Well, I’ve heard some rumors and stuff, but people can’t go on living their lives on rumors .I love Elvick to pieces . . . He’s been my mentor all along, and has done some incredible decent stuff, but on the other side, he’s still fighting a lot of war and he started doing acceptances in order in the commercial law form to go to peace on these people anyway. No problem, now what I ‘m seeing that a lot of the stuff he’s been doing is just incredible, but, on the other side I see that he and Barbara Busch and a lot of the people who have been spreading a lot of his material have been coming back trying to charge public officials when they don’t immediately accept everything that they are doing and what I have been doing on my Monday night meetings is, what I’ve been showing a lot of people is that they don’t on the public side they will not accept overtly exactly what it is that you’ve done. And Roger came back earlier, about a year ago, and charging them in a bankruptcy proceeding and has been doing other things too, and all those things are charging your brother you don’t need to do that, Most of the things that Victoria and I have been helping with we see that when you draft people to do things, we see that they don’t do it, on the public side, and if they did, it would expose exactly what they are doing, and so it appears that they are constantly going against you, but subtly, in the paperwork and the documentation that they’re issuing, they are showing you the recognition of what’s happening.

 

Victoria has been picking that up intensely with a lot of the people she has been helping.  I have been talking to Victoria as often as twice a day or more a day about a lot of the things she is doing while she is assisting people with really incredible results. You know I haven’t mentioned Victoria lately. When she got out of jail, she was allegedly on a probation basis and she did an acceptance for value and return for value closure on that and got some really weird and strange responses. She went and did some seminars out of state and was suppose to report to probation every time she left state and at first she was panicked that she was going to get picked up, even they didn’t keep bugging her.  It looks like she isn’t even on a reporting list anymore. She leaves and goes all over the place and does things. She’s not in their face and we’re not publicly in the background saying “we got rid of that probation, screw you this works, because a lot of the stuff we’re doing, we don’t want to expose an “I told you so attitude,” because that’s a dishonor back to the public.  So we’re learning to keep this stuff we’re doing and achieving success in private without getting in their face, and not exposing that we have the authority, but when we are in honor both in the private and public, things go away, but we are just seeing such incredible results, and even with the people that Vic is helping, when they don’t understand, and they do something and the government, or attorneys, or other side comes back and appear as though they didn’t pay any attention, we’re still getting indications that when our people dance wrong, the other side comes back and hits them with a contempt or a problem that becomes a dishonor.  When our people do the right thing and dance right and aren’t in dishonor with them, they come back and dance with our people with astounding written orders that on the surface appear to be inappropriate, but in the background, it’s just incredible what’s going on. Victoria and I are really encouraged by what’s happening.

 

On Monday nights, I have basically come out and explained about a month ago this rule of 93. And Larry Beacraft has about this rule of 93. I know he’s put some stuff on the internet about wrong way law and about me making it up. . . well the rule of 93 research came out of Qui Tam over a year and a half ago and it is just basically the principle that if somebody does business with the DEBTOR to a creditor, that the third party who does business with the DEBTOR, now becomes the DEBTOR to that Debtor’s creditor and if you understand that principle or concept of commerce which makes perfect sense, then that explains the outcome of the Revolutionary war, the private banking cycle, how the states became liable for the debts of the Fed, how the people became for the debts of the state, it just knocks the hell out of all of that. I’ll do an article about that.

 

The other side of the issue is that all the patriots have been going around with these unregistered trusts. Right way is partially responsible for that because 10 or 13 years ago, se said if you register your trust, the public owns them.  Don’t register them like all the attorneys do, they remain private . . . that’s absolutely true, but the United States and the Justice System, and the IRS treats the assets in the trusts like (A) they are either alter-egos of the person who transferred them to the trust, or (B) Nominee of the person who transferred them there, and the IRS ignores the legality or the existence of that trust just. It just re-does all of the accounting as though everything that that trust did was the alter-ego of the individual or the Strawman that transferred assets into it, and totally ignores the trust, and just comes after the individual for all the so called income. The rule of 93 explains exactly why they are doing it, and the United States is right. And all of us patriots were wrong . . . and it explains the legal theory behind that in a heartbeat. So we’re having incredible results and where we’re going. We haven’t got the answers to all the riddles yet, I don’t know in a lifetime, or several lifetimes if the Creator is going to be good enough to expose everything they’re doing. Neither Victoria nor I are at war with the government at all. In fact, that we’re telling everybody that those guys are so correct within the scope of what they’re doing that you guys better get a clue.

