Dinar RV Ticker Tape – China Signed Off on $6.05 VND

BluWolf, Frank26, TNT Tony, Kaperoni, etc…
Thur, March 6, 2014
Subject: Dinar RV 800 Numbers At the Banks
www.MorningLiberty.com   US Bankruptcy Explanation Below…

 Berylhere:  WHAT WEALTHY PEOPLE SAY…… NOTHING! NADA!  ZIP!

 If you knew what they were going to do the information could cost them million.

 Have you ever heard what Soros was going to do before he did it?  NO

 Have you ever heard what Rothschild was going to do before he did it? NO

 Have you ever heard what Rockefeller was going to do before he did it?  NO

 So here is a life lesson for those that plan on a windfall.

 Who are you going to tell your plans to?

 Who will know anything or everything about you?

 Who will you trust?

  So put on your best poker face!  There is a difference between PRIVATE and PUBLIC!

  FOR WHAT ITS WORTH! 

3-5-2014   Newshound Guru Adam Montana   [any good news on when we might see the
budget and HCL implemented and done?]   There has been a lot of talk lately on BOTH
of those issues, so I think things are looking good for us!  [I have read that the
elections will be post-poned.. How will that effect us and will Maliki still control
everything?]  I am more surprised when things are NOT delayed in Iraq! At the end of
the day, it's still the CBI that's in charge of the exchange rate. I'm pretty sure
Maliki isn't going to be voted out soon, so a delay in the elections won't matter
much.   [How does Iraq’s WTO accession or lack thereof affect the RV?]   I don't
think it makes any difference at all. The CBI controls the rate, not the WTO. If the
CBI says they are paying $1 USD per 1 IQD, the WTO can't stop them or force them to
change a rate.

3-5-2014   Intel Guru TD   The buzzword of severe letdown was the WTO ascension
being put off AT LEAST ONE YEAR, MOST LIKELY TWO. Further negotiations of this are
DOA till 2015 or beyond. According to my source it even now seems unlikely for RI,
RD to be put into effect till a new government forms this summer. Maliki as it
stands now will not win re-election as support from various factions is dismal.  IF
MALIKI STEALS AWAY ELECTIONS LOOK FOR A CIVIL WAR TO ERUPT IS THE MESSAGE OF GRAVEST
CONCERN RIGHT NOW!  [post 2 of 2]

3-5-2013   Intel Guru TD   I am still in touch with my contact although I am not an
active Investor anymore.  I was able to find out a few items of interest…: Maliki
is under heavy pressure from ALL SIDES and time quickly running out before
elections. Struggles with insurgents continues. The government financial balance
sheet is in crisis mode with no help from Parliamentary members. Parliament is even
more divided than even our US Congress & MOST will not act on anything to help the
Maliki administration.   [post 1 of 2….stay tuned]

3-5-2014   Intel Guru TNT Tony    The call centers & currency exchange centers are
manned and lunch is to be brought in to them and phones have to be left in their
cars so they cannot contact anyone.  The 800#'s have been released to the banks and
some individuals have them too, but can't give them out yet until it's public
knowledge.  Other things are happening…it's not just the GCR/RV.  It has to do a
lot to do with our future as a nation that is causing part of the delay. There is a
rumor saying China is going to pull out.  They have set a deadline…drew a line in
the sand & we're very close to it.  I am hoping for the RV…It could happen in the
next 10 mins, 10 hours or next 24 hours.  I know rate or what they said it would be.
 [Are double digit rates still possible?]   Yes, they are still possible.   [post 2
of 2]

3-5-2014   Intel Guru TNT Tony   Everything is signed off, Iraq, Maliki and the UST
have done all they are supposed to do.  Everyone is just waiting for a certain time,
but they are excited and saying that IT IS OVER AND DONE.  We know it’s not actually
over and done until I am walking out of the bank.  The GCR is supposed to be
announced today, and that cannot happen without the RV happening. We are hearing
things have been on TV, CNBC, a ticker tape at the bottom saying that China signed
off on the VND and the rate it is to come out at is $6.05…that is the high
rate.  It may not open up at that rate & may not stay there long.   [post 1 of
2….stay tuned]

3-5-2014   Intel Guru Bluwolf    Just because someone said the Chinese pulled out
does not make it true…this is business and they are stronger then ever. They
haven't gone anywhere, they still have there headquarters in the US, everything is
running like its suppose to…   Things expected (rv, gcr…) are in swift movement
with no delays, rates are still attractive and deemed high…The Global Reset is now
on its arise, it is in the air and being fitted into place by those in the know.
…this rv situation now is imminent and that all shall transpire strictly as
planned.

