Appendix C

Last September, County Commissioners in Ferry County, Washington removed a gold-fringed flag from the courtroom because Commissioner Jim Hall said he was shown government documents proving that fringed flags are inappropriate. Commissioner Hall, who assured everyone that he doesn't subscribe to constitutionalist views, said the flag was removed to appease "anti-government constitutionalists," according to an article in Spokane's Spokesman Review.

After several months of fruitless negotiation, presiding Superior Court Judge, Larry Kristianson, threatened legal action against Hall, saying he could order the flag replaced and have Hall jailed if he got in the way. To avoid a confrontation that could have been "politically explosive" it was agreed that the judge would buy a new fringed replacement flag with his own money if the commissioners would promise to leave it alone. "No person is authorized to come into the court and take accouterments of the court without the court's permission," he said. [SOURCE: American's Bulletin, March '96]

You probably never thought of traffic tickets in terms of contracts to purchase certain goods and services. But according to Right Way L.A.W. reported in AntiShyster, they are part of a commercial contract. If you don't agree with the contract, it is absolutely essential to object to traffic citations in a timely fashion (within 10 days) using a "Refusal for Cause."

When a law enforcement officer writes a ticket (s)he is actually issuing a commercial instrument called a "citation," and the recipient of said "ticket" automatically becomes party to a commercial contract. The commercial instrument is actually a "confirmatory writing," an instrument defined in UCC 2-201 that defines a "product being purchased," which in this case is, fines and court costs. Right Way L.A.W. explains that anyone using International Monetary Fund (IMF) debt credit (Federal Reserve Notes) as a medium of exchange, is subject to the Uniform Commercial Code.

UCC 2-201 is called the "Statute of Frauds." It deals with the legality of contracts and says contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more are not enforceable unless there is some "writing" indicating that a contract for goods has been signed between the parties. UCC 2-201, Subparend (2) says that if one of the parties objects to the terms of the confirmatory writing, their objection must be registered within 10 days after receipt or the contract stands. Don't wait for your court date to register an objection. It'll be too late under the UCC.

At this point, you may think that refusal to sign the citation would prevent entering into a contract. Not so! If you sign the citation, the action falls under UCC 2-201. If you don't sign, it still falls under UCC 2-201 because the 10 day period to object to the "writing" automatically goes into effect, according to commercial law. It is a maxim of law that law applies in spite of ignorance of it. Therefore, it is presumed that everyone who fails to object during the 10 day period agrees to all the terms of the contract. You're guilty by default.

Commentary: It's important to respond to every citation, notice to appear or other paper action of the government, so as to not support their presumptions and agree to the terms of their contracts by acquiescence and neglect. [SOURCE: AntiShyster, Vol 5, No.4; Reviewed by Esther Holmes].

Three jurisdictions exist in the federal system used in this country. Each jurisdiction has separate and distinct responsibilities under the original constitutions.

1. Create laws to perfect the union created by the State governments to control commerce between states, national problems, etc.

2. Provide for the common defense of the Federal government, the state governments and the free states.

3. Promote the general welfare of all bodies and peoples by generating federal law to do this.

4. Create a body of law to control the employees of the Federal government (these were citizens of the United States).

1. Create laws to control the defense of the territory in which they are authorized to make laws.

2. Promote the general welfare of the area in which they govern in which the Federal government does not control by generating civil law to accomplish this.

1. Create laws to control the security of the free state by organizing and managing the militia.

2. Promote the private welfare, establish privileges, generating private law for this purpose.

4. Assume all responsibilities of government not specifically given to state and federal governments. (Such as education, rules for militia membership, etc.)

1. A body politic was created called "Citizens of the United States" in which any person could become a member by submitting to the jurisdiction of the United States (the Federal government).

2. These citizens became "residents" of the state governments for issues in that particular jurisdictional boundary.

3. A right now existed for the Federal and State governments to create a body of laws to control the people of this newly created "civil law" state.

Under the original constitution it was presumed that United States citizens where mostly those individuals who chose to participate in government service, their families and others who were free but not members of one of the common law jurisdictions.

Affidavit⁶⁰

Declaration of Truth

_____________________  state )
                             ) S.S.
_____________________ county )

I, _______________________, the Undersigned, do hereby affirm the
following, pursuant to James 5:12, "But above all things my 
brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither
by any other oath, but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye
fall into condemnation."

First:

That I am ________________________; that I am over the age of 
twenty-one years, and am competent to testify to My first-hand 
knowledge of the facts herein, and that the statements herein made
by Me are true of My own first-hand knowledge, unless otherwise stated
herein. Yea.