 

In my Monday nights, and in my seminar I did in San Diego in February, I told everybody there are four classes of people. The first class is the ostriches with their heads in the sand, but those people are basically in honor to the government because they are not rebelling. The second class is Patriots. And in this second class I call anybody who studies any profession in the world. I don’t care if it’s medical, legal, money, politics, entertainment, education, industry, engineering, you study what the professional are doing long enough and you will find out that the profession is systematically doing everything backwards and screwing up.

Now…. The patriots found out that the government isn’t honoring the constitution. So they, figured out that the politicians and the legal people have got it all wrong and they figured out pretty much to the extent that they understand it that the banking people are doing everything backwards and have it wrong.  People in category two make the assumption that in order for our lives to get better, we’ve got to change the way the professions do their job. They’ve got to start doing it right instead of wrong. So people in category two are the most unhappy lot of people you’ve ever seen in life, because they presume that their future happiness is predicated on their ability to basically change the world as we know it today. Now there was a person that made the statement that “You’ve got to be insane to presume you’ve got to change the world.” You can only be sane to understand that all you can change is yourself.  Now the people in the patriot group, or the people that are studying alternative medicines that understand that the doctors as a profession are doing poison burn cut and paste. They are dealing with symptoms and not causes. Because they never treat the cause, the patient never improves. They put a bandage on something today, and then tomorrow they get a repeat business by putting a bandage on something else. That’s what the lawyers do today. He gets to treat your symptom today and you’re in trouble again tomorrow and he gets to charge you again to treat your symptoms. The banker took all money out of existence, so you can’t ever close an account, so all you can do is discharge it and tomorrow you’re in debt again, so he has repeat business.  The politician goes to peace, all he does is create armistice in the war and when the war breaks out tomorrow, he stays in business again. So everybody in the professions in the world are screwing it up. They’re all backwards. The people in category two presume that if they change the world, the future for themselves and their children will get better. That’s what the patriots have been doing. The problem is, you get to get to category three if you’re ever lucky enough to get out of category two, because in category two the patriots are in continuous warfare. They’ll never stop the war unless the other side finally agrees with them and does everything right in the mind of the thinking of the patriot.

 

Category three is very interesting. Category three looks in the mirror and says “The whole world can’t be wrong . . . maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m wrong. “Scripture says “take the beam out of your own eye before you go after the log in your brother’s eye.” If the world professionals are doing everything backwards, it’s probably with the creators assent. He is allowing them to do it. If He’s allowing them to do everything backwards, he must have a good reason for that going on. And if he hasn’t empowered the people in category two, the world who are trying to make the world perfect, if he hasn’t empowered them to change what has been going on for centuries and centuries, and millenniums, the chances are that the creator wants it backwards for some reason.  And if you are trying to change it, you are bucking the king or professions of his world, you’re bucking straight head to head with the creator who wants it run backwards for some reason. So now the issue is “Lord help me understand what I have the power to change so that I can deal with that, and what I don’t have the power to change, or what you don’t want me to change, so I’m not wasting all my time and activity on the impossible.” So in category three, Victoria and I are looking at the possibility that certainly none of the people aren’t doing what they’re suppose to be doing, but that there is a reason they aren’t doing it. And if we go to war against them, it well not enhance our position, but if we allow them to do what they’re doing which is totally backwards, and just not go along with them to us in our personal life, because we know what’s right to do that which is right, but we will not try to make them change their modus operandi as it applies to everyone else, because it’s outside of our authority and control. Then all of a sudden happiness is not a matter of changing the rest the world to your way of thinking, but harmonizing your actions to go to peace with the world. Commercially, you do that by acceptance and request for settlement and closure without arguing the facts, without arguing the law, without arguing what it is they’re doing, jurisdiction, or anything else. Go to peace with your brother, and he should go to peace with you. Now in category three, I said to people that once you get to the point where you’re not getting a good result with other people, maybe it’s because of the way you’re mistakenly looking at them rather than at the way that they are making mistakes in the way they interface with your life. So, change yourself, and you will change your world. Then you come to the conclusion in category three that there is commerce out there and you presume there is good commerce and bad commerce, and you decide, changing my life will cause me to be involved in good commerce and that will make my life better.

 

Category four has the basic concept of category three except you learn that all commerce is inherently evil and that if you are involved in any commerce, it is not to your good. Now, it takes a lot more regimentation to bring the person from category three to category four, because they don’t want to presume or assume that, but we’ve laid the foundation for it. So I could put together an article on this and show where it’s getting results. I would be glad to put together an article on the rule of 93.it goes back to 1793 and how the states ended up becoming debtors under the rule of 93, how the states got suckered into the governors in 1928 and 1933 of turning over their assets how the people got pulled into the contract under the provisions of the rule of 93 when the states got tumbled in 1933 and then it comes back and I can show you why the IRS is attacking all unregistered trusts. Because the rule of 93 says they can and will. The remedy for all these patriots who are being attacked, the remedy is very simple.  Register your trust and you won’t have any trouble.

