release of powers of appointment.]

I know I've seen that. Was that in Strategic Withdrawal?

I am again recommending that you follow the directions in the foreword of Strategic Withdrawal,and read the book at least th ree times, in qu ick succession . When you follow these simpledirections, you will understand more reasons why it is not possible to use phony methods andshortcuts to become free. Free means FREE. Free does not mean dealing with a fraudulent scamslike this, that allege that there is an ALL CAPS NAME that is a slave and owes money on benefitsand a that you are still a free man that is flesh and blood. There is only one Godand you are onlyone man, and the one that receives the benefits is the one that owes the servitude to the provider ofthe benefits.

Yes. Rescission of contract and release of powers of appointment are thoroughly discussed in

Strategic Withdrawal. When you are ready to get out of the system and quit wasting your time andyour familys substance in court on fraudulent ALL CAPS NAME/UCC stuff, you will get seriousand study the book. I have been a free man, and out of the system since December 1, 1994. Idont know of many people, in ORout of the 50 states, that has been in this movement as long asI have and still has the liberty that I do. I did not get this level of liberty by riding a fence, trying toreceive government benefits, and enjoy freedom from the secular government at the same time.


26/27


[continued from above] Remember that none of the People haverights under the Constitution of the United States, which is a compact between the several Statesand the United States. Your rights are preserved by the local contract, which is your stateconstitution. The federal Bill of Rights does not apply to you, except where it has been replicated inyour state constitution. Neither does the federal government have authority over you, unless youare a resident in a federal enclave or become a federal employee (social security contract). [So, they

are again admitting that the SSN holder is a slave, and cannot make the claims that they arealleging in their document. They are wrong on one important point. The federal Bill of

Rights doesrestrain the Federal government regarding Citizens of the several states, but does

not constrain the federal government when dealing inside of the seat of government

(Washington DC & its States). Of what earthly good is this advertisement of the ALL CAPS

NAME and UCC-1 process, when over 99% of the people who read it cannot use it, and the

veryfew people like the writer of this rebuttal, who do nothave Social Security Numbers, do

not need it?] So, the feds cannot put you in their prison-unless you volunteer. [and you havealready volunteered, so the authors are selling you a ticket to jail.] One way of volunteering isto speak improperly at allocution (time of sentencing). When the judge asks if you know of anyreason why he should not pass sentence, you had better jump to your feet and speak with as much

conviction as you can manage; [Read Allocution in Blacks Law Dictionary. It saysFormality of courts inquiry of prisoner as to whether he has any legal cause to show why

judgment shoul d not be pronounced against him on verdict of convi ction. You must give them

legal reasons, not opinion, speculation, or conjecture. The court can ignore anything that you

say, providing that evidence of your possession of a SSN, or equivalent binding of the public

debt, is shown during the states presentation of evidence. As one lawyer told me, When you

owe a debt, you must pay the debt. When you have a SSN, there can be no lawful impediment

to the collection of that debt. See: Ar ticle 4 of the Treaty of 1783. When you have a SSN, you

owe this debt, no Thing in the constitution or laws of the state of Texas to the contrary has any

standing (Article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution of the U.S.]

"Yes sir, I know SEVERAL reasons why you should not pass sentence!

FOR THE RECORD, that fiction listed on your paperwork is NOT Me! [They did not try afictional character. They tried the flesh-and-blood man or woman that signed their contracts.

Fictional characters cannot sign documents.] You can sentence that fiction to anything youplease-if you think you have title to him. [Dont worry, they will!] But, you do NOT have title toMe, [YES, THEY DO!! !]so you cannot do anything to Me-and I do NOT give you permission todo anything except dismiss the case and discharge all charges with prejudice! [You gave them

permission when you got the SSN, and gave them permission all over again, every time that

you used the SSN for receiving another government benefit.] Furthermore, there is evidence offraud and collusion on the part of the prosecution who has brought an action in the name of afictitious plaintiff. [There is also evidence of fraud against YOU, and the doctr ine of unclean

hands applies. Under the unclean hands doctrine, you are barred against bringing suitagainst them.] This is an equity court and you either move by contract or by title. I don't have anycontract with you [Oh, yes you do!! !]and I know for certain that you don't own me nor am I yourslave. [Will Rogers said that It isnt what you dont know that hurts you. It is what you know

for certain sure, but it just aint so. In this case, when you have a SSN or any other

instrument issued by an instrumentality of the U.S. (28 USC 3002(15)(C)), then you ARE a

slave. What you allege that you know just aint so and it is going to hurt you, real bad.] I ama living soul and NOT a corporation or a fictitious creation of the state. Furthermore, I am NOT anemployee of any government corporation. [This may be true, but it is irrelevant, because your


27/27

SSN makes you an instrumentality of the U.S., and as such, 28 USC 3002(15(C) places you

under the legal disability of bankruptcy, and liable for the entire national debt.] I am ME.[True, -- and YOU signed the contracts.] I claim subject matter jurisdiction and in personamjurisdiction for myself alone and I refuse to relinquish either jurisdiction to you. So, you cannotfine me or put me in jail. [You say this in contradiction to the obligations on the contracts that

you have signed, and the judge sends you to jail, under silent judicial notice of your perjury.]

I demand to be released immediately!" [Demand all you want, but the steel doors will still slamshut behind you, just like they have slammed behind so many others.]

Send Comments [email protected]

Get a copy of the Video: Copyright - Its All in the NAME for a suggested donation of atleast 20.00 to cover cost of mailing and materials. [and pay another $200,000 in lost time fromwork, legal fees, confiscated property, etc.]

A sample copyright instrument suitable for recordation will be included, if you request it.

Mail donations: [Cash (FRN's) or BlankMoney Orders]

For use on envelope only.

G-ManP.O. Box 241Weston, Texas [75097]

Please do not make checks and Money Orders to G-man.

A CD is now also available for a donation containing documents actually used.

All material contained in this presentation is for educational purposes only. It does not

constitute legal advice. None of the contributors are lawyers or members of the BAR.

Consult your own legal professional before attempting to make use of any of this material.

There are no guarantees-implied or express-as to the accuracy or adequacy of any of the

information presented.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Response to ALL CAPS NAME Theory