Está en la página 1de 26

Before the Judge

Understanding how to handle and discharge the Commercial


Criminal Charges and matters on expounded on Closed Bank
Accounts as explained by Jack Smith - Right Way L.a.w.

July 2002

Transcribed by Vanessa Miller

''AH that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private
rights (Wvnliammer v. People 13 NY 378), which duty is a debt owed to its creator, WE THE PEOPLE and
the private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, aud is
perpetual. No matter what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the un-
enfranchised individual owes nothing to the government."
Hale v. Henkel. 201 U.S. 43.
Fictitious plaintiff:
A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as
the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist,
or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name
in it. It is contempt of court to sue in the name of a
fictitious party, (emphasis added)
FOR REFERENCE; The word "person' in legal
terminology is perceived as a general word which
normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other
than human beings. See e.g., 1 USC 1., Church of
Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice [1979] 612 F2d 417,
425. (emphasis added)
Black's Law dictionary, 6* Centennial Edition, page 624

'Person' equals (corporate) entity -


not a man or woman!
Before the Judge
The Transcript,
Understanding how to handle the and discharge the Commercial Criminal Charges
as explained by Jack Smith - Right Way Law
July 2002

RECENTLY - Elvick had an appearance when he was arrested on the two warrants.
He was told that there were two warrants out, he went ahead. Okay, what happened
was a month and a half or so ago, Elvick was at a funeral and state people came out and
arrested him at the funeral and took him in hand cuffs to the county jail. He was arrested
allegedly on two warrants.

What happened then is, there was an arraignment that was done on television, closed
circuit TV. He was never taken before the open court, hi that arraignment he was on
television in the jail, there was a prosecutor on one of the closed circuit T.V.'s and there
was a judge in the case who was on another closed circuit T.V..

Now there were some issues going down, that basically, the way that things started out
is, that the prosecutor made an opening statement. The judge basically kept quiet and was
in the back ground.

The statement that the Prosecutor made was:


"You signed two checks written on a closed account."

Now, what have we talked about in procedure in the past? :

Question Number 1) Was the Prosecutor CHARGING Elvick? NO


No, there weren't any ACCUSATIONS there.
Remember under James 4:11 what is a doer of the law? An accuser is not a doer of
the law, okay?... And so the prosecutor - did he not make a statement? YES, he did
make a statement.
Does that constitute FACTS in the case?
Is he testifying?
Not under oath, but he is testifying, he said:

"We have 2 checks here signed by you on a closed account."

That's making a positive statement to the facts of the case.

1 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


Is he going low or is he going high? [ remember 'A Knights tale'? ].... He's going
low, he who testifies to the facts is the debtor!

So, the Prosecutor started this closed circuit thing from the jail as the debtor- Then he
shut up.
Elvick was the next person to speak.
Elvick then said something like...

"That is true,"

Was Elvick testifying? YES.


Is he the debtor or the creditor? DEBTOR.
Remember, whats the name of the game in Honor-Dishonor? Go low - get high.
Did the prosecutor understand that? yep.
Did Elvick respond by going low to the prosecutor admitting the facts? ... Ya he did.
He said "That is true." It wasn't a negative averment ,it is a positive averment.

THEN, Elvick shut up

Who's court is the ball in now? The Prosecutors court.

Okay? So, the next person to speak should be the prosecutor. The Judge is just
watching in the back ground. He's a referee, (We're just watching the game go back and
forth) you have debtor, and now it goes back to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor now said the following:

"What do you want?"

What did the prosecutor just do? It's a DRAFT, a REQUEST.


Did the prosecutor go low or go high? He went low, he is the drawer of the
draft.

So it went from: Debtor-prosecutor-TESTIMONY to Debtor-Elvick -TESTIMONY


and then Debtor-Prosecutor-DRAFT.

Who's court is the ball in? Elvicks.


What's Elvick got to do? He's gotta answer the DRAFT or REDRAFT.
If he answers his DRAFT then he's carries out his task.
If he changes anything or is judgmental [arguing, traversing, protesting! ], then he is
in violation of the law- because he'd be going high.

So, Elvick said something in the nature of:

2 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


" I have ACCEPTED your OFFER, I have returned it, I have offered
my EXEMPTION in exchange for the DISCHARGE of the BONDS. I
request that you discharge the BOND." And then he shut up.

What did he just do? He answered the DRAFT and REDRAFTED.


Did he go low or go high?
He went LOW by TESTIFYING what he wanted and REDRAFTING:

I request you discharge the bond.

Who's court is the ball in? The prosecutors.

So we've gone from debtor to debtor to debtor to debtor back to the prosecutor.
(Is everybody with me on the procedure? And what everyone did so far?)
Everybody is trying to out debtor the other guy, to go lower then him, so the judge
can make them high.

If ANY TIME YOU try to act with PRIDE. ARROGANCE or BRING CHARGES
and violate the law, then you will immediately be sanctioned for your violation of the
law. And the Judge is waiting there to do that.

So now the Prosecutor was drafted to discharge the bond. And Elvick said something
like, I want the account closed and I want the bond discharged and turned over to me.
So, its now back in the prosecutors court. If you were the prosecutor, what would you
do? He's gotta get the ball out of his court. Now, what as a smart intelligent prosecutor
would you do to redraft Elvick?

Time out for an exercise: take a piece of paper out and draw a line (the bar) halfway
up and down the middle of the paper. Remember the left and the right side: the LEFT
side is the common law side, which is the PRIVATE SIDE, and the RIGHT side is the
PUBLIC side, hi the Public side we're BANKRUPT and on the PRIVATE side we
still have SUBSTANCE, or we can have if people handle it right. Now on those two
sides, remember the prosecutor, in this arraignment proceeding DID NOT ACCUSE
him.

But, why was he arrested? Somebody accused him, after all there were warrants
outstanding, so there had to be "charges in the public" right? But it wasn't the
prosecutor or the judge in this arraignment proceedings. Now the reason he was
arrested was because someone had made some charges. Are the charges on the
private or the public side? PUBLIC, they appear in the public. So, on the right hand
side of that bar in the middle of your paper, the right hand side is the public side, just
to the right of that bar you can put a little block or a little circle called 'criminal
charges'. Now, before something can appear on that side of the mirror- it has got to
reflect something on the left side of the mirror. Because if you don't start out in the