 

It is the opposite of what everybody thinks. We’ve had such incredible results by accepting attorneys in cases; it’s unbelievable. See, most of the patriot’s say, “If you take an attorney, that grants jurisdiction”. It’s just the opposite. If you go pro se, you grant jurisdiction. If you do a letter rogatory and request that the court compel an attorney to represent the defendant, or that’s their business, but if they don’t have council represent the defendant, the court is without persona jurisdiction to continue. We’ve had the court tripping over itself in one case about five times; it keeps appointing attorneys and then recusing them because the crazy patriot doesn’t understand what he is doing. He goes into dishonor, honor, dishonor, honor, but ultimately, he is telling the court that he is incapable as a matter of law of representing the defendant and if they are going to continue in the trial that they really need to consider that the court needs to appoint an attorney to do this. And this is a federal judge in this case. He is the chief judge in that district court. This judge always gives the patriot another opportunity to authorize the appointment of yet another attorney to represent the defendant. That’s how critical having legal council is. Now it’s very simple. The Strawman is their property it’s not yours. The only one that is summoned into any court, civil or criminal, is the Strawman.

 

A living soul is never the defendant or plaintiff in any legal case. Since the Strawman belongs to the government, it’s their property. Since their court is foreign to the constitution, it’s a foreign court. If the living man walks into the court to represent the Strawman, which is their corporate asset, you’ve just merged your actions with the public. Isn’t that the very definition of the appearance of jurisdiction? You came in and represented the Strawman, and it it’s their property and their court and is a fiction and corporation, and you’re defending them? (a) You either have to be an officer of the court, or (b) you’re a lunatic. You have to be one of the two. That’s a military, democracy, and foreign court. How can you go into a military court without being an officer of the court? When you go in pro se, you’ve appointed yourself an officer of the court. They’re not going to object. But you just put yourself voluntarily in persona jurisdiction to the court by the way of your actions of defending the Strawman. You say to the court, “I don’t think I have a license to represent a corporate fiction in your court.  I believe you need to appoint licensed council to represent your defendant.” You do this by way of a letter rogatory from you to them. Have you done a persona appearance to interfere in the activities of their court? They have no jurisdiction over the living man. So it’s by telling them to appoint an attorney to represent their defendant in their foreign court that prevents you from walking into the jurisdiction. If you go in pro se and ignore the appointment of their council, you granted persona jurisdiction. This is working in a heartbeat. They’re tripping over themselves wondering what’s going to happen.

 

See, in the commercial side, we’ve been saying a long time.” The attorney is liable for the crimes that he is defending unless the living soul comes in and acts like a partner of the defense team.”  That’s why the attorneys keep asking the judge to let them off the case when you don’t want to go in and appear to be defending the defendant because they become liable. So you get your remedy by doing the opposite of what all these patriots are preaching to the patriot community. (Are we talking primarily about a criminal matter?)  We’re primarily talking about the civil because the Strawman is the civil. Take that court case down in Tennessee that Larry Beacraft and the other attorney won: woman pilot IRS case, the jury found her not guilty. The judge didn’t object. You know why the judge didn’t object? Because their defense was perfect.  They shouldn’t have been in court. They shouldn’t have been arguing, but they were. Now, her defense was “I wrote letters to the IRS for years asking them what law made me liable.” Did the IRS ever answer? (Probably not).  No. That’s called a dishonor.

 

You’ve got to protect your brother. They should have said to her, “Look, it’s not a law. The thing that makes you liable is the condition number one of honor. Number two, we’re a military occupation and to honor the occupation. You owe us the duty under international law, three, there is no domestic laws requiring it accept for the military occupation and four, since everybody’s bankrupt, the facts in the law are in the moon anyway. It’s not about the facts in the law; it’s about how people treat each other in procedure. Now, if they would have told her that, they would have been honest and she could have reexamined her position and decided to pay the tax. But when they weren’t honest with her, they failed to respond to her, that’s called a commercial dishonor. When you’re in a commercial dishonor, there’s no way you can win. You’re the DEBTOR.