3-5-2014   Intel Guru TerryK   [DID M (MALIKI ?) SAY THAT HE WAS GOING TO APPROVE
THE CHANGE IN THE RATE WITH OUT BUDGET APPROVAL?]  HEARING THIS AS A RUMOR.  [How
many of your sources think by Thursday vs within 2 weeks?]  4 OF THEM.

3-5-2014   Intel Guru SteveI   I am confident just from the facts that we are so
very close to having this investment payoff sooner rather than later.   According to
Ray's [Guru Ray] sources, we should see the budget getting voted on this week.  Many
of you keep saying…that the budget has nothing to do with a change in the Iraqi
currency..believe what you want. I base my beliefs on facts only.  It is what it is
and the facts point to a change very soon.

3-5-2014   Intel Guru Frank26   [via Anonymous]   all the articles this week show
they are running out of time, and all the procedures steps they are doing will
collapse down into one big step which is the release of the new rate!

3-5-2014   Newshound Guru Millionday   Article quote:  "The federal budget is not
just like any other laws they represent the backbone of the life and durability of
the Iraqi state in the facilities of life all…"   they are obviously announcing
that the budget is the open window to the world…we should see the budget in the
very near future…i have to say that all of the timelines they have stated that are
within the month — i am very encouraged.

3-5-2014   Newshound Guru Kaperoni   [So that said it could be a long wait on an
RV.]  it is not in their interest to wait, and it would be of no benefit toward the
plan for Iraq to continue to wait.  [Even if it is true that Iraq is not ready to
join the WTO that in itself does not mean they won't RV their currency soon. One is
not necessarily tied to the other.]  that is correct.  There was a real good
statement made on TV last week…it sums up Iraq's positions with the currency.  "A
group of parliament members renewed their call to the central bank to start serious
preparation for the deletion of zeros project; any further delays will harm the
entire economy and progress Iraq is witnessing." So there u have it, any further
delays will harm what they have worked so hard for.

3-5-2014   Newshound Guru Kaperoni    they were 95% dependent on oil and that
apparently was reduced to 94% as of late, yet they just increased output
significantly to 3.4 mbpd.    they have no chance of WTO accession.  it was stated
directly from the WTO last year 4 key issues with Iraq and the most significant one
is that they would not qualify for WTO accession until they reduced the dependence
on oil to below 80% I think and that was confirmed yesterday with a long article
that came out that discusses those meetings with the WTO stating it would not be
good for Iraq to proceed.   it even said it would be at least 10 years before they
are ready.  Here is a quote from that article:  "that enter Iraq for the
organization will not be in his favor and in any case for at least the next ten
years, as it will fly massive damage to Iraq".

 

~~

Here's probably the BEST explanation of the US bankruptcy I've seen.
It's from Howard Freeman's lecture. I disagree on a couple of points
though, like that the States and people were part of that bankruptcy.
They were not, only the federal gov't  AKA United States, went
bankrupt. The States and the people got sucked in later, because they
were VOLUNTARILY using DEBT NOTES FRNs. If they weren't, or notified US
that they use those debt notes only under protest, then they wouldn't
be liable for the national debt.
I was saying for a long time that it is our VOLUNTARY use of FRN debt
notes, what makes us LIABLE to TAXATION and STATUTES, and that the main
REMEDY is demanding lawful money pursuant to 12USC411. Howard thinks
that the remedy is reserving your rights under UCC 1-308. Problem with
that is that they don't have to let you add that reservation to your
signature on your Drivers license.
But if you think that UCC 1-308 can assert your common law rights,
then  you should try to ADD it to ALL YOUR CONTRACTS, such as Bill of
sale when buying a car. If it trully works, then buying a car with such
reservation of rights, should give you FULL, allodial title to that
car, not just COLORED title that you get when you buy it with FRNs.
Meaning that such allodial title would be OUTSIDE of corporate State's
jurisdiction and so NOT subject to statutes. And so help you to REBUT
State's presumption that you're a mere driver and not an owner with
full rights of private property ownership.
 
I.O.U. ∞ $ Infinity plus Interest

This 'Global Financial System' is similar to a global IOU system,
because no lawful money exists – we exchange IOU's and never actually
"settle the accounts" with real money. Lawful money is backed by real
things. Before

[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jQ2oJg7Rhg4/UfnVR0u8h4I/AAAAAAAAARA/tjrzz1q4UcA/s1600/IOU.jpg]

all Federal Reserve Notes are IOU's backed by the labor
of the people
1933, you exchanged a gallon of milk for a dollar, which is a promise
to pay gold or silver; real value for real value. Now, because the US
Dollar is the global reserve currency, based on fractional reserve
banking that requires interest to be imposed constantly on the
debtor's, all nations and all over the world are forced under this IOU
system with infinite debt due to interest for our children's children.
Under this system, you exchange a gallon of milk for a promise to pay
"nothing plus interest", thats what money became after 1933. Final
point, since the money is worthless, literally and lawfully, but you
exchange something of real value your it – your labor – we are getting
scammed at a phenomenal rate! It is Literal slavery.