3 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


real world, the private world- chances are the charges cant ever move over here to the
other side of the mirror. So, on the left hand side about the same distance from that
bar or mirror- put a circle called 'criminal conduct'. But you see that crime would
have to be a common law crime wouldn't it? So part of the fiction is, there are no
common law crimes any more because of the admiralty nature of the government. But
never the less the assumption and presumption is, what, being mirrored on the public
side has to be picked up from the object which is on the private side of the mirror.
(Does that make sense? ) Now, before an activity on the left side of the mirror
becomes criminal, it starts out from some physical action from the real living soul
(party) on the left side of the mirror. And so to the left of the criminal conduct circle
,on the left side of the mirror, put another circle and we'll call that a civil act. So when
you do a civil act, and that act violates law, then it has criminal consequences to it,
right? Now the act that you did over on the left side could have been a tort or a
trespass, and as it became the tort and trespass, if a civil act is never discovered by a
party that has been damaged and its not actioned by him, could we say that a criminal
conduct or a criminal case has actually been invoked? Probably not. Or if he chooses
to not proceed with any prosecution its not criminal. So the acts start out to the way
left of that bar on the private side as a civil act, and it may be turned into criminal
conduct if discovered by a damaged party and a criminal action is brought- otherwise
there is no criminal conduct. At least within the nature of that act

Now as we see those two events there on the left side of the mirror we only have one
event on the right side of the mirror right now, the criminal charges under admiralty.
What do we need to do? We need to reflect that civil act onto the right side of the
mirror- way to the right of the criminal charges, so we'll put a block over there...
called civil resolution -

( some asked about admissions so here's some thought on it: The civil act and the civil
failure of an act - it can be either positive or the negative. That doesn't help huh?
Anyway,... point right now is lets go back to the mirror because it is VERY CRITICAL
TO UNDERSTANDING PROCEDURE ) :

First you commit the act on the left side which somebody discovers is a damaging
crime, on the common law side, and today its prosecuted if the prosecutor elects to do it
under admiralty procedure. Now, lets say you plead guilty, are found guilty to the
criminal charges on the right side of the mirror; how do they dispose of the case? By an
imprisonment? But is that part of the trial on the charges? So no, because that's part of
the disposition of the case when he's found guilty.

Question: Is the disposition of the criminal case civil or criminal?

Answer: Civil, Because the PUBLIC side's BANKRUPT and they cant execute.
So they have to get an agreement of the parties as to how to dispose of the finding of
guilt. So, after the case, there's a finding of guilty on the criminal charges which is that

4 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


circle that's right of the mirror; the case is finally disposed of by a second meeting of the
parties, which is what sentencing and stuff is all about. Its civil. That's why everybody
that's in jail is of there own accord, (mat's what Bork said when he was being nominated
for the Supreme court and he was in front of the senate judiciary committee seeking
approval and they were asking him questions and he made the statement, "everybody's
in jail because of their own consent", for their own reason, the reason they are in jail is
because they agreed to be there.) And the way they agreed to be there is they had a hand
in their own sentencing and resolution by agreement of the parties it was a civil
proceeding (precedent) whether they understood it or not. Now, once we understand this
background then its very important to notice poetic justice, and poetry is often described
in terms of symetry in art and what we just was a chart of art) What happens is that the
civil act got you into the trouble on the left hand side of the mirror/screen/page the first
thing that you've got to do is a civil resolution on the right hand side of the screen to get
you out, once that happens you can go back to the criminal case on the right hand side of
the screen to discharge the criminal activity on the left hand side of the screen. I believe
that If you go out of that order your screwed. Because you by-pass the procedure.

Now, if everybody understands what was just said then we can get back to where we
were in the arraignment proceedings against Elvick. Because by the time you are
finished reading this today right now, you had better understand that if you haven't
resolved your case before you plead to the charges - you're screwed and your going to
jail of your own consent.

Now remember, everyone so far, in this arraignment proceeding, has acted


procedurally correctly. And every one of them, was very courteous to the other party,
they were honoring the other party, nobody was accusing anyone of anything. They were
negotiating a treaty as two foreign nations with respect each other and try to negotiate a
private treaty to resolve a matter between them. That's all they 're doing, taking care of
business on a commercial level.

And so what we see happening here is, remember the last issue was Elvick - Said:

"I have ACCEPTED the criminal charges, I returned them, I offered my


exemption in exchange for the discharge of the bond and release of that
property to me".
And then, he shut up.

( And we all agreed that the prosecutor now has the ball in his court and he needs to
respond to Elvick with a new draft, where he honors Elvick and goes low )

So here's what the prosecutor said to Elvick:

5 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


"What you want is civil and we have a criminal matter in front of us and we
have to dispose of the criminal matter first/'

That's a statement. Listen.... He is speaking from the public side. And He is going
where the public has to go. In the public manner the first thing through the mirror is the
criminal case, and so what we see first we deal with. We've got an order of progression,
find em guilty in the criminal case, then go to the civil disposition as to what we're going
to do, that's the way the public operates, first things first, then last thing. Its backwards-
backwards is the way they do it forwards.
You better not do what they do, but do what they say because if you do what they do
its backwards, but what they say is correct, look through the looking glass darkley.

So the PROSECUTOR made a STAEMENT:


"WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO IS CIVIL, BUT WE HAVE A CRIMINAL
MATTER IN FRONT OF US THAT WE MUST TAKE CARE OF FIRST." That's a
statement, there is no accusation, he didn't say 'you're screwing this thing up,' he just
made a statement, and he drafted Elvick and said the following. :

" would you be willing to plead guilty to the charges." And then he shut up .

There's your draft. What just happened? He put the ball back in Elvicks court. Now
that the balls back in Elvicks court lets say the prosecutor just did that to you - how many
of you reading this are going to plead guilty to the charges in this scenario? How many
of you that are reading this are not going to plead guilty to the charges?
How many of you guys don't know what to do?
Remember, that failure to respond is what? a dishonor. Which will immediately
bring the judge into the treaty negotiations and what will a judge do? Well usually the
first thing he'll do is enter a plea of not guilty in your behalf. Because obviously you are
failing to make a decision. So in order to protect you he is going to order a plea of not
guilty and then as a good judge doing all his war propaganda he may request since it
appears as though you don't understand what's going on here, you probably desperately
need to get council, go hire an attorney who can help you out of this matter because
obviously by your silence you totally screwed up and you just lost your case, okay. There
are people who are going to plead guilty and who are not going to plead guilty and there
are people who are not going to answer who are going to have a plea entered for them by
the judge.
Here is what Elvick did, ... Elvick said:

"I have no problem with pleading guilty, the facts as stated in the charges are
true."

What did he just do ? Didn't he testify? Didn't he go low? Now what's going on?
Didn't the prosecutor say that we have to resolve the criminal case?

6 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


Did we just resolve it? Ya. I plead guilty, now where are we? Civil Case.
Now, the balls in the prosecutors court what are we going to do? Actually, the
negotiations are done now. The judge stepped in at this point, and the judge said :

"If this is the agreement of the parties, we are going to have to do this in open
court We cant do it under television. You've got to be in open court in front of
me...And you'll have to be here in THREE days (which is conveniently Monday
morning).'* And the judge continued... "If there's nothing more I'll see you here on
Monday morning."