 

Class one ostriches don’t understand anything, perceive that they understand everything, BUT understand nothing.  The judge probably told them “now if this lady sincerely believes she didn’t have an obligation because the IRS didn’t tell her what it was, then you can find her not guilty of the crime even though she owed the tax. So, that instruction could have come out of the judge. And if that’s the case, the judge was doing it right because what he is saying to the jury, “You’ve got two people that are wrong here. The woman, out of honor should have paid her tax So, I’m sure the jury, whether they understood anything or not, chances are. And she screwed up. But the IRS, out of honor should have responded to the questions and they screwed up. So, you go back there and decide whether you want to find the defendant guilty or not, based one of those two dishonors is the most flagrant.” The judge could have said had he been very honest. Now he isn’t going to tell it in terms of honesty, because in military court is a colorable court, which means like they said in “A few Good Men,” You can’t handle the truth in a military court, in an admiralty, equity court.  They’re not there for truth; they’re there for colorable response. So the judge colorably probably told the jury that they could go either way. They came back with a “not guilty.”  Do you think that in a heart beat that it will stop the IRS from coming after her civilly? That’s what they did seven or eight years ago when the other guy was found “not guilty.” They came back after him civilly. It’s immaterial and irrelevant whether he gets off of the criminal case anyway. It deals with honor, not the law. There is no law when there’s a bankruptcy. It deals with how you treat your brother.

 

So, when the IRS or when the US justice department said to the judge after the jury found her “not guilty,” “Would you explain to this woman that she has to file her tax returns or something?” The judge said, “Sir, I do not work for the IRS. That’s up to you people. The jury made its decision. They didn’t make the decision based upon whether or not she owed a tax; it was based on the fact that the IRS dishonored her by not responding to her request for the issue as to “Why should I pay the tax.” So the US was in dishonor, they were a DEBTOR, and they should have lost the case. That doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t have paid the tax.

 

People don’t even understand what the tax is. It has nothing to do with the law.  It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is holding the title to all the assets. The tax is nothing more than paying the trustee the trustee fee for his year’s service as the trustee. The amount of the trustee fee is based on the commercial activity called income and gain that was derived to the trust entity in the year that the trustee served. The US government is the trustee. By the way, all the property is registered in the public system. To all the taxes is the trustee. That’s all it is. They charge the trustee fee at the end of the year. And if you don’t pay the trustee fee, the reason they levy is that the trustee has a common law lien on the assets for his fee. He has nothing to do with the judgment.  Under the military lingo, they absolutely do not want the occupied nation to understand the nature of what’s going on. In times of war, the enemy will lie left and right to you. Does that mean that he is dishonorable? No, it just means he’s just in the category of a foreign occupying force and it’s up to you to understand what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. Everything comes out to understanding honor and dishonor. That’s what it all comes out to. And it’s all in the procedure. The procedure must be colorable so that you won’t expose the truth and dishonor the occupying forces with too much truth. Otherwise, it would create rebellion from the people who won’t go along with the occupation.

 

Now if you look at category 1,2,3,and 4 people I’ve talked about, Does the government give a hoot about category 1 ostriches? No. Are they in rebellion against the government? So they complain and bitch because they ‘re ignorant, but they believe they are intelligent because they listen to the talking heads at 6:30. But everything they’re getting from the talking heads is military psychobabble to convince them that there are problems, but we’re taking care of it for you. We’re the occupying force. We’ve got it under control. Now the people in category 2 that see that everything is bass-ackwards, aren’t they out there trying to change things?  Aren’t they in war? Isn’t that the category of the latest public war? The war on terrorism? So, everyone in category 2 according to the Patriot Act I and the proposed Patriot Act II are terrorists, which really upsets the patriots. But for crying out loud, they’re all at war, because they have to change the world. Now if you get into category 3, you understand that the military occupying forces are here to prevent anarchy. Why would you be at war against the military forces preventing anarchy? You would work with them in a colorable manner. Are you at war? Are you a terrorist? Why would the government be interested in arresting Smith if he is not at war and not a terrorist? Would they be interested in arresting Elvick if he were still fighting them?  Yes.  Now, I’m not saying they might not come out and do something against me just because their perception is whatever it is and they can do whatever they want. But, I am not at war against these people.

 

But you see, Victoria is going out and doing quite well with her seminars she is doing post her release. I cannot emphasize enough to the patriot world that Victoria getting out of her problems with that court in California is nothing short of a miracle in comparison to what a lot of these patriots have been doing. And the reason it’s true, is that I know of no one charged with the Montana Freeman warrant use that’s gone as far as arrest and lock up Even pre-trial that wasn’t convicted spending a lot of time in jail and she is the hell out of there without a jury trial and the only reason she was in there for four months, instead of less than three months is because she was dishonoring the procedure along the way. But thank goodness that she always recovered and didn’t screw it up so badly, that it ended up being a dishonor to put her into jail under a jury trial.  Victoria is starting to understand that now by the procedure she is teaching. She is teaching the practical aspect of what I’ve been teaching the concepts and theories of and she’s really good at it.