Normal contract law could not function – there was no way to actually
provide consideration for services under Common Law and Equity
Contracts without lawful money. Since Common Law (criminal) and Equity
Law (contracts) require remedy or exchanges of real value, the entire
'Justice System' was turned upside down. A new system needed to be
created which appeared lawful, but was not in any true sense – as long
as there was a presumption of true law (colorable
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/colorable_claim>), the average joe
would be none the wiser. This is the system we know to today as UCC,
the Uniform Commercial Code.

The UCC deals with presumptive agreements, instead of true contracts
which have full transparency; and knowing willing and intentional
consent of all parties involved. Instead of contracts being enforceable
only if all parties agreed knowingly, willingly and intentionally, now
Agreements can be enforced based on essentially cured statements or
presumptions. If I make a ' presumptive statement' with 'material
evidence' – a bill from your creditor with some numbers on it that
'suggests' a contract exist – and you do not rebut this statement, it
cure's under the UCC given a period of time.

This portion of the Julian's Debt Contesting Experience – OPPT Success
Stories
<http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2013/07/julians-debt-contesting-experience-oppt.html> describes

the concept:

A contract requires transparency and agreement of the parties involved.
Did you sign with your wet ink signature making a new contract with
this third party? No you did not and the way they get around that is by
asking for you to send them payment, even if it is very small. This
creates a legal (but now lawful) basis for contract which they can then
try and use against you. Legal but not lawful? How does that make
sense, lets take a look.

The legal basis is referred to as Tacit Procuration. Tacit means
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit>:
Understood or implied without being stated and Procuration means
<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/procuration>:

 

The act by which one person gives power to another to act in his place,
as he could do himself. A letter of attorney.

Procurations are either express or implied; an express procuration is
one made by the express consent of the parties; the implied or tacit
takes place when an individual sees another managing his affairs, and
does not interfere to prevent it.
Consent for Procurations can be 'implied' by failure to respond or
'stand up and state otherwise.' Given these meanings what we can
understand is FAILURE to respond is CONSENT. We must REBUT the
PRESUMPTIONS that this new third party has any claim to the debt.
Contesting the debt with a written statement is, in law, absolutely
effective as a means of rebutting the presumptions and REMOVES the
IMPLICATION that this undisclosed third party may have PROCURED the
claim on the debt by TACITUS means.

It is unlawful because in order for a contract to be binding and
enforceable there must be a "meeting of the minds" or full disclosure
and transparency. A-party to a contract that sells off their interest
to a new party without the express consent of ALL parties involved
(which means your explicit consent) is unenforceable in law, unless you
unwittingly allow them Tacit Procuration by NOT rebutting their
presumptions and responding to their offer to contract.

Under the UCC you must assert your rights in advance of any presumptive
circumstance in order to secure them. What is a presumptive
circumstance? When you are pulled over and you hand the Police Officer
your Corporate Identification documents (your drivers license) there is
presumption you are working for the United States, Inc, are an agent of
government, knowingly consenting to be subject to ALL Statues and Rules
under their Corporate system. Its as if you are saying: "because I wear
Nike shoes I work for Nike and have to follow the rules as an employee
of Nike."

"I reserve my rights WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-308"

This is the state of affairs on planet earth. Deceptive acts and
practices. It is this same system that the now reconciled One Peoples
Public Trust used to foreclose
<http://i-uv.com/oppt-absolute/oppt-press-releases/> on all banks and
Corporations masquerading as Government in late 2012.

A statement of "I reserve all my rights without prejudice UCC 1-308"
prevents any

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a9rCRro-80o/UfnXJxeQjdI/AAAAAAAAARQ/pPI7AEs2sA4/s320/Screen+shot+2013-07-31+at+11.33.28+PM.png]

<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a9rCRro-80o/UfnXJxeQjdI/AAAAAAAAARQ/pPI7AEs2sA4/s1600/Screen+shot+2013-07-31+at+11.33.28+PM.png>

Reserve your rights or loose them!

presumptive contracts from being asserted; however actually using this
can be more complex. One should be well prepared with key knowledge and
understanding before trying to apply anything that goes against the
grain – in my opinion. It is important to understand our society is
based mainly on these presumptive offers to contract. The IRS is a
prime example of an unlawful presumptive organization. It asserts the
presumption you are a taxpayer when under all the Statues of the US we
are tax payers and only pay taxes by government granted privilege; i.e.
you are an agent of government or you are earning income in a way that
was enabled by the government (tax shelter from foreign earned income
for example).