And that was basically the proceeding.


So, Elvick sat in jail over the weekend. Now, what just happened?
Well, why did he have to be in front of the court? Why cant they do it on television?
Well, think about that for a minute.

Why'd we have to wait three days? .. .Because, any contract can be set aside in three
days. So since we've got an agreement of the parties, we've got to time out for three
days, to see if any parties going to change their minds to get out of the contract. Okay, so,
we've answered that question.
Now, why did it have to be in open court?
Because this is an execution of law and it must be in open court in order to be lawful.
Not legal, lawful.
Why is it an execution? Because there's consideration by both parties, and its an
exchange - not a transfer. If it had been a transfer it probably would have been legal and
been done outside the courts under admiralty. He just went into common law with this by
an execution. This is quit pro Quo agreement of both sides, with equal consideration. So
its an exchange of consideration not an offer, an acceptance by way of transfer. So on
Monday morning they brought Elvick in front of the judge. And from what I understand
mere were a lot of people in the courtroom, it was pretty much public.
Elvick was brought up before the judge and the judge said something about, like:

"if the parties are all here and we all agree on what we're going to do?"

Basically yes. Then the prosecutor said to the judge, which was a very strange
comment, said something like:

" Mr. Elvick here has written, has signed thousands of these checks on closed
account."

(He's only being charged with two?)

Then the Judge says:

"Mr. Elvick, you're willing to plead guilty, is that true?"

7 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


And then Elvick said:

"Yes, your honor."

Then the judge says...

"Okay, with the finding of guilty then at this time if there are no objections here
I'll
discharge the bond."

Hearing nothing the judge picked up his gavel slammed the desk and said:

" I hereby discharge the bonds."

Then the judge said:

"well that's good we wont need those bonds anymore."

And Elvick said

"Excuse me your honor, the terms and conditions were those bonds was
supposed to
be released to me."

And the Judge goes "Oh, ok." And then he said, "is there anything else in this
matter?" and upon hearing nothing said, "you are free to leave."

And Elvick walked out of the court to the clerks office and got the bond.

What just happened? There was an exchange for what for what?
What'd he do with the bonds?
He endorsed them and put them back in the closed account as far as I know to cover
the consideration on the check.. But you've got to watch how you're doing in a closed
account. (Everyone should have already received and reviewed the info and definitions
on closed accounts versus open accounts.- if not just let me know and 111 try and get that
to you as soon as possible.)

Remember : What happens on a closed account, if you post any credits or debits on
the public side, what happens to that account? It reopens again on the public side. So
whatever it is that your doing, you cannot post debits and credits of liability instruments
on the public side, cause you'll reopen, the closed account in a heartbeat and there will
no longer be any asset funds in that account. What you have to do is set-offs,

8 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


adjustments, and its got to remain on the private side. So we've got to watch what we're
doing.

EXAMPLE: Jacks got this one friend that had a checking account, and in his
checking account and had the capacity with the account, that if he wrote a check for more
then was currently on balance in the account, it just would automatically did a loan to the
account, so, it covered the check. And this particular man had gone ahead and had a
sizable amount that he wrote checks for that came in that basically his line of credit
covered it has a loan in that account. This guy was moving out of town and he didn't do
anything with the account for a while, but when he got into the other state he was
thinking about closing his account. Now, one of the things this guy had done previously
was he listed everything he could on his UCC1 and included in that was his account. He
called the bank and asked if he could close the account, and they did. Now, get the
picture, it's a closed account and its listed on the UCC- actually this is too long of a
story- the point is, if you have a closed account and you do transactions and transfer
funds by debits and credits on the positive side it will reopen your closed account. Its just
very important you understand what's going on between the public and private.

Okay, lets get back to Elvicks case again.


What happens is, an act starts out civilly, like Elvicks going to sign a check. And the"
he may tender that check on a closed account for someone, and that someone, a living
soul may go, 'well, he can't do that, this account is closed, he cant write checks on closed
accounts'

Now, those living people making that mental decision are on which side of the bar?
The left side of the bar. A living soul cannot live on the right side. So the living soul
takes that as a crime on the left side of the bar, but no one can charge anyone with crimes
on the left side of the bar today because the lawful governments gone. So, he may go to a
sheriff, judge, prosecutor- whoever, whatever and in their capacity on the public side,
they will write up a criminal charge and lodge it in the criminal system which is on the
right side of the mirror. Now they will send out a summons or a warrant to a living soul
on the left side of the mirror to come in to answer to the charges.

Once they dispose of that case, if there's a finding of guilty- they're going to then go
to civil resolution which is where they are going to apply jail time, fines, community
service, whatever by a civil contract and agreement of the parties, okay? Now, in order to
understand what's happening in this process I'm going to detour again and come back.
If they create a charging instrument; they're going to charge Elvick with fraud involving
writing checks on closed accounts to the bank- right?
Okay, they're bringing a criminal charge against him, they're going to put a charge on
the right side of the mirror. What do they have to do to keep the accounts balanced?
There has to be something on the left- what's supposed to be over there? You're
supposed to have a damaged party over there.
Remember, Is this game being played in Admiralty or common law? .....Admiralty.

9 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


What does an Admiralty court need for jurisdiction?
Charges?.. .NO! Charges is like bringing a negative charge into existence without
offsetting it with a positive charge. So what they've just done is a physical impossibility.
They've created something out of nothing with out an equal offset, and that violates all
the laws of physics. If they are going to create a negative charge then they are going to
have to have a positive asset, positive charge to counter balance that on the private side.
What that's basically called is a party that'll come in that will give a bond. Ok? A
WARRANT is a check. So if they issue an arrest warrant or a summons warrant, that's a
check. If they're going to draw a check without any deposits in account- are they
committing the very crime that they're accusing Elvick of doing?

Yes. So in order to issue a warrant, what do they have to do? Well, first that court in
admiralty has to have subject matter jurisdiction. How does the Admiralty court get
subject matter jurisdiction? Does it need an affidavit supported by oath and
affirmation?....
How may people say yes? How many say No?

It's an ADMIRALTY COURT there is no provisions that they need and oath
supported by affidavit - that's common law. What does the admiralty court need to have
subject matter jurisdiction?

Okay lets go back to a case in the early 1800's from the state of New York, and this
case dealt with a barge that was being towed along a canal in New York State and as the
operators of the barge were towing this barge along the canal it must have been to heavy
or something and it hit the bottom of the canal and ripped a hole in the bottom barge and
some of the contents started leaking into the canal, which looked Uke it was going to be a
major liability to the people who were towing the barge so they just abandoned the barge
and it sat in the canal leaking. Now along came someone and sees the abandoned barge.
So, he goes up and investigates and nobodies there with the barge. And so this guy goes,
huh? Poor today, rich tomorrow. It appears as though the barge has been abandoned;
therefore under laws of admiralty I want to claim it.

