| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Enoch
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
 Posted - 21 May 2003 : 04:32:37
|
Hi,
A lot of the redemption practices use the existence of the Strawman as the foundation of much of their explanations. I understand the explanation of the creation of the Strawman as a way of using as a form of collateral in the 1930's (33?). For a few years now I've accepted it de facto. But after visiting Chris Hansen's website, he argues against its concept. He also argues against Bill of Exchange, the differentiation of all caps and mixed cases etc etc. Now I am not so sure about the actual act of the Strawman creation. Has anyone actually found the existence of the all caps Strawman or is the act of putting all names in caps a matter of convenience as described in Chris Hansen's site (www.familyguardian.tzo.com) ?
I've only seriously studied the redemption process the past couple of months. Before that I just accepted what was told to me w/o question which proved to be dangerous. So now I am starting to ask very basic questions which some may even consider rediculous. However, the answers to these questions will help me build a better understanding and provide a better foundation for other information which build on top of them.
-Enoch |
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2003 : 09:59:16
|
Enoch,
I don't read Chris's work quite the way you do. He also addresses this very issue at http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/FAQ/FAQ.htm#QUESTION%209:
It is my belief that while the ALL CAPS name was originally developed as a means to reduce data redundancy in databases when Henry Hollorith developed his punched card accounting machine used to accumulate data from the 1890 census, it has been in later years used as means of creating a legal fiction to draw people into the commercial realm and jurisdiction of Caesar. If we check the rules of the courts we will find that they are suppose to use properly written English in the presentment of their papers. However we know for a fact that is not the case. Therefore, like the yellow fringe flag, if it doesn't matter, then why are they so insistent on it's use?
Peace to all. |
 |
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2003 : 10:03:07
|
Enoch,
I don't read Chris's work quite the way you do. He also addresses this very issue at http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/FAQ/FAQ.htm#QUESTION%209:
It is my belief that while the ALL CAPS name was originally developed as a means to reduce data redundancy in databases when Henry Hollorith developed his punched card accounting machine used to accumulate data from the 1890 census, it has been in later years used as means of creating a legal fiction to draw people into the commercial realm and jurisdiction of Caesar. If we check the rules of the courts we will find that they are suppose to use properly written English in the presentment of their papers. However we know for a fact that is not the case. Therefore, like the yellow fringe flag, if it doesn't matter, then why are they so insistent on it's use?
Peace to all. |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2003 : 21:25:47
|
I filed my UCC-1 and am now waiting for it to come back from the state. I wish I saw the information below before I filed it. I hope it comes back rejected so I can re-do it, the right way.
I now don't know whether the UCC-1 I filed is considered "perfected" since I didn't do it this way:
(that's the problem with this UCC stuff... the information, whereever you get it, is never complete.)
For years, the "Judges" have been taking "Silent Judicial NOTICE" that the Government/Plaintiff is "Holder in Due Course" in their Courts.
In their "Commerce Jurisdiction", the definition of the "Holder in Due Course" is "the Party that takes the Instrument free from all claims and all defenses from all Parties". That Party has "Standing", - and in their commercial Court, he is KING! Any other Party, - "has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". (Because they are NOT the "Holder in Due Course") No wonder we have been losing.
In order to defeat or overcome their "Presumption" (Silent Judicial NOTICE), we must have a "properly" drawn and "Perfected" "SECURITY AGREEMENT / INDEMNITY BOND / FINANCING STATEMENT" which has been correctly filed and Recorded, so that ours takes "Priority" over all other claims. The government's claims are never property filed or "Perfected" and can never take "Priority", - once we challenge by having the judge take "Judicial NOTICE" of our "Perfected" and "Priority" claims. Depending upon the Nature of the collateral described in the AGREEMENT, they must be "Filed / Recorded" in different places.
Evidently, people in 17 States, filed UCC-1 forms, which were refused, rejected, and retured as incorrect. Two State "Attorney's General" wrote "Attorney General Opinions" as to why the UCC-1's were deficient. Evidently, a UCC-1 is a "Flag" or "NOTICE OF" that there is a "Security Agreement" already on file somewhere. They were rejected because there was NO "back-up" or "validating" agreement on file.