 

She is this weekend up in the Seattle area and was suppose to have a seminar that we’ve been two weeks preparing.  She was told earlier this week, there were five people, but there ended up being 12. It was in a private home. Everybody who has been going to her seminars, especially since she got out of jail, has been learning what this thing is all about. They are coming out just thanking her up one side and down the other for seeing a bigger picture of what’s going on in these courts and what you have to do to deal with them.

 

(Back to the court thing with the accepting the attorney, so on that issue that is either civil or criminal, and they are only bringing in the corporate fiction debtor, then as I perceive your comment-statement that you assign an attorney to represent this corporate fiction, but I’m not going to participate) You have to do the following: if you don’t participate, at some level, it’s a dishonor, because you aren’t helping them with their illusion. So here’s what you do, you say “I’m not here to defend his action. I am there to pay all the liabilities for the damage he caused. Just let me know what it is after you guys are done sorting it out, and I’ll discharge the liability.(In regards to the comment “for settlement and closure” ) and you can use the exemption to do that. But you want to watch how you’re doing that because if you say it in the public, that’s too much truth and they start arguing with you.

 

People are using all these instruments; they come back and try to tell the judge “well I gave an instrument.” And the judge asks them a question “Do you think that paid the debt?” They’ll go, “sure it did.” (beep). How can you pay a debt, there’s no money. And even if it was Federal Reserve notes, that never pays a debt.  All it does is just replace one debt with another. Nobody can pay a debt. Period. And when the judge says ”Do you think that pays the debt, and the patriot goes “yea,” then the judge knows that he’s a lunatic. And because you say” Why are you coming after me? I did everything I needed to do. That means you’ve just made the judge go low. You just told him the judgment.  Well, if you judge yourself, that’s a dishonor to the court.  Scripture says, if you go high and tell them you’ve done everything you needed to do, they will send you low. They’ll say “well, that does it, everything you say is stupidity, lunacy, everything.” If you argue it, even when you’re right, you lose. If you agree them, even when they’re wrong, you win.  By arguing with a lunatic, you have become a lunatic. They’re in the land of death. What is it that they could say that’s real? Nothing. So, if you argue with someone who is a debtor, you become a debtor. And then they sentence you as though you were guilty of the charges that they brought for which they had no claim. [Note:  in the absence of ‘money’, one can only “discharge” obligations which arise as a consequence of the “debt” of any due performance wherein some form of ‘consideration’ must be exchanged in commerce.  A ‘discharge’ is not ‘payment’, and even when discharge is effected, the debt underlying it remains for lack of payment in ‘lawful money’]

 

**But the reason they sentence you as though you are guilty of the charges is you’re being sentenced for contempt, for dishonor. You’re not being sentenced under the law. They can’t sentence you under the law, because there is no law because there is no money. See, the reason they got rid of all the article courts, is because all the article three courts work on law. But since there is no money, even if we gave you a law decision, how could we execute the decision? All decisions are executed in money. Civil cases are executed in money. There is no money to execute a law case so what’s the use of having a law court? Don’t need it. Criminal case is executed in money too.  Isn’t everybody in jail paying their debt to society? Well, then it’s a commercial pronouncement. But they can’t sentence anybody in a criminal case because there is no money. So why do they sentence them, or why do you lose a civil case? It was a dishonor. You’re being sentenced on contempt.

 

**You see, admiralty courts have the power of contempt. And the so-called penalty for the contempt is a theft and appraised as though it was in/as “money”. And that transfers into time in jail that you spend because of your contempt. Remember when Bork was there attempting to answer the questions to be nominated to the Supreme Court, he said everybody was in jail on their own volition. How the hell did they get there because of their own volition? Nobody wanted to be there. They’re there for contempt. Just go back to admiralty cases. Admiralty courts have the power of contempt big time. About all the power they have is contempt power. So they don’t tell you you’re going to jail for contempt, they just say to you “We’re sentencing you for bank robbery or murder. You’re going to jail on contempt which a dishonor. It’s all in the procedure. When did they start teaching attorneys law? All they teach them is procedure.  Cause, there’s no money, or law to execute on.