So this guy is seeing dollar signs ($$$) so he goes running down there to the court and
he wants to file his claim before anyone else can file a claim. So he goes flying down to
court to file his claim to be the owner of this barge because here it was abandoned. So he
gets into court and the guy is not an attorney and he wont go and hire an attorney (gee,
sound like a patriot maybe?), and so he goes running into court and he files a complaint
seeking that the court give him the title to the barge under the principal of finders on an
abandoned vessel. And he files that (I don't know how much time was between the
pleadings) - and the judge comes back and reviews his filing and says, " huh? This fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To which case does the claimant do?
Perfect example of a patriot, what's he do? He goes out and writes a new complaint two
to five times longer, thinking of course that, ' if I put more verbiage in the complaint,
then I will state a claim, because obviously because I only used 10,000 words that was

10 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


insufficient to state a claim, so if I use a million words I have to state a claim in that
many words, certainly it will have to be in mere.' So he files a much longer complaint.
And the judge says, "this one fails to state a claim." And then the judge says, "I want you
to go down and post a thousand dollar bond." To which the guy leaves the court and he
goes, "Geeze, I don't got a thousand bux." And then he thinks... "look if the first one was
a 100 thousand words and it didn't state a claim and the second one was a million words
and didn't state a claim. What I'll do is bring in some new parties and write the complaint
even longer. So now he brings in the state of New York, because the canal is in the state
of New York, and he brings in the canal owners- whatever and he comes down and files
it. To which case now, this is the third complaint he has filed; the judge shuts up and
doesn't say anything. But now it turns out the attorneys for the state come in with a
motion to dismiss because it fails to state a claim to which the court grants the motion
and the guy is out of there.
What was this guys problem?

hi the answer by the state in the brief, the state told him what he did wrong. How does
an admiralty court get subject matter jurisdiction? It gets its subject matter jurisdiction
by controlling the thing; it has it by REM jurisdiction. What does REM jurisdiction in an
admiralty case mean? Basically that they have control over the vessel. So how is this
court going to get control over mis barge? Are they dig the barge out of the canal and
drag it into the court and put it into the clerks office? No. How are they going to get
control over the REM? How does the court get subject matter jurisdiction to hear who the
claimants might be?

What you do is you post a bond. The posting of the bond, moves consideration to the
court, saying to the court, 'I posted a bond, so if I'm wrong in my admiralty claim, this
will help the court keep up the vessel while determining it and it will also pay damages to
the rightful claimant if he comes in and makes a counter claim to mine.' So by the
posting of the bond, the court gets constructive REM jurisdiction because somebody paid
money into the court on the title of the vessel. And the judge was trying to say, ' LOOK
you lunatic just post the bond and we'll hear your case!' because in admiralty, because
there is no finding of probable cause, if you are going to CHARGE another person you
had better have a fund to offset his damages if your charges damage him.

Doesn't that make sense? And it's by the filing of the bond that the court gets subject
matter jurisdiction over the admiralty proceedings. (Is everyone on the same page now?)
So when the court issues a warrant for your arrest, what is protecting you? The BONDS!

Now, hang on, because there is a very good chance that that bond is not there. But
we'll get into that in a minute.

Okay, I have been getting faxes and emails from a couple of people up in Michigan,
(we'll call then 'Patriots in Michigan') and they are really upset and pissed off at
Michigan. Do you know what the Legislature did in Michigan? It canceled the fourth

11 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


amendment to the United States constitution. They don't need probable cause for the
police to come into your house anymore. It doesn't have to be made public, the affidavit
does not have to be made public, and you can't get access to it under the new statutes,
and everybody in Michigan is really upset because they canceled the fourth Amendment.

Here's how I'm going to break it down: If we're not under the common law, what's
the fourth amendment have to do with procedure?.... NOTHING. Are we under common
law? NO.

So, why are they all upset about nothing? Now, did the Legislature state that when the
police come into your house without having to tell you why and with out having to show
you a probable cause affidavit- did the legislature also state, mat the court or the police
system didn't have to have a bond posted?.. .No, they did not. Why? Because in
admiralty that's what gives the police the jurisdiction to come into your house without
telling you why, so that if there are damages you'll be compensated. Everybody
understand what's going on, so that we're not out there doing stupid arguments that
aren't going to win?

Remember what 'the Band' said.. 'If I am wrong and you are right, I will light your
life by confusion', hi other words you wont be able to understand what the hells going
on, you'll go' that doesn't make any sense -' so does that mean that the governments
wrong then since your confused? No, because if the government was right, you wouldn't
be confused, because if the government was right you wouldn't be confused, and they are
right, so you shouldn't be confused, and if you think governments wrong your confused
because the courts will uphold em all the time and then you'll argue that the courts are
communist bastard Pinko Fags violating the law, and you'll think these people are
lunatics and you'll be going around confused.. 'Well, that cant be right?' See, the guy
who wrote the song told us, if you're confused because you think we're wrong, that's
why you're confused because you're on the wrong track.

So, the fourth article in amendment has just been - it's a nullity because we're not
under a common law, but the provisions of admiralty is they have to have the bond.
Okay

Look at it this way: If the PUBLIC CHARGES you with a crime in ADMIRALTY.
Is the public Bankrupt? YES.
Can the public post bond? NO.

So, get the picture, in order to charge you in admiralty they gotta post a bond, but if its
PUBLIC they cant post the bond because they're bankrupt. So therefore they couldn't
charge you. But chances are they are going to do it anyway because our people are all
lunatics, we have no clue to what's going on, so they're just going to bluff you, play the
poker hand and see what they can get away with. So what they do is they put out the
warrant and charge you, and there is no bond .. .right? So you come into court AND

12 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


when you come into court what do they ask you to do? Enter a pleading. Okay, if you
enter a pleading, when there is no bond, what did you just do? You violated the law.
You plead to charges that don't exist. You've made reality out of a fiction, which is a
violation of the law. You're a blithering lunatic. Or a legal lunatic, which is why the
judge will smile and say, "maybe we better send this guy in for a mental evaluation" .

Okay, it gets worst but we need to understand a little more of the foundation...
Now, what they want you to do, let's say they get a pleading out of you. Everything
is working backwards now BECAUSE since there were no charges, because the court did
not have subject matter jurisdiction, because there was no REM, because there was no
bond- you just gave the court jurisdiction over the case - by pleading to something that
didn't exist What's the next thing that the judge wants you to do?