Second:

Type a single fact here. Remember to not speculate, or go into long 
winded explanations. Keep your facts simple. Write in the first-
person (I saw, I heard, I did, etc.)

Third:

Write as many paragraphs as it takes to make your point. Remember to 
stay on point, and keep it simple.

Lastly:

That I have made these statements for the purpose of giving notice to 
the public of the facts stated herein, and not for the purpose of 
waiving any Right or Immunity. I do hereby reserve all rights given 
Me by the One True God.

Witnesses:

__________________________________

affiant

On this ___________ day of the _____________ month, in the year 
of Our Lord, Nineteen hundred ninety-six, in the Two hundred twentieth 
year of Our Independence, the foregoing document was affirmed before 
me, a Notary Public, by ___________________, in and for the county 
and state above written, and He did affirm to me that He is literate, 
and competent to make This Affidavit without the assistance of a 
Notary, therefore, no benefit was received therefrom.

_____________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: ____________________________

Notary for __________________________________ county,

____________________________________________ republic

Prepared by:___________________________________

    Mail/Post location: _____________________________________

Please fasten your seat belt and keep your head and hands inside the ride at all times!

1) Wait for the Officer to ask you a question. Then say, "Sir, can you please tell me if my answer to that question is voluntary or mandatory?

3) If Officer says, "Mandatory." Then you ask, "Sir, what will you do to me if I do not answer?"

4) If Officer responses, "We'll kick the **** out of you." Then you say, "Show me the law, statute, case, or whatever it is that makes it mandatory and then I answer." or perhaps you may say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself." or possibly you may say, "My answer is XXX under threat of bodily harm, police brutality, etc... Depending upon the situation, these answers are a matter of personal taste, providing you have the time to waste and can take the punishment.

5) If Officer responses, "You won't get out of here till you do answer the question." Then you ask for meaningful assistance of counsel to help you understand the question. After all, don't all lawyers tell you that only THEY can understand the law and legal procedure? Hope you’re not in a hurry at this point. All roadblocks are a fishing expedition waiting to harpoon every vehicle that motors within their reach and as we all know fishing expeditions take a lot of time. So, be patient or become a patient.

6) If the Officer skirts the questioning issues and wants you to consent to a search, then you say, "No, get a search warrant and then I'll comply." Never volunteer anything and keep insisting on your right to legal counsel. You no more have to answer questions for a police officer than you do a complete stranger off the streets. The secret power behind the roadblock is that every driver is duped into consenting to be searched. Many folks don't challenge an invasion of privacy because they have nothing to hide, but you still have a right to challenge that invasion, even if you don't have anything to hide. Never consent to a search without a warrant, just say "No" to protect your rights.

7) If the Officer then asks you to exit your vehicle and handcuffs you at this point. Ask him if he is placing you under arrest and on what grounds? Very likely he's not placing you under arrest, he's only handcuffing you to make it safe for him to question you further and illegally search you and your vehicle, since you've refused. The point here is that the police must tell you if they're placing you under arrest and if so what for. And once again, do not answer any questions. Demand to get meaningful assistance of counsel and counsel of choice, since it is your right to have these at every important stage of police contact, including the arrest itself if that be the case.

8) Remember all the things you read about Mirandizing you first? Well, forget it! As long as they can get you to admit to anything or consent to anything, they can use it against you, regardless of whether or not you've been mirandized. Silence is golden.

9) As far as the actual mirandizing goes, if you're one of the lucky ones who actually gets informed of their rights, then when the Officer asks you if you understand your rights, you just say, "No sir, I need legal counsel to help me understand." Be a big dummy and exercise that right to have legal counsel present and/or that right to remain silent until so provided. Sometimes you have to act ignorant to play smart.

10) Overall, you need to have a good strong attitude. Use your head, control your emotions and most of all keep your mouth shut (except to assert your rights). Don't grovel, don't complain and don't ask for anything outside of your rights, because this gives them great satisfaction and will go in their report. Remember your goal is to get them to admit anything, perjure themselves, not follow the rules, suffer as much frustration and anxiety as possible and lose in front of their friends and the press. Their goal is to INTIMIDATE you and get you to offer consent, incriminate yourself, admit to everything, skip procedural details, and wavier all your rights.

Alas, the above information should help you obtain a heap of procedural errors to line up for "arguing technicalities" or appeals in the event you end up in waist chains or leg irons. In the event you just end up being harassed, you should have a fairly strong civil case for violations of your alleged constitutional rights.

When it comes to driving and personal privacy, roadblocks are the most dangerous things on the streets.