 

Law is just the carrot they hold out and the patriot goes “You don’t have any power of law. You don’t have any statutes under law compelling taxes under. That’s damn straight cause we don’t have any money.  I’ll tell you what we do have, we understand honor, and you bastards don’t and that’s why you’re going to jail. You go in to argue taxes, and beep you’re going to jail. There are no taxes. We know there’s no tax, but there’s such a thing called honor and dishonor and you don’t have honor. Therefore you are going to jail on the presumption that you didn’t pay your tax because you’re in a dishonor to this procedure. It has nothing to do with taxes.

 

Have you heard the Sara Fugate case got reversed? Do you know why it got reversed? She argued.  I told them flat out. If you go in and argue this, the court is going to reverse this. The reversal will be based on the dishonor of the argument. It was never ruled on the money issue. It will never rule on the money issue. The judge looked for the attorney for the bank and said, “What do you have to say?” and the attorney “That Bill of Exchange is No Good!”  Hello, did he just dishonor? Did he just judge his own case?  The judge went back and forth for 20 minutes so nobody could

tell when the turning point was and the judge said to the Bank, “I’m dismissing your case. I want you to write an order of dismissal and tender it to me for signature. Why did the bank lose? It was a dishonor. Did it have anything to do with whether or not the bill of exchange was valid or not? No. And I told Sara, “They’re not going to rule on it.”

 

Now what happened is, the attorneys were so upset that they petitioned the same lower court for a rehearing. That judge was so upset he called a hearing because he had to not be in dishonor and when the hearing started he said “There will be no evidence taken today at this hearing.” Why? The evidence is irrelevant. You lost because of a dishonor. Don’t try and argue this. Why did the attorneys come back and want a new hearing? They needed findings of fact and conclusion of law to appeal it. The judge was angry because he wasn’t going to give them findings of fact and conclusions of law. Why wasn’t the judge going to give the finding of facts and conclusion of law? Because it’s not about the issues of the case; it’s about honor. But he didn’t want to tell them that. So he just said to them again, “You can take it up on appeal.” Guess what happened when they took it up on appeal? The appellate court said, “We can’t help you. You’re raising new issues up here. You’ve got to go back to court.  There’s nothing to hear because there were no findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

The reason the judge didn’t make findings of fact and conclusions of law is because it was based on dishonor and not on the merits of the case. Do you think a lower court judge is going to rule on the money issue and put his brothers at the appellate court in a bind to tell the truth? Absolutely not. He told those attorneys for the bankers below “Your clients are bankers and they ought to understand what’s going on here.” Now, when the attorneys came back down after having been at the appellate court, somebody must have gotten in there and fired the idiots or gotten somebody in there or redone it, because when they came back down, what they did is they took Sara Fugate’s instrument and they took that Bill of Exchange to the department controller to the department of currency in Washington and they got an investigator and showed them the instrument and he said “Written on the Treasury . . . Who wrote that? Sara Fugate.” He said, “This is a fraud.  This is no good.” And they said, “Would you testify to that?”  He said, “Sure, I’d be happy to.” So what they did is they went back down to Florida and subpoenaed the comptroller of the currency’s investigator to come to a deposition and they summonsed Sara Fugate to the deposition to depose her. They wanted them to argue about the validity of the bill of exchange.  Now if Sara argues about the validity of the bill of exchange, what’s just happened? She’s at war and in dishonor. Now the bank didn’t say it was no good. They got a third party to say it’s no good. So the bank’s in honor, and Sara’s in dishonor, which means they’ll petition the court for a reverse ruling to change their mind. Ultimately, that’s what happened.

 

In the current issue of the bulletin in the article with the little article witnessing the situation with 678 successes without a dishonor, it seemed like the judge in a little interpretive situation between a woman attorney and a man attorney, he lays out the fact within the interpretation “I can’t recognize your dishonor because that’s how we charge our high fees and take control of everything and so the judge asked the woman attorney, “Can you resubmit your arguments?” See, it’s right there. It’s right in your face when you see what’s going on. All these patriots want to come out and argue the law, the constitution, the facts of the case, and these people are all firmly in category two. Now, I’m not condemning them because that’s where I was for so many years, that I could kick myself. But what I’m telling people is “Recognize what’s going on and you may have to come through category two just because seems to be the path and the nature of things. But pray to God that you get through that category two at least into three as soon as possible before you shoot yourself in the foot and do yourself in.”