Post Bond. Smart man! Why does the judge want you to post bond? Because now that
you've plead and granted the court subject matter jurisdiction, you've got to sign over a
bond to give them the jurisdiction that you want them to use. So as soon as you sign the
bond, you are posting the bond to bring the case, you are the beneficiary of the
bond, and you are the object of the bond. You're the creditor, debtor and
beneficiary- you're the only party in the case beating the crap out of yourself, and
they're all along for the ride. And then they convict you because you bonded to give the
court jurisdiction to prosecute your straw man, and then they find the straw man guilty
and now you want to go up on appeal because you granted the court jurisdiction to
prosecute your straw man? When they found him guilty-you don't like the out come?
And now you want to go up on appeal? Hell, who has been our enemy in these cases?
FOt//OURSELVES, we have been absolutely the definition of a legal lunatic. You talk
about an illusion? There is no reality going on here - except in your own minds. And that
reality in your own mind is far from the reality of the world.

Now, if you wont post a bond within three days, what usually happens? Well, they
throw you in jail if you don't post a bond. What happens within three days? Usually
they'll kick your ass out of jail, why will they kick your ass out of jail? Nobody posted
the bond to give the court subject matter jurisdiction. And if they keep you in jail, what
happens? They have to post the bond or they become liable. Unless of course they think
that you are such a blithering lunatic that they can just keep it up anyway. Do we
understand?

The illusion: See, to keep you in jail requires a bond. To have subject matter
jurisdiction requires a bond. Now money doesn't have to change hands, a lot of times
they'll hook you by saying, "oh, you don't have to pay us anything, we'll let you loose on
your own recognizance." So, what are you doing? Your signing a piece of paper
becoming liable - you're posting the bond. It's just a non-cash bond, but if you violate
the terms and conditions of the bond by bonding the case against your strawman they
bring you in on contempt on violation of the bond. Is everybody understanding what
gives 'this court' subject matter jurisdiction? It's the bond.

13 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


Now, look at it this way, remember back to the 1800's when that guy was interested
in that barge and so he went flying into court and he wanted to file a claim right? Did the
prosecutor of mat county or that state have a public interest in whether or not he got title
of that barge? ...No!

So the judge rightfully said to this guy, your complaint fails to state a claim. -
Actually, it wasn't the complaint that failed to state a claim, it was the process when he
filed the complaint without posting the bond that failed to state a claim because it did not
invoke the subject matter jurisdiction in admiralty of the court. Do we understand that?

And so he had to post the bond because he was making a private claim for title on the
barge. Now if the public tries to bring public charges against you, the public would have
to post the bond but the public is bankrupt and they can't do it. However, if you came in
there and you had a complaint against your neighbor, lets say a barking dog or whatever,
and you wanted the city to charge him criminally. What you would probably have to do is
post a bond in order to grant the court REM jurisdiction so that the clerk would issue a
summons to the sheriff to go serve the neighbor. And if you didn't post the bond - that
whole system would be taking a chance of liability. After explaining this to a couple of
people they have come back and said holly! #$%A&* that's why they told me I had to
pay SO.oo bux or they wouldn't prosecute- that's why, you are paying for the bond. Your
probably not paying the whole bond your probably just purchasing a bond, you're at 10%
level okay? Which covers like- okay...

The barge is just sitting out there, and once this court invokes subject matter
jurisdiction to get him the barge, what happens if these proceedings are going to cany on
for three months? Don't you think the court might need some funds in order to stop the
barge from leaking? Maybe even pull the barge out of the canal, you think the public and
the court are just going to underwrite all the fee's to handle this little problem while
we're determining the problem as far as titles are concerned? Or do you think the court
wants some money out front so the court has funds to draw payments to protect the asset,
stop the leaks, remove it from the channel, put it in storage, secure it until the court
comes up with a decision. See that's what this is all about, protecting the court, protecting
the claimant so that once we make the decision there is going to be adequate funds to
have protected all this without saddling the public without all these expenses.

And so that's what the bond is put in there for. Now, someone asked, well why cant
you go to the court of appeals as of right? Now ordinarily when you go to the court of
appeals and your going to appeal a case- what does it require for you to post if you go on
appeal? You have to post a bond don't you? What have you just done? You've given
them the jurisdiction, but what you've also done is posted to cover damages in case you
lose the appeal and mere's claims.

Because its admiralty and its not as of right. So again, you have to post a bond- what
happens if you try and go up on appeal without posting the bond? Either they wont hear

14 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


it or they'll give you any ol' answer or darned decision that they want because its
irrelevant and immaterial you haven't given them REM subject matter jurisdiction. You
post the bond and ask them for their opinion.

Okay so, Lets get back to what was happening with Elvick okay? Remember, Elvick
signed his name to checks on a closed account- that was in the real world, left of the bar
on your paper. Then somebody said, "gee, mat's a fraud and a crime" on the private side.
So they went to somebody and they lodged criminal charges on the right side of the bar
on the public side which was a charging instrument. Charges were Elvick committed all
this terrible fraud. Now what was the fraud? He (Elvick) signed his name on checks on
a closed account. Those are the facts in the case okay? The assumption is fraud- the
assumption is whatever crime they want to accuse him of. But the crime is the application
of the facts to the presumptions and assumptions. So now what happens is, when
someone lodged those charges, there should have been a bond. And then warrants issued,
remember a warrant is a check, a commercial instrument. And whoever came to arrest
Elvick allegedly arrested him with the two warrants, hi which case what Elvick did was
A) he accepted the warrants and he wrote across them the acceptance and laid them back
in the hands of the officer- the accepted warrants had already been accepted and returned
to the court. Now with that acceptance and return with the written contract across the face
of the paper work (warrant) there was the offer mat he was exempt from levy, I am
allowing you to use my exemption in exchange for release of the property i.e. in this case,
I want a discharge of the bond and return it to me.

Why the bond?


In an admiralty case what is the property? It's the bond, which represents the title to
the vessel, which is the REM, which gave mem the subject matter jurisdiction. The
BOND IS THE PROPRTY. It represents property. So the bond that created the subject
matter jurisdiction of the court is the property that is being requested be released to this
party.

Ok, now, remember you can either do business one of two ways, you can either do
business by literally transfers or you do business by exchanges and the difference is an
EXCHANGE: is a two way consideration and a TRANSFER: is a consideration of Title
in one direction only, no return of title.

What Elvick specifically stated is 'I want to exchange the consideration in


substance of my exemption for the release or discharge of the bond to me. I give you
the exemption; you discharge the bond, and exchange it with me for my exemption'.
That is a quit pro Quo substance in both directions if the bond has substance to it. But the
bond better have substance to it if the exemption carries substance from Elvick to the
court, which it does, because he is privately registered and is entitled to that exemption if
he claims it.

15- Before the Judge - The Transcript


So, what we have already done before Elvick was arrested and in jail is we all ready
got a civil agreement between the parties don't we?