The "Peoples Rights Research Group" obtained copies of these two "Opinions", and analyzed them to detect what the UCC-1 deficiencies were. They now have drawn-up a "SECURITY AGREEMENT" which incorporates an "Indemnity Bond" agreement. , - in which the ALL CAPITAL LETTER "nom-de-guerre", "TAXPAYER", "Straw man", "DEFENDANT", "DUMMY CORPORATION", (fictitious entity with similar name as yours), has to reimburse you (as former surety, co-signer, agent, guarantor) for any monies which you may have expended on it's behalf in the past (indemnify you / me). Now, (after this "Agreement / Indemnity Bond / Financing Statement" is properly filed / recorded), YOU, (the real live man / woman) are the "Holder in Due Course" because your "Claim" is "Perfected" and takes "Priority over ALL others". It is you, who are "KING" in their Court, and it is the other Party that "has failed to state a Claim upon which relief can be granted", because they are NOT the "Holder in Due Course".
This "Reverses" the "Standing" of the Parties. Now, YOU "Win" and the "Other Party" (government agencies) "Loses" - regardless if the issue is a "Traffic Ticket", IRS, Mortgage Foreclosure, or any "Debtor Behavior" Code Title and Section number, claim.
In one recent case, there was a "Bank Forclosure" action action in which this new "Security Agreement / Indemnity Bond / Financing Statement" was introduced, and the Judge was asked to "Read the Defendant's Exhibit", in which the Judge announced to the Bank, "This Case is Dismissed. Because (after reading this "Security Agreement"), the issue before the Court is now Title, (or True Title) this (Administrative) Court lacks "authority" (Jurisdiction). However, if the Plaintiff Bank wishes, it can re-file it's claim with the "State Supreme Court", which DOES have authority to adjudicate issues of "True Title" " . The bank immediately fired the two Veterans Administration Attorneys and it's own Attorney, in the Court, on the spot, on the Record.
For a copy of the "Application" or "Questionaire" for the "Peoples Rights Research Group" to prepare a properly drawn "Security Agreement / Indemnity Bond / Financing Statement" complete document for you with instructions, ready for recording by you, - send a donation of $2.00 Dollars (Postage, mailing, and copy cost) to : Peoples Rights Association, care of 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware (Not fiction Feudal Venue zone "DE") Feudal fiction Venue zone # (19958) - 9999
or send e-mail request to : no-taxman@peoples-rights.com with your fax number for the 8 pages to be faxed-back to you. or Fax (after 10:00 am to to 10:00 pm EST to (302) 645-8253 your Fax number for the 8 pages to be faxed back to you.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 21 May 2003 21:33:31 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2003 : 22:50:16
|
This example is the best I have seen so far of how you should do a Security Agreement for a UCC-1 filing. It has some typos and some other errors, such as the collateral not being a separate document, but it is a mighty good start.
If you don't know enough to do your own filing, then you are only going to get yourself in trouble trying to use this stuff. Paying $2.00 for somebody to "form letter" a standard agreement isn't going to get you educated and keep you out of jail when the jack-booted thugs come calling.
I just learned that Barton Buhtz, one of the top Redemption at Law experts was arrested today. It will be interesting to see what that is all about and what the outcome is. Keep him in your prayers.
Just a few thoughts.
Lewis |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2003 : 23:14:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
This example is the best I have seen so far of how you should do a Security Agreement for a UCC-1 filing. It has some typos and some other errors, such as the collateral not being a separate document, but it is a mighty good start.
What "example" you referring to?
quote:
If you don't know enough to do your own filing, then you are only going to get yourself in trouble trying to use this stuff. Paying $2.00 for somebody to "form letter" a standard agreement isn't going to get you educated and keep you out of jail when the jack-booted thugs come calling.