A group of individuals have joined together to create a common law jurisdiction as defined in this information and reference material. The purpose is to create a self governing body of individuals which would be a true republic as described by Plato, modified by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors and mandated by the Constitution. The rules of this society are that the laws are made by litigation. The preexisting laws and principles can be found in the reference material. Other editions of the same works will not be useful as specific reference is made to page numbers, chapters, etc. The information enclosed is the beginning laws in this reformed republic. This information is provided so that students may start learning these laws to decide if they want to participate in this type of society.

The rules will limit the ability to join or ask questions until a student has the knowledge existing in these book.

2. Litigation, contributions and questions on these principles are causing ongoing

1. Start learning the reference material and the enclosed summaries on your own and file a domicile proceeding. (This usually requires book purchases.)

It is recommended that you obtain a 3 ring binder to keep these summaries in. New

Remember the information is a rough draft and subject to modification based on the results of ongoing litigation. Updates, new summaries and other material will only be sent if a self-addressed stamped envelope is furnished. Responses to questions and generally not intelligible and will probably seem confusing unless a study of this material is made and specific questions are directed to these references. The presumption is that a student is wasting time by not studying first.

The goal of these summaries and this study material is to restart a common law society such as ones existing in this country in the last century. The method used is this:

2. The laws of the courts on common pleas existing before the civil war were adopted.

3. The members who submit to this system of justice are learning how to enforce these laws in government courts.

4. The old laws are now being modified by litigation and summaries to fit the needs of our present society.

The recreated jurisdiction will be a society of self-governing people. The base law will be the old common law rather than government law. 100 years of public law making has created a society that is contrary to our basic nature as a Christian nation. This process will allow this group of people to reject that which is unsatisfactory and retain laws favorable to our inherent nature.

This study should take about a year depending on the individual effort and ability. It works like this:

1. An individual who is working with this information will file a proceeding in Federal Court.

2. The response or results of the government court action is reviewed by the writers.

3. The summaries are then adjusted to prevent others from making the same mistakes.

4. The new information is then made available to those who desire to participate in the ongoing process.

The material is generally adjusted to prevent others from making the same mistakes in this manner:

1. Individuals are required to leam the common law from the books in the study guide before proceeding.

2. Common law judgments issue in accordance to these summaries, prior litigations and the books.

The ability of new students to follow and understand this process is determined by requiring them to engage in litigation to become common law citizens. Litigators who can read, understand and use code are allowed to proceed. Individuals who can't are prevented and engaging in litigation or becoming citizens without the help of someone who is a citizen. The principal being adopted is that the members will not teach law to those who won't use these reference sources and/or these books.

The summaries are principles of common law, which control the subsequent actions of the justices who issue common law orders to enforce. The summaries represent very little new law but are simply a restatement (or gathering) of existing common law and principles as found in the study materials.

The summaries are simply an update of Blackstone's and Bouvier's to the law to this country and this particular jurisdiction. This is the primary information:

4. Members (citizens) or law students are authorized to submit summaries without restrictions.

5. As common law rights and court cases are discovered the summaries are amended to conform with the best information available to the writers.

6. An ongoing court case, review by others, newly discovered books and joining with other jurisdictions may cause modification.

7. A summary may result from common rights established by individuals attempting to live by common law.

8. The wording may be updated from prior common law but the law or circumstances force change out of necessity.

9. The civil code (read government law) is construed to be in conformance to common law and the summaries are modified as civil code rights are found and litigated.

Do not perceive that you will learn common law from this source. You will only be shown where the common law can be found. When you understand the process of how to change or modify these summaries you may start a citizenship action. The primary principles of English common law are found in Blackstone's Commentaries. Some of the laws of the United States of America and word definitions are found in Bouvier's.

Corporations legally avoid United States income tax laws each and every day by changing domicile. This is done by lawyers creating a "paper corporation" in a place like the Cayman Islands. The paper corporation is then registered with that jurisdiction and the assets of the United States corporations "legally move" to the Cayman Islands while the plants and headquarters (the physical presence) remain in this country.

This process is called acquiring a foreign domicile. Foreign domicile simply means "legal home" that is not the United States. This legal right also exist for individuals who are now considered United States citizens. The following problems exist when the average individual attempts this:

1. It takes a trained lawyer who charges a very large fee to accomplish abrogation of US citizenship.

2. It requires a person trained in this type of litigation to resolve the resulting problems in the event of legal disputes.

3. Individuals may lose certain advantages that exist in an organized society (such as availability to public schooling, welfare, etc.).

To overcome these problems a group of people have joined together to recreate a "foreign jurisdiction" that existed before the United States was formed. This nation was called the United States of America. This foreign jurisdiction overcomes the problems of changing domicile in this manner:

1. It trains individuals in the manner of legally changing domicile under United States law.

2. It provides a legal system that creates documents to support this move or change of domicile.

3. It trains the individuals how to litigate these issues in United States courts.

4. It creates an organized society with laws to retain the advantages lost by abrogation of US citizenship.

The move to a common law domicile requires the individual to make the following decisions:

1. You must agree to abide by the laws of an organized society already existing that has different laws.

2. You must either become trained in law or join under the protection of someone who is trained since this society does not have enough lawyers at this time.

3. This implies you must be willing to spend a certain amount of time and money acquiring a legal knowledge of to help someone with your litigation.

The money amount is small compared to what you are required to pay under income tax laws. The time element is considerable but worth it when you consider that under United States tax laws you are probably paying over 35% of everything you make to support the society to which you are now a member.

The problem with starting a jurisdiction is that it requires a very large set of laws to litigate virtually anything. This was overcome by adopting the laws of the old jurisdiction. These old laws were called the "common law".

Article 4 of the Constitution mandates the government to give full faith and credit to every jurisdiction that exists. The founding members of the jurisdiction simply recreated the old common law state that was brought over from England to this country. This is the nation that formed our present government. This is the jurisdiction that is referred to in Amendment VII. to the Constitution of the United States. The legal right to perform the act of recreating (or creating) a common law state is written in Amendment IX.:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

1. The common law jurisdiction was the method used by the settlers of this country to resolve disputes prior to the formation of the governments.

2. The people always retained the right to go to common law and resolve disputes (this is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 and Amendment VII.) even after governments and civil courts were formed.

3. The government was never given the specific right to form or organize common law jurisdictions. (Governments were only authorized to enforce common law judgments.)

The effect of these laws is that the people of this country have a right to be self governing if they simply learn how to live under these preexisting laws. This allows various societies to coexist (such as Indians and US citizens) provided that a "jurisdiction" (or state) exists in which differences may be litigated. This means if you want to live in a "foreign state" under "foreign laws" you must first learn the laws and then join the jurisdiction under which this can be done.

The laws of this recreated jurisdiction are based on these concepts of self government:

2. The judicial actions of the people living under and interpreting the Ten Commandments were called jury trials. (This is the jury trial protected in Amendment VII. - not a government jury trial.)

3. The body of law (the accumulated jury decisions) are the rules of laws of the state and is called "common law".

4. The government entity created by this common law society was called the United States.

5. The document controlling and limiting the power of this government body is called the Constitution.

Recreating a "common law" jural society that preexisted the government makes the people of that nation self governing.

The beginning laws of this recreated jurisdiction are currently evolving based on the fact that litigation is ongoing to re-establish this society. Individuals who have changed domicile under United States law are doing this litigation.

The college courses derived from this litigation will give you an explanation of how this type of law system works in conjunction with government court actions based on the litigation that is now ongoing. The books are being used to teach enforcement of common law judgments to those individuals who have the desire to be a member of a self governing society.

You may order the courses which will provide you with more information. This information is available based on the following principles:

1. The writers have undertaken this project for the purpose of teaching common law litigation.

2. You only need to read the enclosed materials before determining if you want more information.

4. Some of the material is under litigation and is modified as a result of ongoing court actions.

5. A list of study materials will be in the first mailing which will provide you with all of the information you will need to do your own research.

6. The first packet will give you enough information to determine if you wish to participate in this type of society and start learning its laws.

Think about this pledge and the fact that the government has banned it from the "public school" system:

"I pledge allegiance the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

That is the republic which has been reformed. See Bouvier's law dictionary for the legal description and court cases about this nation.

Send a 9 x 12 self addressed stamped envelope. The postage cost is $1.20. A copy of the

first lesson shall be sent in the envelope you furnish if it is not with this packet.

Date of Birth:_______________ Address:___________________________________ city of

I, _______________________________________, hereby affirm the following facts are true,

1.1 was born in city_____________________________,county____________________________

state/republic_________________________________,country____________________________

4.1 am a sovereign, freeman character, who does and desires to operate and conduct my affairs

5.1 have never knowingly, intentionally or voluntarily, become a citizen of any de facto nation or

corporate entity, and hereby revoke all powers of attorney with any State, nation or corporate

6.1 am not wanted for or under indictment for any crime in Texas or abroad under the Common Law.

7. This Affidavit is not made under threat, duress or coercion and without deception for purposes of evasion.

8. This affidavit is made pursuant to the General Provisions, Section 6 of the Constitution for the Republic of Texas, as amended August 29,1994.

9. If any part of this Affidavit is found to be fraudulent, it will be null and void and I will be

10.1 hereby attest that I will support and defend the Constitution and Laws of the Republic of Texas.

Property Identification Number:___________________________ Signature of recording

When you review Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Margaret M. Heckler, 613 F. Supp. 558 and the subsequent appellate proceedings, you'll be entertained to know that as early as the late seventies, government employees, not to mention private citizens, were surrendering out the social security program. The Congress wrote a statute to force them in, claiming an interest in the public welfare, but the government lost. Hundreds of thousands of public employees during the mid 1980s successfully liberated themselves out of this fraudulent scheme.

Social security is a government benefit administered by the United States within its territories. It began with FDR's "New Deal," the political platform upon which he was elected to office only a few years after the stock market crash of 1929. In true form of government creating a need for itself, FDR and his banker cronies from Great Britain engineered the crash of '29 and you'll find this proved adequately in the Appendix to the Congressional Record of 1940.

"It was told to me by a heavyweight American financier before the crash came that the crash was coming, that it would be permitted to run to the danger point, and that when the danger point was passed it would be reversed by measures carefully prepared in advance to meet the situation.",

After the Social Security Act of 1935, the governors of each state of the union were extorted into participating in this scheme under threat of an enormous tax imposed by the United States. Their submission allowed them to defer this burden onto the citizens as we see it in operation today, that was the "Deal." They may withdraw at any time but they'd lose their subscription to monopoly money. Federal Reserve Notes.

I have a letter from my congressman which admits that he can find no law requiring anyone to either use or apply for a social security number as a condition of contract in America. It took me seven months to get this confession and he even lied to me on one occasion, but recanted when he learned that I knew better. Part 301.6109-l(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations states that if someone is going to pay you money, then he must ask you for a social security number. If you refuse, he is required by regulation to tell you that you must give him one and that it's required by law. Obviously, it's not required by law but he is required to tell you that. In other words, the regulation requires him to lie. After you refuse to disclose a number for the second time, his next obligation is to attach an affidavit to any statements he's required to file using your number stating that he's fulfilled his requirement to ask you for a social security number.

In other words, when it comes to disclosing a social security number, no one, absolutely no one, can require you to do it just so he can meet his own filing requirements. Please review Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344. The social security tax is a mandatory tax placed only on the receipt of wages. If you're not earning wages, you have no social security tax liability.

I have held three jobs in the past four years without having to submit any social security number or sign any federal forms and without paying one federal income tax on my pay. I currently have a checking account, insurance, three drivers licenses, a passport, one credit card, various telephone services, mail service, and an apartment lease, all with no social security number. I've never had to file a lawsuit to enforce my right to contract without a social security number.

A client recently brought a case to me where the IRS wanted to penalize him thousands of dollars for several tax returns in which he claimed his children as dependents while they had no social security numbers. They still have no numbers and I encouraged him to keep it that way and educate his children about this fraud. This is what we found:

Prior to August 20^th, 1996, Section 6109(e) of the Code required disclosure of social security numbers for dependents claimed on tax returns; however, it was repealed on August 20^th, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-188, Title I, § 1615(a)(2)(A), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1853)

Prior to December 19, 1989, there was a $5 penalty for failing to supply the TIN of a dependent claimed on a tax return. This appeared under Section 6676(e) until it was repealed on December 19^th, 1989:

If any person required under section 6109(e) to include the TIN of any dependent on his return fails to include such number on such return (or includes an incorrect number), such person shall, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, pay a penalty of $5 for each such failure."

Repealed. Pub. L. 101-239, Title VII, § 7711(b)(l), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2393

The Problems Resolution Officer is having a fit because she's going to have to abate the penalties because there's no law to enforce them!

Here is the current statute relating to deductions for dependents having no SSN: 26 USC § 151

No exemption shall be allowed under this section with respect to any individual unless the TIN of such individual is included on the return claiming the exemption."

As of January 6^th, 1997, there was no monetary penalty for not using an SSN for your children when claiming them as dependents on a tax return. The penalty statute of $5 was repealed in December of 1989 and the "6109 (e) requirement" was repealed in August of 1996. In essence, the time between 1989 and 1996 in which the "requirement" was a statute, was not enforceable because the penalty statute was not in force. It seems now that the only "penalty" is not being able to claim your children as dependents. I would encourage everyone doing this to refuse to get your children a number just to claim them, as it would be equivalent to selling them to the government, or putting a price on their heads. There's a good chance you shouldn't be signing a Form W-4 or filing a tax return anyway.