Offer: which is the exchange of the charging instrument, acceptance and returned,
conditioned upon the exchange exemption for the discharge of the bond. Are those civil
proceedings or criminal proceedings? Civil. So what have we made here so far a civil
or criminal adjustment? Civil, what do prosecutors always do in criminal case? How do
they dispose of criminal cases mostly?... They "plea bargain". Is Plea-bargaining civil or
criminal? CIVIL.

So prosecutors resolve -almost the majority of their cases civilly even though they are
criminal cases, and once the plea bargain is in place, what do they do? They go into the
court to resolve the criminal case- they've been doing it correctly all along- what, you
haven't been paying attention to what they 're doing? You always have to resolve your
criminal case civilly before you resolve your criminal case and if we're so stupid that you
want your trial to resolve your criminal case before you resolve the civil disposition- your
backwards, you'll never get it resolved.

If the first event was civil, the first resolution in the public side must be civil and then
you go back to the criminal- offsetting the criminal on the public side. If you do it
backwards, you don't control your case. Because if you allow the public system to
resolve the criminal case who's the creditor in the criminal case? The public- 'duh,' how
can you go into a civil disposition of what your going to do once your found guilty in the
public and the public controls title to your guilt, what bargaining chip do you have left to
resolve it by plea bargaining after your found guilty? You must plea bargain civilly and
remain the creditor to get a creditorship of the civil plea bargain then you allow the public
to go back to the criminal case resolving the criminal case. What do you have to worry
about if you're the creditor in the disposition of the criminal case by way of holding all
the cards in the civil disposition?

If they discharge the bond to you, are you the creditor on the bond? What, as the
banker your going to insist that the court put the living soul for your strawman in jail
even if he was found guilty when you have title to the bond- your really crazy then!
Because the court listens to the creditor; if you have title to the bond behind the criminal
prosecution there's no way you can go to jail.

Okay... .did the judge in Elvicks case say, 'I understand you wanted to plead guilty to
these charges is that correct?'.. .."yes that's correct your honor".. .what did the judge do?
He said then, 'if there's no objection let me discharge this bond' Once the bond was
discharged the judge tried his darn'dest, he said 'good, well we got the bond out of the
way now, we wont need that anymore.' Why did the judge say that? To hold onto the
assets number one. IF Elvick wants to let go of the contract and give the public the bond,
could the public now sentence Elvick to jail? You bet- he just gave up title to the case.

16 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


Don't you guys see what's going on? When Elvick said 'excuse me', he had a duty to
speak or else for ever hold your peace and wave all your titles, Elvick said 'Excuse me
the agreement which was settled by your plea bargaining agreement before we went-
notice there was no plea to the criminal case, until we had a plea bargain agreement
settled on- because if you plea a criminal case before you own title to the civil disposition
then you will lose!!

So when the judge says how do you plea? Whats the right response? Your honor
would you like to show me how I can plea without violating any of my unalienable rights
prior to my attempt to a plea bargain with the prosecution? Do you understand what
you're saying to this guy? Now, look at it this way, lets say that the judge goes, 'ya but
we're going to have to post the bond here and Mr. Elvick will you post bond?' Well, if
the judge were to draft him like that and Elvick were not to be an acceptance isn't he in
dishonor? But now what do we have to do when it comes to posting bond? Don't we
have to be in agreement with the parties as to who the creditor on the bonds going to be?
Your honor I would be happy to sign for that bond under the consideration that you waive
the public registration fee for that bond. Now, what happens if the judge says well that's
going to be a 50-dollar fee for filing that bond. If you don't speak, what's going to
happen?

Now wait a minute- who IS going to pay for that bond? Can the public pay for that
bond? No, they're bankrupt, who's going to pay for that bond?
You are going to pay for that bond.
The issue ISNT who's going to pay for that bond- the issue is HOW is it paid for, .. .is
it paid for with asset funds or liability funds?

See that's what Elvick did when he said '111 offer my exemption' in exchange for the
discharge of the bond, so the bond was purchased with his exemption. But then there's
going to be an administrative fee or registration fee- ok, what's that? ...Remember the
story I sent to you guys about my other guy (Jacks friend) who took his checking
account and registered it on his UCC1 and then closed the account? What happened to
that account? There was a fee paid by liability funds which reopened the closed account,
so there's going to be an administrative fee to register this bond. Who's going to pay that
administrative fee and what kind of fee is it going to be, how's it going to be paid with,
what kind of money? Because if that one is paid with liability funds that bond has just
gone back to the public again even if you exchanged your exemption for it.

So what Elvick had to do is he had to suggest mat either the court was going to wave
the public administrative fee for the registration of that bond. Under HJR 192 there's no
asset funds in the public to pay the registration, and he's putting in his notice- if you
register that bond in an administrative fee with liability money isn't that going to screw
up his whole case? How could he have a private right to have that property released to
him if it's registered with public liability money? So he said to the court, either you're
(A) going to wave the registration fee or (B) what your going to do is you are going to

17 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


take the fee out of the accounts of the private property or (C) if you don't waive it I will
treat that as a dishonor and I will then discharge it in a FORCED BANKRUPTCY upon
this court, in oilier words I am not going to have you people go out and attempt to do a
debit and credit on the liability side which is going to convert my asset property back into
a public liability.

So I am TRYING to give you guvs as much information as I am aware of. as


to what went on with THESE events.

And you can see that the timing, the manner in which he proceeded against the
prosecutor, the registration of the property, the offers and the exchanges, the three day
waiting period, the open appearance in court, speaking up when you have a duty to speak,
AND BEING QUIET WHEN YOU SHOULD BE (that was enlarged for Mr. Miller) are
ALL very critical aspects with what happened with Elvick in these events which resulted
in him WALKING AWAY FROM COURT and LEAVING.

Its not merely that he may have written a check on a closed account, but that when he
got the bond discharged most likely it got credited back in to do an offset to keep the
accounting balances correct. He is not creating something out of nothing, he's not
generating something from no-where, he's not ignoring PROCEDURE. He's not trying to
accomplish anything without substance; he's got his whole act together.

And so what happens when you are charged with a crime, you have to work your way
out of it in the public sector. Basically what you have to do is you have to do an
agreement between the parties on the civil side as to what's going to happen. Now what
input did the public have to what that agreement was going to be? They had none because
they have no substance to really connect.

Now, did the public have a bond in place at the time they arrested Elvick? No.
Okay, some have asked about the bond the police have so: Well the bond that the
police have is just a protection on their activities less they do something or they don't do
something. Lets put it this way... If you go into court and you don't raise the issue that
there is no bond there and you enter a plea, and then you post your own bond - what
damage did the police or do to you?... none. You committed the equivalent of treason
and suicide, commercial suicide- you did it all to yourself! What part of any of their
activity violated any of your rights? You went into court and were a blithering lunatic,
that's all. And your going to leave that court and your going to investigate that there was
no bond, there was no affidavit and your going to go out and start suing cops, and suing
public officials, claiming that they violate the constitution, and that they're in treason of
the constitution; excuse me, all they did was allow you the opportunity to shoot
yourselves in the foot, and as a blithering lunatic that's exactly what you did.

Now, what kind of rules do they have to use now that you're a blithering lunatic?
There are no rules to deal with a lunatic. What rules apply to a person who is a blithering

18 - Before the Judge The Transcript


lunatic? Sooner or later confinement because this guy is dangerous. Now you know why
they post guards and metal detectors around courtrooms? Everyone walking through that
door is at one stage of the game a blithering lunatic and that goes for congressmen on
down or on up depending on your point of view. Every one of us and every one of them
has acted stupid and just the same, there are very few that are actually competent and
understand what's happening.

So its not difficult for judges and courts to come up with a decision when everybody's
trying to hang themselves, they just try to prevent you from hanging yourself to early in
the game so they cant make any money at the funeral. They want it to carry out so they'll
be able to make a living at your own hanging which you bought the rope, financed the
rope, threw it over the tree limb, put your own neck in it, jumped up on a stool tied the
rope and chances are you're going to push yourself off the stool and then.. .blame them.

So, what was happening in Elvicks case is, when the prosecutor in open court before
the judge said- wait this wasn't in open court, this was during the arraignment: The
Prosecutor said to the Judge, "Mr. Elvick knows more commercial law then you
know." That's what he said to the judge and the Judge say's, "What do you want me to
do?" Wise statement. Okay,... and then -oh wait, this was in open court
because then the prosecutor came back, responded to the judge by shouting, " He's
signed thousands of these checks, but we've got him here your honor! And he's
willing to plead guilty!"

Now, if your part of the public here sitting in the court; HEADLINES state: Local
Idiot Arrested For Writing Checks On Closed Account, what are the news paper reporters
going to cover in court today? PEAD GUILTY, FOUND GUILTY inexcusably we're
not sure why but he left and went home BUT THEY GOT THIS GUY AND YOU CAN
BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR MAN HE BETTER NOT DO THAT AGAIN. Do you
understand? Public is perfectly happy.

Now, what does it mean to plead guilty to a criminal charge? What does it mean?
When you plead GUILTY to a criminal charge- WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

What?...... No, it doesn't say that you did it. No, it doesn't say that you accept it.
Accept what? Did what?..... .agreeing with the statements? Agreeing with what
statements?

When you plead GUILTY TO THE COMPLAINT, you are NOT admitting the crime.
You are admitting that the FACTS in the complaint are true. Does everybody got that?
ALL YOU ARE ADMITTING IS THAT THE FACTS flVTHE COMPLAINT ARE
TRUE. You are not admitting the CRIME. Does everybody understand that?

Now, in these courts supposedly in the United States, everyone's entitled to a trial
right? Even in the admiralty cases many of the time's they will permit you, in fact

19 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


sometimes they will force a jury on you. Why would they force a jury on you? To do
they're dirty work.

Now, in the complaint, the FACTS that are properly plead are minimal and most of
the time all you gotta do is read the facts in the complaint, and everyone who is going to
read this chances are 99.9% of the time can agree that the facts in the case are true,
what's it going to say, the guy in the car was going 80 mph in a 50 zone on fifth and
main- are the facts in the complain true- probably yes. So plead guilty. Now, what
happens in court when you plead guilty in court, what's the next thing the judge will
say?.... He says, 'do you have anything to say now that we've accepted that the facts are
true?' What is a DEMURER? Well a demurer admits the facts as true and goes to a
different legal issue of law. Isn't that what a demurer does? (If you don't know go look it
up.) Now how can you be guilty of a crime even if the facts are true if there's a different
issue of law? Or if there are facts that are supplemental to the complaint that completely
changed the condition and application of the law. So when you plead guilty the judge will
always say is there anything or anymore information you want to bring to the court that
the court could consider? Because as soon as you plead guilty to the case, its civil. Now
that its civil, we're going to draw up an agreement between the parties and we can go any
place we want to go. Supplemental evidence. Supplemental issue of law.

Was it self-defense instead of premeditated murder, when the facts didn't allege
premeditation? Facts said cop saw the guy standing over the corps with the gun, the gun
was smoking, further evidence forensic showed the bullet matched the one found in the
dead victim, so we arrested him for murder. Well, I plead guilty its absolutely true, but
you see, I took the gun out of the guys hand after he committed suicide. So there's
supplemental facts of evidence. It's a demurer. Everything's open for civil decision after
the criminal case is disposed of before you plead to the crime. But pleading guilty to the
criminal charges is only accepting the facts in the criminal complaint is true- that's all
your doing.

So when Elvick said, I don't have any problems with pleading guilty, what's he
saying? I am accepting the facts. What are the facts that are already agreed to?
Remember in the negotiations right out in front in the arraignment the prosecutor made a
statement, 'we have two checks here with your signature on them written on a closed
account.' Elvick said 'that is true.' Those are the only material facts that were in the
complaint, other than the allegations that he committed fraud, which is not a fact. So he
plead guilty to the crime only after he had a civil disposition to get rid of the criminal
case cause we've already agreed with the plea bargaining that I own the bond. As the
prosecutor in his wisdom charged Elvick with charging anything wrong by signing two
checks that were private, he didn't accuse him of anything. The prosecutor understood
he's operating under private domain. There is no crime there. Its his property, he's just
adjusting the accounts with set-offs. And since there is no crime its going to be up to
Elvick whether he wants to screw up and put himself in prison.

20 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


So Elvick knew he did not commit a crime, his problem is: negotiate a treaty with the
public using the proper form in the substance so they don't put him in jail because he shot
himself in the foot when he didn't commit a crime to begin with. Could he have gone to
jail for writing those checks? You bet! How would he have gotten there? Shooting
himself in the foot procedurally or substantively in the negotiations with the public. Is
everyone getting a finer appreciation for the criminal process?

Now, did the public have a bond there? Doubtful. Did Elvick come in and say, "uh I
conditionally accept your prosecution upon proof of claim you prove you got a bond
there."???? No, because that creates controversy embarrassing the public. So why
would you want to embarrass the public that's mere for your good? Because look at it
mis way, when the public discharged the bond to him and let him go home; what did the
public just do with his private checks? It HONORED HIS PRIVATE CHECKS. Can
they come back and prosecute him now that they've honored those checks? Those are
done deals they're ratified to the public. When Elvick left the court he said, "I went in
there, I gave up nothing (three days time) I gave up nothing I gained everything."

If you go to the report in the public news paper, he came in there charged as a
criminal, he plead guilty and was found guilty, and only luckily went home, preferably to
never do this again because this is a dastardly event. Public side mirror Private side. See
what's going on?