 

“Now, back to the thing about whether it is civil or criminal and not wanting to blatantly expose too much of the truth in the open public court, let’s say in a matter of where there’s a foreclosure going on, how would the secured party, in reference to the defendant bring in the request for settlement and closure with or without the attorney or even asking to bring an attorney in?” “Here’s what’s got to happen. Every time you’re in a court, you’re in a Debtor’s exam. Every hearing, a motion hearing, a judgment hearing, a sentencing hearing, it’s a Debtor’s exam [because the only ‘person’ present is the DEBTOR IN BANKRUPTCY]. And in a Debtor’s exam, the only person that’s required to speak is the Debtor. The ball’s in his court” “And the debtor can’t speak without council.” The debtor’s a fiction, okay? But, the reason you’re there is because you screwed up.  See, everything is handled in the private who is outside the public hearing in the court and when you dishonor the private

side, they schedule a motion hearing, a sentence, or something or other. The only way to win is to be a winner before you arrive at the court, so the Debtor has got to respond to your last issue. Now in answer to the question, see here’s the problem When you go into the court to defend yourself against a criminal case, even when you win, you haven’t won anything because you come out of there and you’ve still got a civil liability and the government’s books aren’t balanced. So, when somebody wins a trial, in reality, it’s the reverse of it.  Everybody lost. **If you could go in and plead guilty to the facts, and settle it in private, and it looks like you’ve lost in the public, you’ve authorized them to use your exemption to settle and close the case and everybody wins. They win because their books are closed, you win because you’re in honor and peace and you’re going to get to go home and not be nuked. So it’s the opposite of what’s going on. Now in a foreclosure case, the problem is that the Strawman is the debtor. And he hasn’t paid his mortgage. And the reason they’re in a court scenario, is literally because they tried administratively, privately to get honor and agreement to settle and close this out of you before they went into the tribunal or to the trustee and you kept going “No, no, I don’t owe it . . . prove it”  You dishonored them. See, if the people would have said, “I agree, I owe the mortgage. I accept it, I return it, I authorize settlement and closure by way of the exemption,” you should never be in the court because you’ve already agreed and settled. Now look what happened to Sara Fugate. Sara Fugate gave the bank the bill of exchange. It was the stupid bank that drug her into the court seeking a judgment against her. Who was in honor? She was and so they shouldn’t have been stupid enough to take her into the court. So the judge had a rule against them. That’s because they were idiots. But someway or another they smartened up and before they took her into court the final time, they got her to argue against them so they could take into court her dishonor. Anytime you’re in court, it’s based upon somebody’s dishonor. It better not be yours.

 

What about the situation in the mortgage when they dishonored? “Who dishonored?” The other side in relation to a title company, “Yea it might be, because some of these attorneys aren’t that smart and don’t know what’s going on, (the attorneys in Sara Fugate’s case.) So we’ve got some edumacation to do, but the biggest problem we’ve got right now is educating the patriots. Because they are the ones creating 99% of the problem, and even when Sara was right, you know I talked to her because actually I knew about her and got her case like all the other patriots did, and I thought, “This is pretty incredible. She’s actually done some good stuff, and then I heard that what was going on; that she was going into that deposition, I get this call from Sara and Sara says to me “Well yea, you’re probably the most famous patriot out there right now. (She’s just a wonderful lady). “Well, I don’t know about that, but I’ve got this hearing and somebody suggested I call you. I said, “I appreciate the fact that you did call me. Do you have a tape recorder?” No, I said, “You might want to get one. Do you have people that have been helping you?” She said, “Yes” and I suggested she call me back with them on the call with a tape recorder online. “I think I can suggest to you some things to you that will make you understand so you don’t screw this thing up in what they’re trying to do.” She actually went into the deposition and did perfect. [Note: The people helping Sara Fugate were staffers at ARL with Eddie Kahn]

 

But when she came out of the deposition, at the deposition, they had a magistrate at that deposition the whole time. That’s how important they see that case. And the last thing the magistrate said is, “I’m not going to rule today. I want you guys to go back and prepare a brief memorandum on this and submit it to me. I have no idea what they put in that brief memorandum, but I’ll guarantee that they argued.” (As a matter of record, ink and text and signed and all of that). Does she have a new remedy? Yes she has a new remedy, just like they did once they lost. They could turn it around and get the other side into a greater dishonor than she is. But I mean, people don’t take naturally to understanding the fact that this legal system is doing everything bas-ackwards through a mirror. And it’s not normal to patriots to be looking at the thing that’s coming against them as a mirror image of reality; they tend to look at it as though it is the reality.  So they do everything backwards to meet the backwards nature of what they’re seeing. Therefore it entices them into the dishonor and they lose because they’re penalized for their contempt. 

 

See, Sara’s penalized for the contempt for doing something dishonorable in the procedure. She had already been in honor.  But she didn’t really understand how she was in honor. She just kind of lucked into that position. She knew there was nothing wrong with the bill of exchange. If you argue them, your argument becomes a dishonor and therefore you get contempted in the processes because your argument is so real that the colorable system can’t listen to it. Doesn’t the argument become colorable? Only if it’s a colorable argument. You must say something, which could be interpreted either way. You can’t say something that’s too truthful and too real. Can’t you say, “I agree with you? I request settlement and closure. If you argue anything else, then you’ve stepped into the colorable argument.” Absolutely. And so Sara is trying to explain probably why the bill of exchange is good. “Right. And it’s not the issue, because it was already agreed to by their dishonor and their acceptance of it and non-refusal of it that it is valid.”  Plus, because the public’s bankrupt, they can’t even address the issue. We’ll have to assume it is unless someone proves it isn’t. The only way you prove it isn’t is by your own acts of dishonor.

 

“So back to an example if someone is in that situation in a foreclosure.” Tender the Bill of Exchange, Ask for closure and settlement, notify me of it when it’s done.  “And beyond that, I’m not here to argue or testify.” There you go. All the facts are true. The debtor owes that amount of money. Yes it’s true. Yes it wasn’t paid. Yes, you’ve got a right for collection. All those things are true. “If you want to assign an attorney to this, go for it.” Let him do whatever, but I’m authorizing only settlement and closure and I’ll be happy to use my exemption for the offset and adjustment so you can close that account. You tell me what you think that it is, because I don’t want to get involved in your business and the Debtor’s Strawman’s business to determine the liability. If you tell me it’s a million, I authorize a million. If you tell me it’s a billion, I’m not going to argue with you, I’ll accept it and request authorize settlement and closure on that. He’s your Debtor, it’s your accounts, but you people are all dead people.  You need the living to authorize the exemption, which I will do.  Now, you don’t make that last statement, because there is too much truth in that. But that’s what you’re doing.

 

Look, the Messiah came to authorize his commercial energy to pay, settle, and close the debt of all the dead men in this world who are sinners. And he said, just use my exemption and settle those accounts. He never argued as to whether he’d settle your account, he just said he had more than enough exemption here to settle for whatever it is. Just settle and close. “Just accept it and don’t argue.” Now, the apostles creed said, “He descended into hell and the third day he rose again from the dead.” What’s that all about? He presented his remedy of settlement and closure and he gave the opposite side 72 hours to prove different. Since they didn’t object timely, it was a settled, admiralty case. “Absolutely.” Are we having fun yet?

 

(Reply)

Patrick,

Regarding the article 'CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT KELLY AND JACK SMITH RECORDED THE 21st OF NOV., 2003 from 'S'   posted today on Fourwinds10:

In the part relating to the lady Fedex pilot:

Notice what the judge says in the discussion of a win in court by someone fighting the IRS: Quote

"The judge said, "Sir, I do not work for the IRS. That's up to you people. The jury made its decision. They didn't make the decision based upon whether or not she owed a tax; it was based on the fact that the IRS dishonored her by not responding to her request for the issue as to "Why should I pay the tax." So the US was in dishonor, they were a DEBTOR, and they should have lost the case. That doesn't mean that she shouldn't have paid the tax." unquote

Such 'wins' against the IRS by way of technecalities of court or legal procedure doesnot eliminate the IRS tax assessments, nor the imposition of tax in the future.Technecality wins are of no value as a court precedent.

The reason for this is that income tax is the 'harvesting' of the fruits of labor of'owned slaves' by the slave owner's agents, the IRS. Such 'harvesting' is done withinthe unalienable property right, and thus cannot be regulated or interfered with byconstitutional or statute law. One of the original meanings of the term 'farming' is 'tax collecting'.

The American people are made slaves by their attachment as an accessory to State property,and thus UNITED STATES property. That State property is the 'legal identity name' wherethe family name has been converted by the State into a primary name or surname. It is the 'intellectual property' of the State. This attachment is a tort violation of the property rights of the State, and as such does not constitute a 'contract of servitude', but results in 'voluntary servitude' as allowed by the false 13th Amendment.

The above facts I recite above seem to be missed by the 'patriot gurus' who teach remedythrough statutory, contract, UCC, court procedure, etc. We are in the Roman Law system,be it called English common law, maritime law or admiralty law. And, in the Roman Law system where all people are of slave status, (freeman, citizen, subject), a 'disobedientslave' is reduced under the doctrine of 'homo sacer'  to a man without any 'due process oflaw' privileges. A similar doctrine was used within long since defunct Anglo-Saxon commonlaw called 'outlawing', where the unalienable rights were suspended for that outlawed man for some time period, including life.

Eldon Warman