I am going to pay the $2.00 and take a look at it, and amend my UCC if necessary.
quote:
I just learned that Barton Buhtz, one of the top Redemption at Law experts was arrested today. It will be interesting to see what that is all about and what the outcome is. Keep him in your prayers.
Just a few thoughts.
Whoa. Boy, is this country going downhill...and fast. How many freedom fighters has the government already jailed this year? I can't even count... |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 01:46:49
|
Does anyone know if Notaries squawk when you sign your name for both parties to the agreement in two different places? Doesn't it seem to them that you are making a contract between yourself? Just wondering . . . .
Doer |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 02:03:01
|
I had my "Power of Attorney in Fact" notarized yesterday - it had both parties in two different places. The notary, I don't believe, took any note of the two names.
It is now a notarized document.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 22 May 2003 02:03:40 |
|
|
|
Enoch
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 02:28:31
|
Does anyone know why Barton was arrested?
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
This example is the best I have seen so far of how you should do a Security Agreement for a UCC-1 filing. It has some typos and some other errors, such as the collateral not being a separate document, but it is a mighty good start.
If you don't know enough to do your own filing, then you are only going to get yourself in trouble trying to use this stuff. Paying $2.00 for somebody to "form letter" a standard agreement isn't going to get you educated and keep you out of jail when the jack-booted thugs come calling.
I just learned that Barton Buhtz, one of the top Redemption at Law experts was arrested today. It will be interesting to see what that is all about and what the outcome is. Keep him in your prayers.
Just a few thoughts.
Lewis
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 13:05:03
|
| I know someone that recently hired Barton to help him with creditcard and mortgage elimination...so maybe that had something to do with it. |
Edited by - Livefree on 22 May 2003 13:48:09 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 16:59:02
|
Well, whatever the reason Barton was arrested, "they" don't want us to know. I checked all the news services and all the on-line police reports for the Sunland, Calif. area, and nothing turned up.
Lewis |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 17:59:37
|
Here is what I found when I did a google search.. it could be the reason for the arrest:
Do you know if there is anything new on the discharging of mortgage debt program with Barton Buhtz via the bills of exchange?
Answer #18: No, there is nothing much new to share. Last week, I called the bank in Panama that Barton Buhtz dealt with that supposedly was going to accept these bills of exchange. They said they were trying to process them. However, they're not accepting any more bills of exchange until the ones they are already working with go through. Therefore, it's not like what I thought it was initially where these people were supposed to be aggressive about taking them and putting them through.
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 18:08:52
|
I don't know how old this question/answer is, but it almost sounds like this "Bank of Panama" deal was a set up, e.g, telling Barton they were going to accept the Bills of Exchange, but in reality they were setting him up for an arrest through U.S. officials.
Just speculation.. |
Edited by - Livefree on 22 May 2003 18:10:55 |
|
|
|
Enoch
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2003 : 20:12:21
|
Is Panama really run by Panamanians? That's the question.
I hope Barton is OK though. He sounds intelligent and experienced enough to stay out of trouble. I hope. Anyway, keep us updated on his progress if you know more.
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
I don't know how old this question/answer is, but it almost sounds like this "Bank of Panama" deal was a set up, e.g, telling Barton they were going to accept the Bills of Exchange, but in reality they were setting him up for an arrest through U.S. officials.
Just speculation..
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
|
|
Enoch
Regular Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2003 : 01:13:16
|
Thanks for the link. I've been looking for it for quite a while now.
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
Barton wasn't arrested. Listen to the on demand show dated May 21, 2003
He is on and talking about what happened... about 48 minutes into the show.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/lforum/index.asp?how=1
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
1 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2003 : 13:36:50
|
I have filed my UCC1 in birthstate ,local now state, and federal.
However,in the study that we are all undertaking I enjoy making contacts with those who are developng further knowledge about the matter of the accounting system that establishes the true debtor and creditor relation..... SIGNED JOHN |
|
|
|
Its2Die4
Regular Member
uSA
28 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 11:21:45
|
During my due diligence I have come across the below content and now submit it for rebuttal to all proponents of the Redemption/UCC theory....
Thank-you.
Flaw 1: The birth certificate is not the basis for the creation of credit in this country.
Economic texts and a wide variety of other materials plainly demonstrate the manner by which credit ("money") is created in this country: a bank (or central bank like the Fed) extends credit in exchange for the receipt of some note or other financial obligation made by either a private party or government. At the federal level, the Federal Reserve extends credit to the U.S. Treasury simply by book keeping entry made in favor of the United States when the Fed buys obligations of the United States. In contrast, a birth certificate is not a note or other debt instrument, contrary to what Roger Elvick, Ron Knutt, Wally Peterson or idiots like Dave DeReimer may contend. Simply stated, a birth certificate is not a note, bond or other financial obligation, and it is not sold to financial institutions, contrary to the blatant lies of the "liaryer" promoters of this argument. In short, the birth certificate is not the foundation for the credit used as money today.
Why don't you ask the advocates of this argument to produce some reliable documentation that birth certificates are the basis of credit in this country rather than the instruments mentioned above? It is simply foolish to rely on the word of Roger Elvick. It is even more foolish to believe anything that DeReimer declares.
Flaw 2: The birth certificate cannot be, as a matter of law, a guarantee of debt.
A debt is created by a debtor making a promise to pay a creditor a specified amount of money over a specified period of time. Merchandise purchased on credit involves the buyer delivering a promissory note to the seller wherein he promises to pay a specific periodic amount with interest until the debt is paid. When a borrower obtains a loan, he delivers a promissory note to the lender. A promissory note by definition requires the payment of certain specific amounts of funds to the holder of that note. Is a birth certificate a promissory note? It simply cannot be because the party named therein has no obligation to make any payment of anything to some alleged holder thereof (and traffic tickets, indictments, IRS documents and letters, etc., also are not commercial instruments).
But ignoring for the moment this major fatal flaw, presume for purposes of argument that a birth certificate is indeed a promissory note. The redemption advocates claim that the "straw man" is liable to pay some unspecified amount to some unspecified creditor who holds the financial instrument known as a birth certificate (I have been unable to learn from the advocates the name of the ephemeral creditor). They further argue that the "counterpart" of the "straw man," you, must answer for this debt of the "straw man." This is legally impossible. I view such an argument as evidence of lunacy.
The "statute of frauds" originates from the common law and every state today has a general "statute of frauds." For example, here in Alabama, we have a "statute of frauds" found in Ala. Code §8-9-2, which states that "every special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another" must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. This same type of requirement appears in our version of the UCC, Ala. Code §7-2-201, which requires contracts for the sale of goods of more than 500 bux to be in writing and subscribed by the party liable. Precisely where is your agreement to answer for the debt of the straw man? If such an agreement exists, have you signed that agreement making you legally liable to pay that debt of the straw man? The truth of the matter is that such a signed agreement does not exist. But without your signature to a guarantee making you liable for this debt, you cannot legally be liable.
The advocates of this insanity further contend that the international banks which hold these birth certificates as security for some unknown financial obligation have a claim against you for your whole life, unless of course you "redeem your straw man" by perfecting your claim against him by filing a Form UCC-1 financing statement. Can you really be legally responsible for some debt for the rest of your life? Again, our statute of frauds found at Alabama Code §8-9-2 requires that "every agreement which, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof" must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The redemptionists assert that whenever a child is born and his birth certificate is filed in DC and later bought by some big bank, that creditor owns you for the rest of your life. We all know that the average life expectancy of a baby is longer than a single year. Just where is this agreement signed by you (apparently on the day you were born) which cannot by its very terms be performed within a single year? Have you ever signed such an agreement? The truth of the matter is that every aspect of this redemption theory flies in the face of the statute of frauds.
Flaw 3: Our bodies and our labor are not articles of commerce.
The "redemption process" advocates contend that via our birth certificates, we have pledged our bodies and the labor of our lifetimes to those creditors who hold these birth certificates; in essence, our labor is commerce according to this theory. The purchase of these birth certificates is allegedly performed in Washington, DC. However, at this place where federal law clearly applies, federal law declares via 15 USC, §17, that "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." Does this "redemption" argument not plainly conflict with federal law?
Flaw 4: The 1935 Social Security Act did not create an account for everyone born in this country in the amount of approximately $630,000.
In review of the material I have been provided regarding this argument, it is plainly alleged that whenever anyone is born in this country, a sum of approximately $630,000 is deposited into some account at the US Treasury or the Social Security Administration and that this account was created by the 1935 Social Security Act. This contention is utterly false as may be seen simply by reading the act which is posted to the SSA web site.
Flaw 5: The above named account is not the "Treasury direct account."
Neither the original Social Security Act nor any amendment to it created an account known as the "Treasury direct account." However, there is such an account established by Treasury for those who routinely purchase US notes and bonds. A description of this account may be found at 31 C.F.R., part 357 and specifically 31 CFR § 357.20. Those who assert that everyone has such an account know nothing about such accounts. And there is no "public side" and "private side" for these accounts.
Flaw 6: You cannot write sight drafts on the Treasury of the United States via this non-existent account.
If you send any such sight draft to anyone, you will be prosecuted for violations of 18 USC §514 which provides as follows:
Sec. 514. Fictitious obligations
(a) Whoever, with the intent to defraud -
(1) draws, prints, processes, produces, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the United States;
(2) passes, utters, presents, offers, brokers, issues, sells, or attempts or causes the same, or with like intent possesses, within the United States; or
(3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce, including the use of the mails or wire, radio, or other electronic communication, to transmit, transport, ship, move, transfer, or attempts or causes the same, to, from, or through the United States,
any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting, or contriving through scheme or artifice, to be an actual security or other financial instrument issued under the authority of the United States, a foreign government, a State or other political subdivision of the United States, or an organization, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
(b) For purposes of this section, any term used in this section that is defined in section 513(c) has the same meaning given such term in section 513(c).
(c) The United States Secret Service, in addition to any other agency having such authority, shall have authority to investigate offenses under this section.
Violations of this statute provide for a maximum period of 25 years imprisonment.
A friend of mine from Kooskia, Idaho attended a meeting where Jack Smith of Wrong Way Law spoke regarding this new "redemption process." During a break at this meeting, my friend asked Smith to provide specific authority and documentation demonstrating that this was a bona fide argument. Smith admitted that this new argument was 100% theory.
The "redemption process" is one of the craziest arguments I have ever seen arise within this movement. Yet, people blindly accept this argument without question or investigation.
Latest News About the Redemption Process (Feb. 23, 2001):
This e-mail was received this date; it concerns one of the unfortunate followers of the process who was recently indicted:
Ballard man doubts U.S. existence
By: BILL ARCHER, Staff February 19, 2001
BALLARD - The small Monroe County farming community of Ballard seems an unlikely place for a story with national implications to emerge, but that's exactly what is taking place. One of the community's residents, Rodney Eugene Smith, is involved in litigation that calls into question the very existence of the U.S. government. Smith, 63, seems quiet, polite and soft-spoken in his court appearances. Like about anyone would, he expressed a preference to be seated in the audience gallery during hearings. But unlike everyone in the federal courtroom in Beckley on Thursday, he was in the custody of U.S. Marshals, and therefore, had to sit at the defense table.
U.S. District Judge David A. Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia had ordered him to take a mental competency exam at a hearing on Feb. 5 in Bluefield. At that time, Faber questioned the "nonsensical" motions Smith has been filing in the case involving the serious federal criminal charges he faces.
Smith's life isn't necessarily an open book. At least eight years before appearing in federal court in the Southern District of West Virginia, Smith was convicted in the State of New York for passing fraudulent documents - a felony. A similar set of circumstances led to his Dec. 6, 2000, arrest and initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary S. Feinberg.
The charges that brought Smith into the federal courts in Bluefield and Beckley involved passing four "bills of exchange," totaling under $50,000, to various people and entities. The Internal Revenue Service agent heading the investigation characterized the drafts as being associated to "fictitious obligations." Since his arrest, the government's initial complaint has expanded to include charges of possession of firearms by a convicted felon. A Beckley grand jury issued a "superseding indictment" against Smith in January.
None of that seems to faze him. Based on his statements to the court as well as the voluminous number of documents Smith has filed in this and other cases he is associated with in federal court, the entire process seems to be an exercise in "acceptance for value."
The federal government and several states are aware of the entire "acceptance for value" concept. The U.S. Department of Justice is constantly monitoring any surfacing of what they term the "Redemption Scheme." As of June 2000, 16 states including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming have passed at least some laws - in several instances several laws - to protect public officials and private citizens from becoming victims of the scheme.
Much has been written about the evolution of the so-called "redeemers," but the thumb nail version goes like this. Redeemers (who don't refer to themselves by that term) are essentially a composite of several fringe (militia-like) organizations that tend to hold some very strong anti-government beliefs.
During Smith's hearing Thursday in Beckley, Faber made reference to two specific documents that he said helped the court understand some of the phrases Smith has been using in court and in his "pro se" (self-represented) court filings. Faber referenced a paper by Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., titled "Old Wine, New Bottles: Paper Terrorism, Paper Scams and Paper 'Redemption,'" published Nov., 8, 1999, and "The Radical Common Law Movement and Paper Terrorism, The State Response," dated June 2000, by Denise Griffith and L. Cheryl Runyon.
At the risk of oversimplification, the independent researchers and the state and federal agencies mentioned in the reports, claim that "redeemers" trace their roots to a murky event in 1909, that somehow - in redemption practitioner belief - caused the United States to go bankrupt. Pitcavage states that in the redeemer's scenario, the World Bank gave the U.S., a 20-year moratorium to get its financial act together. However, when that failed to happen, the stock market crashed and America was thrown in the depths of the Great Depression.
Redeemer beliefs, according to Pitcavage and Griffith, are interwoven with significant developments in American history including passage of the U.S. Social Security Act of 1935, and the change from a "gold standard" monetary policy to a money system backed by the Federal Reserve, founded in 1913. The researchers claim a thread of continuity connects present day paper terrorists with high-profile groups such as the Texas Freemen, the Branch Davidians and others.
Griffith wrote that anti-government activity "escalated to unprecedented levels during the 1009s," and referred to the 1992 confrontation between Randy Weaver and federal agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, as well the 1993 federal action at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas, as being some of the more prominent events.
"It was the 1996 standoff at the Freemen compound in Montana, however, that helped shed national light on a quieter, less visible form of protest that is being played out in the nation's judicial system," Griffith wrote. "...the filing of frivolous liens against the property of public officials." She added that clearing the fraudulent liens, "clogs an already overburdened judicial system."
Smith has filed documents indicating that Rodney Eugene Smith will "accept for value" and documents filed on RODNEY EUGENE SMITH, spelled in all capital letters. Smith refers to HJR-192, a House Joint Resolution passed by Congress on June 5, 1933, among the massive federal New Deal package, that redeemers interpret as the nation's declaration of bankruptcy.
Redemption scheme practitioners cite the Uniform Commercial Code as defined in HJR-192 as their vehicle for recovering what they call their "straw men" or "stramineus homo," an entity they claim the government created to serve as a conduit to extract energy from flesh and blood citizens. They claim each person's "straw man" is referenced by the government in all capital letters.
Subscribers to this philosophy appear willing to invest whatever is required of them to liberate or "redeem" their straw man. The passing of fraudulent documents, such as the bogus "bill of exchanges" Smith was arrested for, as well as other bogus documents called "sight drafts" are considered means of liberation, according to Griffith and Pitcavage.
The Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued alerts to banking officials, warning about the fraudulent sight drafts and instructing bank officials to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation if they receive one.
"Your institution should also prepare a Suspicious Activity Report," according to an OCC advisory. "Under no circumstances should your institution honor one of these instruments or submit it for payment."
Pitcavage and Griffith also described a redemption scheme tactic meant to harass public officials. Both explained that, for example, if a police officer cited a redemption practitioner for a traffic violation, the practitioner would fix a "value" to the document - say $50,000 - accept it for value, then submit an IRS Form 1099 naming the issuing officer as the recipient of a gift. Under normal circumstances, the IRS would see the gift as unreported income when the unsuspecting officer filed his taxes.
Faber has proceded very cautiously in Smith's criminal case. The judge stated openly in court that people have a right to voice opposition to the government, however, he made it clear that Smith "is not entitled to harass and interfere with other people," and added that as a federal judge, he has a responsibility "to protect the public."
Faber ordered Smith to have a mental competency hearing exam locally, and scheduled a hearing on the matter for March 5, in Bluefield.
©Bluefield Daily Telegraph 2001
More news about the redemption process: December 13, 2001
12 Michigan Residents Are Convicted of Plotting Against Judges
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
A dozen Michigan residents who tried to instigate audits of 18 judges by filing bogus reports with the Internal Revenue Service were convicted yesterday on 67 counts of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion.
The case is one of several the Justice Department has pressed against groups that deny the authority of the federal government and advocate the use of financial frauds to disrupt federal and state government activities.
The defendants watched the last half of their 15-day trial on closed- circuit television sets in their jail cells after repeatedly disrupting the proceedings in Grand Rapids, Mich., before Judge Robert Holmes Bell, the chief United States district judge in Western Michigan.
Each day the defendants were in court they shouted four questions that they believe shield them from all government authority on the theory that the Constitution was voided when President Franklin D. Roosevelt ended the gold standard for federal currency in 1933.
Donald A. Davis, the prosecutor, said that the defendants believed that the four questions "created a perfect shield from government authority." Mr. Davis said the questions were: "What is your name? Do you have a claim against me? Does anyone have a claim against me? I demand, or request, that the order of the court be released to me immediately."
Larry Phelan, the lawyer appointed to defend the leader of the group, Joan Anderson, 50, of Evart, Mich., told the jury that the defendants' beliefs were "ridiculous."
Mr. Phelan said Judge Bell "did the right thing" in removing the defendants "because they refused to be civil and act like adults."
But Mr. Phelan and other defense lawyers argued that the defendants should be acquitted because they sincerely believed that the uniform commercial code was the only valid law and thus they could not have formed the criminal intent necessary to defraud the government and evade taxes.
The prosecution introduced audio tapes of some defendants chuckling about using bogus government checks to cheat creditors.
The jury deliberated for just six hours before convicting the 12 of all charges, which could send them to prison for years.
One of those convicted, Rodger Yates, 66, of Jenison, Mich., had been with the Montana Freemen, whose use of bogus documents and refusal to pay taxes preceded the group's 81- day standoff with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1996.
As part of the plot, the Michigan group issued $550 million of bogus United States Treasury checks that resembled the real thing so closely that the I.R.S. initially accepted one for $750,000. The group also filed reports with the I.R.S. that the judges had engaged in a total of $490 million in business transactions in hopes that the judges would be audited.
Ms. Anderson, in a letter introduced in court, said the bogus reports were designed to "bring the I.R.S. down on" the judges and she urged others to "strike your enemies where it hurts the most."
Some of the 16 judges who testified said that they were worried that the false reports would never be fully deleted from I.R.S. computers.
Mr. Davis, the prosecutor, said the defendants continued to produce fake documents even as they were in jail during the trial. They even sent the Make-A-Wish Foundation a fraudulent $250,000 pledge in the name of Mr. Davis.
The promoters of this "process" are clearly idiots.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 13:54:58
|
Hello Its2Die4,
Are you a Federal Agent. The fact that you have posted the same long misleading posting multiple times causes me to think you are.
|
|
|
|
Its2Die4
Regular Member
uSA
28 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 19:14:42
|
Lewis and ALL:
I am NOT a Federal Agent! I am simply anxious to learn and I have sent this long posting hoping to recieve as many respondents as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. I have sent you a private email Lewis hopefully you can forgive my anxiousness in this matter.
Keith |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Strawman