He said he's written thousands, the court only had two, but they accepted the two
therefore we're accepting the thousand. Otherwise wouldn't we (the court) be in breach
of our public duty not charging him with all the others? So what they did was publicly
wash his checks right through the court system. There's your Public Ratification. He
went in. he gave up nothing, he gained everything but the newspaper will tell you the
opposite.

Back to the people in Michigan who will be reading this: What have you lost?
If the police come through the door what do they have to have? a Warrant.
And to have a warrant what do they have to post? a bond.
So, they're going to come through your door and they are going to have a warrant with no
bond. So, what are the patriots of Michigan going to do? Fuzzy thinking ~ No
they are not going to shoot on sight.... what are they going to do?

They are going to return the warrant ACCEPTED, then they are going to offer as
consideration their exemption in return for the discharge of the bond. They are going to
get the agreement and upon the agreement just like Elvick got, and then your going to go
to the court in front of the judge and the judge is going to say, 'are you Roing to plead
guilty to the charges' and they're going to say 'yes' because they've all ready got the
agreement that the bonds going to get released to them and then the judge will tap the
gavel and say "I discharge the bond to the patriot, you are free to go"... and he will go to

21 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


the clerks office and he will gather up the bond and he'll go home. Where has he been
damaged?
Okay... the question of what if they raid your house and confiscate your belongings:

What ever they carry away, they will give you an inventory slip for, and if they don't
have an inventory slip then you will accept the fact that they didn't have one and give
them three days to present it and if they don't present it then what will happen is you will
go through an involuntary bankruptcy with them and you will basically own their house
because they stole your property. Because if they do not give you a receipt for what they
take they are thieves and they are not public servants.

There was a question about one of the situations (Tennessee Buddy) mailed out to
most of you for your review- what eventually happened was: when he went in he plead to
a plea bargain Because that when he went with mat other patriot group and we said to
him right up front, 'yu Put m your habeas corpus now', what we should have said is, 'if
your registered your going to exchange your exemption in return for a discharge of the
bond, but the habeas corpus was a similar process, and remember the other loony patriot
organization said, "No, you don't understand criminal process you go in and you plead to
the charges then they set a bond and when they set a bond you argue that you out to be
able to go O.R. because your not a risk, then when you get out we come in and argue
that's when you win. What did I just try to tell you guys and share with you? It doesn't
work because what your doing is you've given title to the public on the whole dam
proceeding, and since they're the creditor there's no way to win. But that other patriot
organization is so intelligent, they've read all the procedures and rules and they know just
exactly how the public operates, and YES they did! But if you go in and operate in the
FORWARD direction, the direction the public wants you to operate you will be the
debtor and you will be the slave!

Okay, not everyone has the understanding of theses closed accounts and putting bonds
back into the closed accounts, 111 get more out on this issue later but for now, but
remember: you want to do a reposit not a deposit, okay? And part of this from what I
understand is you treat those as certificates of deposit.

Now, what is a certificate of deposit? Who issues the certificate? .. .The titleholder.
So if your going to put it in there as a certificate of deposit, your issuing the certificate,
which means you're the credit holder. Okay, a reposit would be in the common law and
I'm not sure if their admiralty system will see a reposit, but if you talk in terms of treating
those bonds in your possession as though the bond is yours and your going to deposit a
certificate of deposit. Remember in the public system a certificate of deposit is an asset,
and if you hold the bond, you hold the title. (A certificate of deposit might be the
appropriate title for the instrument to go into the closed account on an adjustment or a set
off.) That's all I understand at this point The bond is an asset. The one who holds
the bond is the insurer for the activity.

22 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


Well, look at it this way, the court is going to say, we want to see a bond. Ordinarily
what happens is, you come in with federal reserve notes, for let's say 50 dollars and you
will go to a bonding guy and he will provide a piece of paper called a bond for ten tunes
that, 500 dollars and the terms and conditions in the bond are that if something does or
doesn't happen, we will compensate the damaged party in the amount of- to the face
value of the bond. Now, remember the one who insures is the title holder. That's why
insurance companies always want to insure everything that's going on, because they're
the title holder. You'll buy a warranty for a product- right? The warranty is basically an
insurance policy, so who's the creditor? the insurer, the one who issues the warranty.
So when you spend your money to buy a warranty on a product, you're the DEBTOR.
Are you going to tell them what went wrong and what they've got to compensate? Hello!
They're the CREDITOR. They'll fix it but it will be under the terms and conditions of
their tight little writing, plus whatever they deem as necessary if the writing doesn't
apply. So, everything they do they want you to re-insure it. And the reason that they
want you to re-insure it is to take all your authority and control away. See if there wasn't
any warranty or insurance on it at all, presumably it comes under common law, you're
the CREDITOR if you were the Title Holder and you could sue for breach of contract or
poor workmanship or damage or whatever, it might cost you something it may take some
time and administrative process BUT you're the CREDITOR. But if you have a warranty
or an insurance policy on it, your not in control. Why do you think they want to put
medical health insurance coverage on everyone? Cause they're in control. You can bitch
until your blue in the face- you're the DEBTOR, who cares what you say, who cares what
you want.

There was a question: how does Zoning get jurisdiction?:


Zoning is an effect, not a cause. The effect is, the zoning effect is cause by the fact that
you never got title to the land when you purchased it. They transferred your tide. They
did not exchange your title. And you never paid for your land with asset money so you
never got title to it.

Taxes; All taxes are not taxes. What a tax is, is a trustee fee. It's not even a user fee,
it's a trustee fee because all the assets and property that you have, have been abandoned.
And the state has taken over the title on that and its waitingfor the true claimant for that
title to come along, (theory) and if you come along and want to claim title, what you need
to do is pay the trustee fee which is the tax. And if you don 'tpay that trustee fee the
trustee has a primary lien, maritime lien on the property and you 'II never get title until
you pay the tax. If you pay the tax they release the bond which is the title to the property.
The title does not come from the previous owner it does not come from the auto dealer, it
comes from the state. And taxes are another name for fiduciary fee and if you don 'tpay
the tax like they want you too, you cant get title to the property, that's the oxy moron.

23 - Before the Judge - The Transcript


See the July/August 2002 issue of The American's Bulletin, page 16, for Jack Smith's
article "What Are Taxes?"... for the rest of the story! Single issue at $10.00. One year
Subscription (6 issues - 32 pages) at $50.00. One year subscription for those incarcerated
at $30.00. Payment via money order only. Address; P.O. Box 3096, Central Point,
Oregon 97502. Phone-541-779-7709.

This information is not intended as legal advice, but educational information


only. User assumes all risk as any to any application of the above information.

24 - Before the Judge - The Transcript