Here is what Without Prejudice UCC 1-308
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm> means from the UCC:

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party <http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#Party> that
with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or
assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other
party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as
"without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

The method of articulation seems intentionally cryptic – they are
trying to hide the meaning in plain sight; lets analyze. "Explicit
reservation of rights" means, you make a statement, just like they make
statements, that your rights are totally yours without any presumption
to the contrary. "Performs or promises performance or assents to
performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party" means,
if you get duped or coerced into an agreement – even if you were not
aware of it – the agreement will not be enforceable under the UCC
system, if you assert your rights beforehand – "without prejudice UCC
1-308."

There are presumptions to contract everywhere in society. The UCC is
designed to be based on statements, which go un-rebutted, and then
become enforceable. Transparency is your friend. And as we often say
here on SITS: Know Thyself. Be aware of who you are and how that
BEingness extends outwardly everywhere. There is only ONE of us after
all and this one makes up all things. You are your greatest asset and
investing in the knowledge of yourself and how that relates to this
world you live in and how it works will be your greatest tool.

 

THE UCC CONNECTION

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was asked to testify in a tax case as an expert witness. After many
days of preparation, I felt confident of my research. I spent over 30
minutes presenting many Supreme Court decisions that supported the
defendant's position. The prosecution concluded his statements, and to
my amazement, the judge told the jury that they could only consider
certain facts, none of which were the facts I had given.

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

PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

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

1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD

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

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

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

A FRIEND IN THE COURT

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

AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

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

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

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

ADMIRALTY COURTS

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

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

So you say, just innocently like a lamb,
“Well, I didn't know that I got involved with an international maritime
contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If
this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to
section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no
difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may
examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.”

What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence.
They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole
nation, and that we are their slaves.

NOT EXPEDIENT

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

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of
jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law

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

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

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

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

COURTS OF CONTRACT

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

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

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

colorABLE MONEY – colorABLE COURTS

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

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

It is " colorable " Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing
because we are using " colorable money ." colorable Admiralty is now
known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got under this
Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

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

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

CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT

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

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

COMPELLED BENEFIT

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

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

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

REMEDY AND RECOURSE

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and
Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the
Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long
time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see
the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books
completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up
one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been
intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to
discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are
found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.

REMEDY

The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights
the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by
application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old
1-207).7)

It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a
commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, " I
DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You
mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court
!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to
uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under
one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French
government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax
in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I
demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW
DOESN'T APPLY TO ME – I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your
reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged –
not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim
your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308
(old 1-207).

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion
at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)

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

The Sufficiency of the Reservation – Any expression indicating an
intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as "WITHOUT PREJUDICE." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes
(FRNs) -in any way, shape or manner – under your signature write:
Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You
can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved
your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example,
one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the
judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old
1-207)" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand
the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the
ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he
meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not
prejudiced against anyone …. The judge knew that the man had no idea
what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous
defense. You must know what it means.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to UCC 1-308

When you see "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308 in connection with your
signature, you are saying:
"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract,
commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly ,
voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not and will
not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed
contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."

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

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver
dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to
use Federal Reserve Notes – you have to accept the benefit. the
government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with
limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they
are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7,
you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to
obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all
levels of government – federal, state and local.

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

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

RECOURSE

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

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

This is the argument we use in court:

The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common
Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is
bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not
expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish
the Common Law entirely.

Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-308 (old 1-207), you may then insist
that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

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

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

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

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

If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and
ask this question:
"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor. Has this court made a judicial
determination that the sections 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103 of the
Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating
under, are not valid law before this court?"

 

Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the
Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes," then you say:
"I put this court on notice that I am appealing your judicial
determination."

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

PRACTICAL APPLICATION – TRAFFIC COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer your driver's license) "Is this the document you
copied my name and address from?"

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

Officer: "It says, "Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308." [old 1-207]

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

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

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

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

b. you had done it sufficiently by writing "Without Prejudice, UCC
1-308 (old 1-207)" on your driver's license;

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

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

5. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then
you will want to ask him the following question:
"Your Honor, let me understand this correctly, has the court made a
judicial determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction
that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform
Commercial Code which have been called to its attention? If he says,
yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal
that judicial determination, and that if you are damaged by his
actions, you will sue him in Common Law action – under the jurisdiction
of the U.C.C."

http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-ucc-connection-how-uniform.html

 

RyanHenderFilms


Related Articles:


Ron Paul Most Popular – Main Press Panic 2012

Economic Collapse – Wisdom Keepers Prophecy – Clip

BLCO, JP54, D2, D6, Mazut Seller – Genuine Buyers Appreciated

Rothschild – NWO – Illuminati Organization – How It All Works Together

Barry Soetoro – Obama’s Cabinet Has Almost NO Business Experience

Top 7 Illuminati Orders – Exposing the Satanic Empire Final Cut

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply