11-14-2008, 11:09 PM
Give your AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH to claim your rights.
The Affidavit Of Truth.
Be it known to all courts, governments, and other parties, that I,
am a natural, freeborn Sovereign, without subjects. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere, nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated.
My authority for this statement is the same as it is for all free Sovereigns everywhere: the age-old, timeless, and universal respect for the intrinsic rights, property, freedoms, and responsibilities of the Sovereign Individual.
I am not a "person" when such term is defined in statutes of Australia or statutes of the several states when such definition includes artificial entities. I refuse to be treated as a federally or state created entity which is only capable of exercising certain rights, privileges, or immunities as specifically granted by federal or state governments.
I voluntarily choose to comply with the man-made laws which serve to bring harmony to society, but no such laws, nor their enforcers, have any authority over me. I am not in any jurisdiction, for I am not of subject status.
Consistent with the eternal tradition of natural common law, unless I have harmed or violated someone or their property, I have committed no crime; and am therefore not subject to any penalty.
Thus, be it known to all, that I reserve my natural common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled and pretended "benefit" of any hidden or unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
As such, the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to me, and are null and void. If I have participated in any of the supposed "benefits" associated with these hidden contracts, I have done so under duress, for lack of any other practical alternative. I may have received such "benefits" but I have not accepted them in a manner that binds me to anything.
Any such participation does not constitute "acceptance" in contract law, because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid "offer," and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion, under contract law. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no valid contract. Any supposed "contract" is therefore void, ab initio.
From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract knowingly, willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily whereby I have waived any of my natural common law rights, and, as such, Take Notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio my signature on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any federal or state government authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me.
Typical examples of such compelled and pretended "benefits" are:
The use of Federal Reserve Notes to discharge my debts. I have used these only because in AUSTRALIA, there is no other widely recognized currency.
The use of a bank account, with my signature on the bank signature card. If there is any hidden contract behind the bank signature card, my signature thereon gives no validity to it. The signature is only for verification of identity. I can be obligated to fulfill no hidden or unrevealed contract whatsoever, due to the absence of full disclosure and voluntary consent.
Likewise, my use of the bank account thereof is due to the absence of a bank not associated with the Federal Reserve system.. Were there an alternative, I would be happy to use it. To not use any bank at all is impossible or very difficult, as everyone knows, in today's marketplace.
The use of a TAX FILE number. The number normally assigned to persons of subject status, I use exceptionally, under duress, only because of the extreme inconvenience of operating without one in today's marketplace, where it is requested by banks, employers, lenders, and many other government agencies and businesses. My reason for using it is not because I wish to participate in the Social Security system, as I don't wish to participate. Let it be known that I use the TAX FILE number assigned to me for information only.
The use of a driver's license. As a free Sovereign, there is no legal requirement for me to have such a license for travelling in my car. Technically, the unrevealed legal purpose of driver's licenses is commercial in nature. Since I don't carry passengers for hire, there is no law requiring me to have a license to travel for my own pleasure and that of my family and friends. However, because of the lack of education of police officers on this matter, should I be stopped for any reason and found to be without a license, it is likely I would be ticketed and fined or obligated to appear in court. Therefore, under duress, I carry a license to avoid extreme inconvenience.
State plates on my car. Similarly, even though technically, my car does not fit the legal definition of a "motor vehicle," which is used for commercial purposes, nevertheless, I have registered it with the state and carry the state plates on it, because to have any other plates or no plates at all, causes me to run the risk of police officer harassment and extreme inconvenience.
Past tax returns filed. Any tax returns I may have filed in the past, were filed due to the dishonest atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the TAX DEPARTMENT and the local assessors' offices; not because there is any law requiring me to do so. Once I discovered that the TAX DEPARTMENT has been misinforming the public, I have felt it is my responsible duty to society to terminate my voluntary participation. Because such returns were filed under Threat, Duress, and Coercion (TDC), and no two-way contract was ever signed with full disclosure, there is nothing in any past filing of returns or payments that created any valid contract. Therefore, no legal obligation on my part was ever created.
Birth Certificate. The fact that a birth certificate was granted to me by a local hospital or government agency when I entered this world, is irrelevant to my Sovereignty. No status, high or low, can be assigned to another person through a piece of paper, without the recipient's full knowledge and consent. Therefore, such a piece of paper provides date and place information only. It indicates nothing about jurisdiction, nothing about property ownership, nothing about rights, and nothing about subject status. The only documents that can have any legal meaning, as it concerns my status in society, are those which I have signed as an adult, with full knowledge and consent, free from misrepresentation or coercion of any kind.
Marriage license. The acquisition of a marriage license is now being revealed as being necessary only for slaves. The act of a Sovereign such as myself obtaining such a license, through social custom and ignorance of law, has no legal effect in changing my status. This is because any such change in status, if any may be supposed to occur, could happen only through a hidden and unrevealed contract or statute. Since no hidden, unrevealed, and undisclosed information, if it exists, can be lawfully held to be binding, it is null and void.
Children in public school. The attendance of my children in government-supported "public" schools or government-controlled "private" schools does not create any legal tax obligation for me, nor any other legal obligation, because I never signed a contract agreeing to such obligation for the supposed "privilege" of public school attendance..
Declaration of Citizenship. Any document I may have ever signed, in which I answered "yes" to the question, "Are you an Australian. citizen?" - cannot be used to compromise my status as a Sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is because without full written disclosure of the definition and consequences of such supposed "citizenship," provided in a document bearing my signature given freely without misrepresentation or coercion, there can be no legally binding contract.
I am not a "Australian" citizen subject to its jurisdiction. Australia is an entity created by a British act of Parliament.. I am not a "resident of," an "inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the "chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of" any corporate federal government, corporate state government, corporate county government, corporate city government, or corporate municipal body politic created under the authority of the Australian Constitution. I am not subject to any legislation, department, or agency created by such authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority therefrom. Take Notice that I hereby revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio any such instrument or any presumed election made by any of the several states or the Australian government or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntary elected to be treated as a Australian citizen subject to its jurisdiction or a resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of any of the several states or of Australia.
Past voter registration. Similarly, since no obligation to perform in any manner was ever revealed in print, as part of the requirements for the supposed "privilege" to vote for government officials, any such registration on my part cannot be legal evidence of any obligation to perform. Likewise, I have granted NO jurisdiction over me, to any political office. It is my inherent right to vote on elections or issues that I feel affect all of society; NOT because I need anyone to rule over me. On the contrary - I have used the voting process only to instruct my public servants what a Citizen and Sovereign would like done.
Use of semantics. There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as "government." Just because they alter definitions of words in the law books to their supposed advantage, doesn't mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words "person," "address," "mail," "resident," "motor vehicle," "driving," "passenger," "employee," "income," and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.
Because the courts have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all courts and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in the law books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my Sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any obligation to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the meaning in the common dictionary differs from the meaning in the law dictionary, it is the meaning in common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.
Such compelled and supposed "benefits" include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged "benefits" is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my common law rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled "benefits" may be temporary, until better alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.
REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
Furthermore, I hereby revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, as it pertains to the Tax File number assigned to me, _______________________ as it pertains to my birth certificate, marriage or business license, or any other licenses or certificates issued by any and all government or quasi-governmental entities, due to the use of various elements of fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my Sovereignty and/or property.
I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged "benefit" or gratuity associated with any of the aforementioned licenses, numbers, or certificates. I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, with or without my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and absolute legal owner and possess allodial title to any and all such property.
Take Notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, governmental entities or corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.
I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and my specific common law right not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.
The use of notary below is for identification only, and such use does NOT grant any jurisdiction to anyone.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice, and with all rights reserved,
(PRINT NAME BELOW)
Principal, by Special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris.
My Hand and Mark as Subscriber (SIGN NAME BELOW)
Date:_____________ Common Law Seal:__________________________________
On this ______day of____________, 19____, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for _______________________(state), personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same.
Source ==> http://phorums.com.au/showthread.php?t=271558
11-15-2008, 05:10 AM
OUTLAWS LEGAL SERVICE
Why Some People Need A Driver's License
A Lecture by George Gordon
Note: Who is George Gordon? www.georgegordon.org/WHOIS.HTM
Learn more about George Gordon by visiting his website:
Let me start off and explain to you why some people need a driver's license.
There was a time when we didn't need one. When you didn't have one, and you
were able to enjoy just driving along in your old car, your 1910 Peerless or
your 1910 Model - T Ford.
You didn't have or even need a driver's license. You were driving as a
matter of right, exercising your Liberty under the Constitution to go from
point A to point B.
Then somebody came along and said, Gosh, wouldn't it be interesting or nifty
or nice to. . .? I call this the insurance scam.
Somebody went to this insurance company . . . let's say he was a salesman
for the insurance company. He goes in . . . naturally all corporate business
is interested in making money . . . he says, "Wouldn't it be nice to
increase profits and cut costs?"
"Let me make a suggestion. I'll tell you what we need. We need to insure all
of these new horseless carriages. If we could insure all of these horseless
carriages, boy there would be a huge market there. I predict that we're
going to move from horses and wagons to automobiles."
And so the man goes out and he starts selling policies on horseless
carriages and automobiles. But, the more of these horseless carriages and
automobiles that pack the roads, then the more accidents, and more claims,
So somewhere around, let's say, 1910 . . . let's start out with them selling
insurance policies in 1900 to people that have horseless carriages.
By 1910 you go into the board room of the insurance company, and what do you
see? Somebody is in there saying, "How can we increase profits and cut
"You know?" answers someone else. "I noticed the biggest claims problems
that we have are these automobiles that come to intersections and one of
them doesn't stop or doesn't see the other one and he goes into the
intersection, and bang!, there's a crash in the intersection. I think what
we need is the stop sign law."
"If we had a law that put stop signs at these intersections, I think that we
could cut down on those accidents and that would cut down on the claims and
losses at the insurance claims window, and that would cut our costs and
increase our profits."
"Well, how are we going to effect that?" someone else asked.
"Oh, I know what we'll do. We'll go up to the legislature and we'll lobby
these legislators up here and we'll show them a bunch of real pictures of
death and carnage. We'll show them pictures of arms that are cut off by
people that went through the windshield in these accidents. And we'll lobby
and we'll tell them that for the health, safety and welfare of the people,
under the police powers, we need these stop signs."
Pretty soon we've got stop sign laws.
Now, that cuts down on accidents there. But, what else do you need?
Well, about 1920, let's say, somebody comes in and they say, "How can we
increase profits and cut costs?"
So the insurance industry says, "Gosh, that's interesting. Let's see. What's
the biggest single thing that costs us money?"
"Well, these automobiles drive awful fast. So we need some traffic
regulation. We've got to have a line down the middle of the road, and we've
got to have speed limits, and we've got to have signs that show us curves,
and we're going to call these 'traffic regulations.'?"
"Oh, how do we get those passed?"
"Well, we'll go to the legislature and we'll show them a lot of pictures of
death and destruction and carnage on the highway. And we'll do it in the
name of the people to protect the people's health, safety and welfare under
the police powers. Oh, and we're doing it with the noblest of intentions."
So now you go up to the legislature this is the insurance industry they show
them the pictures and they have the public hearings and go through all the
processes and pass these laws called regulations.
Nobody objects too much to that and so pretty soon, somebody comes along and
says, "How can we increase profits and cut costs?"
"Well, we noticed that people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five
have the most accidents. Some of the highest rates of claims. So what we
need is a system where we can keep records on these driver's. What we'll do
is we'll propose a licensing law. And we'll claim that people that aren't
licensed are a menace on the road, and that what we need is the licensing to
establish qualifications for competency."
Who's going to argue about that? You don't want incompetent driver's out
there on the road, do you? So, we passed the licensing law at some point in
time and then we start to keep records.
What we'll do to get people to go down and get these licenses is, we'll
lower insurance rates to licensed driver's and raise insurance rates to
Well, ten years goes by and we come up to 1930, let's say, or something like
that, and now we've got this uniform licensing law border to border, coast
to coast. Now what we need to do is we've got to have stricter enforcement
of the traffic regulations. So what we need to do is codify these, and call
them misdemeanors, and we've got to dish out some punishment for these
traffic offenders who are killing people by speeding and drunk driving and
doing these violations of law. So we'll codify those.
Here again is your insurance industry going in to the legislature and they
go through the hearings. They never do this in the name of profit to protect
the claims window of the insurance industry they always do this in the name
of health, safety and welfare of the people under the police powers.
"We're doing this to protect you, Mr. John Q. Public, from those drunk
drivers out there. Those wicked evil terrible awful people."
So, somebody in the insurance industry asks, "How do we increase profits and
"The next step is, now that we've got everybody licensed, what we need next
is a mandatory insurance law. The reason we need a mandatory insurance law
is that there are these irresponsible people out there, and they drive their
cars, and they run into people, and then they don't have any insurance, and
they can't pay the medical bills, and they can't pay the hospital, and they
can't pay for the damages they cause, so what we need is a universal
insurance program. So what we're going to do is pass a law, and we'll put
this in the traffic code."
Now let's take it a step further, you know, say about 1950 or 1960 somebody
says, "Well, how do we increase profits and cut costs?"
"What we need to do is educate our youth. We need to take traffic safety
into the public schools and have a driver's education program. We've got to
get to these young people and teach them how to get a driver's license, how
to register their car, how to get insurance. In other words, we've got to
train these young people to be slaves when they are age fourteen."
And so you license the kid when he's fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen. You make
the requirement to graduate from high school that they have this driver
education, this driver training.
He gets out of school, you've never taught him anything about the
Constitution. You never taught him any thing about rights versus privilege.
So what we've got now is the perfect slave.
He's created and designed by his government to be a perfect tax-payer.
Now, if he violates or breaks any rules or regulations, what happens?
Oh, you take him into the traffic court and they fine him under a penal
statute . . . under a contractual penalty for violating the terms and
conditions of the contract.
Now, on our streets and highways today, we have a virtual police-state
tyranny. That's a fact.
The police stop you. They can search your car. They don't need any Fourth
Amendment warrant whatsoever. They can arrest you and throw you in jail for
drunk driving and then you can worry about how you're going to prove that
you weren't drunk, whether you are or not . . . and listen, I can categorize
and tell you some of the most tear-jerking horror stories about people
who've been entrapped, and charged with felonies, and thrown in the
Now, did they hurt anybody?
No. Nobody was damaged. Nobody was hurt?
But here they are in prison for drunk driving, maybe the second or third
time, and the guy has never had an accident. And, I'm going to talk to you
about that in a moment, and show you how that works.
The traffic court's sole function and purpose is to protect the
profitability of the insurance industry. It isn't there for any other
Now the professed goals are always altruistic and magnanimous, and of
course, we don't want people killed on the roads. And so we've got this big
kick now that we're going to put all these drunk drivers in prison and I've
got to lay this story on you, because when it comes to logic, reason and
common sense, sometimes what I hear up here in my legislature just befuddles
Here are some statistics I heard up here in the legislature. I went up
there, and here in Idaho, they're going to pass this strict drunk-driving
The second time you're caught drunk driving . . . I mean, you don't have to
kill anybody, get in an accident or anything . . . just go get a few drinks
in you and drive down the road, the policeman stops you, gives you a ticket,
you plead guilty, pay a $300 fine, come back . . .. Let it happen again and
they're going to charge you with a felony. That's what they are proposing.
Here's what some of the testimony was about. This one lady get up and she
says, "Now listen, there were 52,000 killed last year, and 26,000 or those
deaths were alcohol related. We've just got to do something about these
drunk drivers because I'm telling you they are just killing people, there's
just carnage on the road, and we've just got to do something about these
lethal weapons called automobiles driving down the roads with these drunks
in them and these alcoholics, and these mean, wicked and terrible people."
So I listened to all that. I listened to eighteen people testify in two
hours and a half, and every one of those people had a financial interest in
alcoholism. There were non-profit corporations that did alcohol and drug
evalua tions. There was the Attorney General, who is part of the law
enforcement growth industry he has about fifty prosecutors who prosecute
drunk drivers. Then there's the prison out here. They've got to warehouse
these criminals and they've got beds to fill so that they've got guards to
employ to guard those people out there. There's the insurance industry, of
course. And the medical industry is interested in these drunk drivers also.
They make money off of alcohol evaluation. Then there are these alcohol
clinics where you go in and dry out. Not one drunk came in to testify. Not
I am sitting there just watching all this, and I think to myself, 26,000. I
sat there for a little bit, and my mind works differently from bureaucrats.
It works differently from politicians. And I'm sitting there and I'm saying,
"Let me see if I understand this. For some reason we've got to pass
legislation and call drunkenness a felony?"
Now, we're going to lock this guy up in prison for five years, that's right.
A felony is five years in jail.
Do you know what it costs to put a man in prison for five years? In Idaho?
$15,000 a year. Let's see how much that is . . . fifteen, thirty,
forty-five, sixty, seventy five thousand dollars.
My God! Do you understand how much money that is?
You've got this drunk out here and some of these people are testifying that
alcoholism is an illness, it's a disease. And we're going to put these sick
people out here in the penitentiary for five years, for seventy-five
I'm saying, wait a minute. I could send that guy to Harvard twice for that
kind of money and turn him into a medical doctor . . . or a lawyer, or
something, for that kind of money.
Look, if I've got a guy driving down the road drunk and I wanted to get him
off the road, why don't . . . instead of paying seventy-five thousand to
lock him in prison, why don't we give him fifty thousand dollars and tell
him to go to Brazil? We'd save twenty-five thousand and we'd get rid of the
guy! We'd make money, and he'd be happier down there. He'd have fifty
thousand to blow. He could practically retire.
OK. We've got to have law and order, and we've got to get these drunks off
the roads; so we've got twenty-six thousand of them alcohol related.
I sitting there, and I'm thinking; my father was killed in a head-on traffic
crash in 1970. I'll tell you, I was really upset about that.
This fellow crossed the center line of the road, about four thirty in the
afternoon, in broad daylight, trying to pass a truck, and he didn't have
enough clearance, and he ran right into my father and he killed him. My
father went right through the windshield and broke his neck and it killed
him. And I'll tell you what really galls me, the guy was stone sober! Didn't
It didn't help my dad any. It killed him.
So why do I . . . I'm sitting in this meeting and I'm listening to this
diatribe, and I'm saying to myself, "Wait a minute. What is it? Twenty-six
thousand were alcohol related. Well then twenty-six thousand were not
alcohol related, are they?"
"Why don't we fund a study for the twenty-six thousand that are non-alcohol
related and find out how many of the twenty-six thousand drivers that were
not drunk had blond hair and blue eyes. And find out if there is a
correlation between blond hair and blue eyes and traffic accidents and death
on the highway?"
It makes about that much sense to me.
The one thing that was totally absent in all the testimony was, how many of
those deaths that were alcohol related were caused by the drunk?
You know, there was a famous Supreme Court case came down in New Mexico
about ten years ago. This farmer was driving down the road in his old
pick-up, just bombed out of his mind. He was so drunk that he couldn't walk.
That's probably why he was driving.
He had a bottle of whiskey about two-thirds empty in the truck bed tool box,
and he's driving down the road and there's an accident, a head-on crash.
A doctor, his wife and his two children, from Houston, Texas, who were going
on holiday to Los Angeles were killed.
The farmer survived.
That's the way it usually happens. The drunk survives and this wonderful
family, this man and his wife and his two children were killed.
The problem here was that the doctor fell asleep, crossed the center line,
and hit the farmer head-on.
Now let me ask you: Is that wreck, and are those deaths, alcohol related?
Oh yeah. You bet.
The farmer's drunk.
But is the farmer the cause of the accident, or is the farmer (who was
drunk) the victim?
What none of these people tell you is, who has ever funded a study to find
out whether or not drunkenness is the cause of the accidents that cost these
They'll cite you a few cases where the guy is drunk, ran the red light, ran
into this blond-haired, blue-eyed, twenty year old young woman just out of
college, or whatever, and ruined her life, and how "we've gotta do something
about this guy because it's the fifth time."
But, that's one out of twenty six thousand. There's still twenty-five
thousand nine hundred ninety nine that we've got to analyze.
But for some reason we want to zero in on this one group over here.
Why do we want to zero in on one group?
To protect the claims window of the insurance industry.
I don't care if you drive down the road drunk.
My father never took a sober breath for the last twenty years of his life,
and he never had an accident drunk. He had several wrecks sober and never
had a wreck drunk.
Now I'm not sitting here telling you that you should drive drunk. I don't
know whether you should or not.
I'm just telling you that I'm suspicious when I see people who testify
before the legislature trying to get some kind of legislation passed, and
they're sitting there railing against some particular group of people that
have this or that particular financial motivation involved.
Listen, if you're running a non-profit organization in Idaho, and it's to
rehabilitate alcoholics, these people work for these organizations. While
the organization is tax exempt, the people who run them get their salaries
and make their livings doing that, don't they?
Well, if they are getting their salaries and making their living doing that,
then they have a financial interest involved, don't they?
John Q. Public, the average drunk, he doesn't make any money off of it so he
doesn't go up a testify.
Oh. Now I see how that goes.
Let's carry this on a step further.
The purpose for having driver's licenses is to regiment all the people into
a little group that can be regulated under the police powers, separate from
their Constitutional rights.
Like I said, I'm not really concerned about you driving drunk.
I've only got a fifty percent chance of being killed if you're drunk. I
still stand the same fifty percent chance of getting killed if you are
sober. And I'm just as dead whether you are drunk or sober. It doesn't make
any difference whether a drunk kills me or a sober guy kills me.
What you're going is creating this police-state environment giving the
police these broad new powers to set up road blocks. I mean, these people
are so off-the-wall when it comes to our constitutional guarantees, they're
so emotionally involved in their religious philosophy, or their moral
philosophy, whatever it is, that they want to set up road blocks to run all
these drunks off the road.
I'll bet you there are more people that drink in this country than don't
drink. If all of your people out there that drink don't want to be involved
in this massive police-state gestapo-type society where we're just going to
create this communist one-world government right here in our own land, for
the sole purpose of eradicating drunks.
Well, let's think about that for a minute.
The insurance company probably has figured that if they could get rid of a
certain number of drinking drivers, they may save a little money. I don't
know who came in, but somebody came into the board room and said, "I'll tell
you these drunks over here are costing us a lot of money at the claims
window. What we need to do is do something about them." So the President and
a few of them get out there and they start beating the tom-toms and then
they start going to the legislature, and they start getting these laws
Now, personally, I don't really care. I don't have a driver's license. I
don't come under Title 49, so I don't have to be concerned about it. But,
let me tell you that you licensed people out there better get real concerned
If I'm concerned about you with your hundred dollar car running into my
thirty-thousand dollar Porsche, I don't need any legislation to protect me
from you. If I'm real concerned about it, it is up to me to go out and
insure my thirty-thousand dollar Porsche against irresponsible people who do
not have insurance . . . who are poor and cannot pay for my thirty-thousand
And if you are the poor guy, and you've got the hundred dollar car, are you
really concerned about my thirty -thousand dollar Porsche crashing into your
'62 Buick Skylark and wrecking it? You just go out, pay another hundred
dollars and buy another car, right? You're not real concerned about it.
Besides that, if I've got a thirty -thousand dollar Porsche, and the wreck's
my fault, I probably have a hundred dollars and I can pay you, right?
I don't where this logic of theirs comes from, but we citizens don't go out
buying insurance policies for other people, or compelling them to buy
insurance policies, for fear that when they die they might leave their
family on welfare, do they?
If the government can compel you to buy an insurance policy, can't they
compel you to buy a water bed, or compel you to buy a certain type of
carpet, or compel you to buy a TV set . . ..
The government cannot compel you into a contract against your will and over
your objection, pursuant to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.
Well how do that do that by statute under Title 49 in the traffic code?
You volunteered to do that. You've got a driver's license in your pocket.
How can the government come in and tell you that you've got to get a permit,
and that you've got to build your house in a certain way by a certain
method? That it's going to be inspected, and you're going to be regulated,
and that if you don't do that you are a criminal and they're going to put
you in jail?
I don't know.
A fellow went to jail for five days for building his own house without a
Was there ever a time in America when you could go out a build something on
your own property, and you didn't need your government's permission?
Yeah, there was. It was when the citizens were responsible for their actions
... . . and not someone else.
When you are ready to become responsible for your own actions, then you can
be free. Because incompetent people are not responsible for their own
actions, are they?
An incompetent person has a guardian, doesn't he?
Don't your children at ten years old have a guardian. Don't you tell your
kid that he'll come in at eight or nine o'clock at night, and if he doesn't,
there is a penalty here called a belt which will be applied until he can get
Do you know that in America today, we have a police-state environment that
we Americans bought and paid for? The Poles and the Chechs can complain
about their slavery being imposed upon them at gun point by the Russians,
but not us Americans.
We didn't have anybody come over here with a gun and force us to go get a
driver's license or tell you to go get a building permit or compel you into
this mercantile equity. We volunteered for it. We bought and paid for it. We
went to the insurance company and paid them dollars and cents to take our
freedom from us.
Now, let me show you how this words with Garrett Truck Lines. I like to talk
about Garrett because they come in and out of Boise, and they are pretty
much all over the United States.
Here's how mercantile equity works. Outside here we have what's called a
right-of-way. That's the road. That belongs to the people.
Garrett is a paper entity. Garrett is a corporation, and they have no
natural inalienable rights.
So, when Garrett wants to use that road out there, remember the sovereign
peoples representative is the legislature, the legislature created Garrett
as a corporation and Garrett is using that road for profit and gain, aren't
they? They are using it in privilege.
If they use it in privilege, they have to pay us, the sovereign citizens, a
tax for the privilege of using that road in interstate commerce.
We the citizens own it. We don't have to pay for it. We own the thing. We
don't want to pay for something that we already own, do we?
You don't pay to park your car in your garage. You pay to park it in
somebody else's garage because that's a privilege. But to park it in your
own garage isn't.
When Garrett uses that road, it's a privilege for them and they pay tax on
Well, let's go back to about 1900.
When a man owned his house, he owned the land. He owned his car. He didn't
have to pay tax on it. He owns it in fee simple or alodial absolute title.
Today, we don't know many people that do that. People live now in equitable
interest. They don't own their homes, they own an equitable interest in
them. They call themselves home owners, but that's a misnomer.
I don't know of very many actual home owners.
When I was a youngster, nearly ten years old, almost everybody I knew owned
their own home. I mean that house was bought and paid for.
In 1940, three thousand dollars would build a nice three-bedroom house. When
the man got three thousand dollars, he went out and built the house, and he
owned the thing in fee simple.
Now, we don't do that. Today, we put three thousand down, of our inflated
Federal Reserve notes, and we mortgage that property for thirty years.
Well, corporations have no rights and corporations can be taxed for the
privileges, and those are called excises taxes.
So the bank owns your house, or the mortgage company, or whoever owns it,
and by contract they pass that tax on to you.
That's right, when you signed that contract for thirty years, you agreed to
pay the property taxes and you agreed to insure the house for the entire
time, and if you don't, then the bank just does it for you and they add that
on to your payments, don't they?
The same thing on the highways. We don't own our automobiles, so therefore
GMAC owns your car, and the legislature that has passed traffic laws, rules
and regulations governing the use of automobiles. Well GMAC doesn't have any
rights, and so the statute says that the car has to be registered, has to be
licensed, and only licensed drivers can drive it.
Go to Hertz and try to rent a car without a driver's license, and see if
they'll rent you a car.
Why is it that only a licensed driver can drive a Hertz car? Well, because
the statute says so.
Now those statutes attach to each and every one of those corporate entities.
Every one of those persons in mercantile equity have to obey the statutes.
You go down and you buy the car from the Ford dealer. The Ford dealer then
sells the paper to GMAC. You've agreed in this contractual agreement that
you'll obey all the rules and regulations and laws, etc. So you have to be
licensed, the car has to be registered, and you also have to carry
insurance. And that's all it attaches to.
They cannot tax a right. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
They can tax Garrett right out of existence, and there is nothing they can
do about it.
But you can't tax the individual out of existence because the individual is
a sovereign. The individual has natural inalienable rights guaranteed by the
common law under the constitution.
So don't you see what happens to you?
You go down and you buy the car. Now, by contractual arrangement, you have
given up your constitutional rights for a privilege under mercantile equity.
Now you come under the statutes because the corporation, through its
contract, has imposed it upon you.
We have our government out here licensing free and natural persons as well
as corporate persons. You don't have to be, but nearly everybody has
Now the poor policeman's out here trying to enforce the law. Look at his
problem from his perspective. He's been to the government school. He doesn't
understand the constitution or inalienable rights. All he understands is
statutes and law. Police regulations. The guy's been in the army, he was in
the Marines for a few years, and maybe he was an M.P., and all he knows is,
"Sit down and shut up?" "Do this, do that, jump up, come here" and all that.
He doesn't understand freedom. He's been a slave his whole life. That's all
the military service is, voluntary servitude. You get in there and you sign
the contract, and there you are at the Captain's Mast there on the bridge of
the ship. Here's the way that comes down.
You have two crewmen down in the engine room and they have a fight. Do they
have any constitutional rights on the high seas? That's Admiralty
jurisdiction, you take them up to a Captain's Mast. He just sits there and
says, "Well who started this fight?" And he asks questions.
Are their any Fifth Amendment rights? Are their Fourth Amendment rights? No.
He just says, "I'm confining you fellows to quarters and I'm going to fine
you so much, and blah, blah, blah." That's the end of the argument.
Well what happens when a passenger on a ship gets into a fight with one of
the crewman, and they haul the passenger and the crewman up to the Captain.
Well, if they haul this particular passenger up, I'm going to say, "Excuse
me, but you've got a problem here. I'm not one of the crew. I'm not one of
the fellows you have jurisdiction over. You don't have jurisdiction over me.
I'm challenging your jurisdiction. I'm a paying passenger. I'm a sovereign.
You put me off at the next port and we'll talk about common law rights."
And that's where you are on the road.
You see, Garrett has to stop at the port of entry. Garrett trucks, and all
these others trucks that are operating in interstate commerce for profit or
gain, using our roads, have to pay tax.
Let's try this on to the independent trucker. The independent trucker takes
five thousand dollars, he goes down and he puts five thousand down on a
truck, and now he owes GMAC, or somebody, a bunch of money, doesn't he?
He doesn't own that truck in fee simple .
Now he needs a load, right? So he goes down here to a broker and he goes out
and he gets a job to haul stuff.
He goes over to the, let's call it, Acme Lumber Company, and with a bill of
lading, he takes a load of lumber from Idaho, and he's going to take it to
Texas. So he's going to act in interstate commerce. He has a letter of
privilege for profit or gain to use the roads.
Don't we have to control him? How do we know that he's not going to steal
the lumber and run to California and sell it?
Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to regulate interstate
commerce. And here's a fellow that acting in interstate commerce for profit
or gain, and he's regulateable. And he'd better stop down here at the port
of entry, and he'd better clear, and he'd better pay duties, and he'd better
pay his taxes, and he better not be overloaded, and if he is he's going to
go into the "Captain's Mast" or summary proceedings. He has to be licensed.
His truck has to be licensed. He has to have insurance.
We know how that works. It works that way day in and day out, doesn't it?
How would a man operate, then, if he wanted to PRIVATELY operate in the
trucking business from Idaho to New York?
Here's the way it works.
The Constitution hasn't changed. The Constitution is still in force and
effect. What we have to do is we have to correct our status to that we're no
longer servants in bondage to free men who are responsible for their
Here's the way that works.
You go down here and you buy a truck, and you pay cash for it, and you own
it, and you throw the license plates away.
Now you're claiming to own this thing in alodial fee simple.
Now if you've got a driver's license, turn it back in by affidavit and stop
driving as a matter of privilege and start driving as a free man as a matter
Now you've got no driver's license. You don't owe any money on the truck, so
you're not affecting any corporate entity in any way.
Don't insure the truck, because if you insure the truck, then the insurance
company is the master and they're responsible for your actions. You've got
to be responsible for your own actions.
Now you go down and you want to haul a load.
Oh, oh. Are you going to go over here to the lumber company with a bill of
lading and haul that lumber? Uh huh. No. You can't do that.
What you do is you go over and you tender or you pay properly in full for
the lumber. Now you own it.
You own the lumber. You own the truck. And you own the road.
Can you drive your truck, with your property on it, on your road?
Well certainly you can.
Can you drive it in the several states?
Absolutely. You can drive it in every state in the Union.
Can you do it for private business?
Absolutely. Take that load of lumber over to Los Angeles or Houston and sell
it, and convert it to something, and go down and buy another load and come
You can do that.
That's what I do.
Do you know of any people who do that?
Well I don't know of any either.
If you're a truck driver out there and you've been complaining about this
police-state environment, if you want to operate as a free man you have to
be prepared to be responsible for your actions.
If you think about it for a moment -- If the insurance company is
responsible for your actions, then you are affecting a public interest, and
if you affect a public interest the police powers can come into play, and if
the police powers come into play, then you're going to be regulated . . .
and you're going to be taxed.
Now I want to tell you about the Toby story.
This is an interesting and a true-to-life characterization of the way our
constitution works, the way it has worked in the past, and the way I hope it
continues to work in the future.
Remember the story of "Roots"? It was on TV.
Here was a fellow who was a natural person with inalienable rights living in
his own land and his name was Kunta Kintay.
He exercised all the rights of sovereign. He owned property. He was accepted
within his community. He wasn't a slave. He wasn't obligated to anybody. He
got up in the morning, he went out, and he came and went as he pleased.
Then, he got captured.
He became a part of the spoils of war, taken to a new land, his name changed
from Kunta Kintay, the sovereign free man, to Toby the slave.
Toby then was sold to the master.
Look up the word slave in Bovier's Law Dictionary and you'll find that a
slave is a person.
A corporation's a person.
A natural Citizen is a person.
But there are different statuses. There are different powers, rights,
obligations, duties, and capacities for different statuses of persons.
Toby has no rights. He doesn't even have a right to live. He has no property
rights. He has no right to expect life, liberty or property.
He tries to escape.
What do you do when you have a horse that keep jumping over the fence?
What do you do when you have a cow that keeps breaking the fence, or a calf
that you can't keep in?
I used to have a bull that kept jumping over the fence. What did we do?
Bored a hole through his nose, put a ring in it, and tied it to a twenty
foot rope. That stopped him.
You have to do something to stop your chattels from running away.
Toby ran away. They cut his foot off. It stopped him from running away,
The master had a right to protect his property. Toby was property.
OK. Now what happens?
Toby goes out and he starts picking cotton and he stops running away and he
becomes a good slave. The master wants to reward the slave with a privilege.
So, What's the privilege? The master says, "Toby? See all those women over
there? I'm going to let you take any of those women that you want for a
There's the marriage license. There's the privilege.
Remember, the word "license" means the permission to do something that would
be otherwise unlawful.
I ask you, my friend, what's illegal about getting married? Did you go down
to your government to get a license to get baptized? Do you go to your
government to get a license to go to church? Don't you exercise your
religious rights freely under the First Amendment?
Our government puts out marriage licenses. Isn't marriage a religious
business? What business has the government got in regulating marriage?
I'll tell you friend, you go out and get a marriage license, and doesn't
health and welfare then come into play? And doesn't compulsory education and
compulsory attendance to school? And If you're not good, we're going to take
your kid away from you?
Well, what happened to Toby and his wife when his first baby was born. Who
owned that child?
Toby and his wife? Unh-Unh.
You got a bull and a cow. A calf is the offspring. Who owns that calf?
That's right, the master owns that calf. Yeah.
Remember, when the Constitution was formed in 1787, those people were all
slave owners and most of them were religious guys. They understood law. They
understood slavery. They understood chattels. They understood mortgages.
They understood indenture.
It was Benjamin Franklin who said it was better to go to bed hungry than in
debt. He said you'd be better off to go to bed without your dinner than to
borrow money to eat dinner and wake up to be in servitude the following
People understood debt.
What does Scripture have to say about that?
Isn't the debtor servant to the lender?
Does it make you wonder why banks want you to be in debt constantly?
You've got a house that free and clear. "Why, free up that equity, friend.
Come on in and get a twenty five thousand dollar cash second mortgage and go
to Hawaii and squander the money and become our servant for the next
Isn't that what they've been telling you?
Now look where Toby is. He has a wife. He's tied to the plantation. He's a
family man. He got permission to do something that a free man would do
Have you ever heard of a common law wife or a common law marriage?
Do you suppose that people always got marriage licenses from the government
to get married?
Well, was there ever a time when you could get married without a license?
Why don't you ask yourself that one.
Let's carry the story on just a couple of steps: The master came to Toby and
said, "Toby you've been good. You've been picking cotton and you've got a
wife and you're not running away. Tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna give
you another privilege. How would you like to drive the wagon to town to get
Now that's a cushy job. Truck driver's job is like that. Airline pilots job
is like that.
So he put Toby on the wagon. He trained him to the rules of the road, and
there was the master's permission to do something that would otherwise be
unlawful. You see Toby couldn't leave the plantation. He has to have the
master's permission. That's the driver's license. There's your privilege.
The master/servant relationship. The state licenses you to drive on the
road. The master/servant relationship.
Let me ask you this: Toby is driving the wagon to town, he has an accident,
he hits another wagon and causes some damage. Who is responsible for the
damages that Toby causes on that road?
It isn't Toby. He's a slave. He doesn't have any property and can't possibly
pay for any damage.
The person who licensed him. The person who gave him that permission to go
out there on the road. The master is responsible for Toby.
Well then, when you're out on the road in an insured automobile, in an
insured truck, who's responsible when you have an accident?
The insurance company is responsible.
Well if the insurance company is responsible, isn't the insurance company
going to make rules and regulations for you to follow?
It makes sense to me. It makes sense to government. It makes sense to
everybody. Because, you see, when you're insured, you're not responsible for
your actions, the insurance company is.
If you're going to be free, you're going to have to be responsible for your
actions, and that's where the com mon law comes in. The common law acts
after the fact. The common law does not act in equity prior to the
When the policeman gives you a ticket for driving eighty, he's trying to
prevent an accident. That's equity. That's trying to prevent something. That
isn't the common law.
The common law acts when the damage has occurred. Then you sue and you get
money damages back.
It's when the guy gouges the other guy's eye out that you gouge his eye out,
after the fact. That's the common law.
Trying to prevent the eye from being gouged out is in the parameters of the
insurance company preventing the loss so that they can protect the claims
Now that's how your status works. That's how it works with Garrett. That's
why you have a driver's license.
Let's carry this on another step and look at your status when you're talking
about building a house.
You go out and you buy a house. You live in it a few years and you say,
"Well, I think I'm going to convert the garage over into a family room."
Wait a minute. Who are you affecting?
Who's house is that? Yours?
Well, that's not your house. You have an equitable interest that house, but
you're not a property owner. You are bound by contract to specific
performance. You are a servant, a slave. A slave to the bank that lent you
the money to buy the house.
Now there is a $50,000 house. You have a $10,000 equitable interest in it.
The bank has a $40,000 equitable interest in it. The house is insured for
$50,000 and the insurance company stands to lose $50,000 if the house burns
to the ground because you didn't wire it right when you added the room on.
In addition to that, the bank is sitting over there saying, "We don't want
just anybody adding rooms on, creating 'tobacco-road' tar-paper shacks,
depreciating the value of our home that we own, that in case this guy dies
or defaults we have to repossess and sell to somebody else."
So the banks and the insurance companies and all the lending institutions go
to the legislature and get zoning laws. They get building laws to protect
That makes sense.
If I owned a house, and I sold it to you, I certainly want to be protected.
I don't want you to add a room on to that house, wire it incorrectly and
have it burn down. I stand to lose $40,000 and you lose $10,000?
If I'm the insurer of it, I certainly don't want to lose $50,000 because of
So you see, a debtor is servant to the lender. The debtor is an incompetent.
That's right. Now you're begin ning to see why God in the Scripture said,
"The servant is debtor to the lender."
You know in ancient times, if you went into debt and didn't pay specific
performance they bore a hole in your ear and sold you for seven years until
the debt was paid off.
Today, we call that bankruptcy. In ancient times they called that slavery.
And boy it could get real severe.
You know if we were at law, and had substance at the common law all, I'll
tell you the common law is pretty brutal. The common law doesn't leave any
room for bankruptcy. You're gonna pay your debts or you're going to pay them
off. Crime doesn't pay at the common law because we're not interested in the
law enforcement growth industry, we're only interested in justice.
You know you gouge a man's eye out, the old adage "an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth" is based in the common law.
Equity is, "We want to prevent that loss."
Now, let's discuss this law enforcement growth industry because the
police-state environment we have created around ourselves is really
inexplicably bound up in this thing I call the law enforcement growth
This law enforcement growth industry, I don't know how big it is, but let's
start with a few parameters and let's take a look at what we're talking
about with the subject matter.
You've got a lot of policemen out here, nationwide, don't you? I don't know
how many policemen there are, but there are thousands and thousands and
thousands of policemen. There may be two or three million, right?
Now, how do they make their living?
They make it off of crime.
Don't you have to have lawyers to defend those criminals?
And don't we have to have lawyers to become prosecutors to prosecute those
Don't we have to have prisons to house those criminals?
Don't we have to have jails?
Don't we have to have sheriffs, judges?
I don't know how many people that are involved in law enforcement, but I'll
bet there are four or five million.
Let's try it this way. Let's suppose that everybody in America, starting
tomorrow morning, refused to disobey any more laws and nobody would drive
drunk, and nobody would build a room on their house without a permits, and
everybody obeyed all laws. We would have chaos by the middle of the week.
What would we do? Why, we'd have five or six million out of work law
enforcement people. I don't know how many there are. I wish somebody would
let me know. But, I'm telling you that these law schools are graduat ing law
students all the time. Every time a lawyer comes out, he's got to have a job
somewhere. So he has a real interest in law enforcement and law, prevention
and crime, and punishment.
So, I've been in jail a couple or three times, and when I go out there
people like to ask me:?"What are you in here for? What did you do?"
I say, "My government puts me in here every once in a while because I don't
have a driver's license, or because my car's not registered, and because
they don't understand my status. I'm in here because I'm a real bad fellow,
and I'm a criminal, and society needs to be protected from me because I want
my rights and I want my freedoms, and for demanding these rights and
freedoms my government locks me up every now and again to protect you from
And I find that there are other people in there also . . .
I asked a young fellow, "Why are you in here?"
He said, "I'm in here because I've been convicted on a felony."
"A felony?" I asked, "What did you do?"
He said, "Well, I drove drunk."
"You drove drunk? What happened?" I asked.
"Last year, I was out driving drunk and the policeman caught me and took me
over in front of the judge, and I plead guilty and that was one. Then six
months later I went out and I did the same thing and that was two. Then
about two months ago I was having a big party over at my apartment, and we
were all drunk and having a good time, and we were making too much noise,
and the police came up and recognized me and they said, 'Is that your car
I said, "yeah."
They said, "It's parked a little close to a fire hydrant, go down there and
So he went down to move it, and as soon as he started the car, they arrested
him for drunk driving.
He fell within the statute, didn't he?
He had the driver's license. He was acting in privilege. He went down and
started the motor. The statute says, " . . . in control of an automobile
under the influence." So they arrested him.
Why did they do that? Did you need to be protected from that fellow?
No, they entrapped him because they need business.
You know, in our county it costs thirteen dollars and sixteen cents a day to
keep a man in the county jail.
Now, while you're in this county jail, you're locked up in this room and
there are ten other guys in there. Ten times thirteen-sixteen is a hundred
and thirty dollars a day for that little tank. They have to feed you every
day, and so they have these uniformed bell boys running up and down the
halls and they bring you your food.
If they didn't have those beds filled with people, what would you need those
jail guards running up and down the halls bringing their meals for, and
guarding them? The jail guards would be unemployed if they did not have
people inside those jails go guard. If the prison wasn't full of people,
there wouldn't be any need for the guards, now would there?
Now I'm not telling you that there are not some bad people in jail. There's
some people, I suppose, that need to be locked up.
But my guesstimate is that about ten or fifteen percent of the people that
are in the jails here in Idaho are there because they are entrapped. They
are not there because I need to be protected, or you need to be protected
The guy that's driving down the road drunk . . . unless he runs into me and
causes a damage, I don't have any beef with him.
Hasn't crime always grown by five percent a year?
Well, I was born in 1939, and all I know like Will Rogers always said, is
what I read in the papers. Here's the way this comes down.
From the earliest time that I can remember reading the paper, I can see
where crime increases by a certain percentage. About five percent a year.
Isn't pretty much that way wherever you are; in Cleveland or Philadelphia or
New York? That's the way it is here.
So, in order to combat that crime, what do the police department and the FBI
and the officials that are in charge of crime prevention, and the people
that deal in crime, what do they tell you?
"We need more police, more laws, and more money."
Now isn't that about what you hear in Cleveland, Philadelphia or wherever
you are? Well, I don't know what they tell you there, but that's what they
tell us here.
Here in Boise, Idaho, let's say we have a hundred policemen, and crime is at
a level . . . let's call it level fifty, OK?
We want to reduce crime from level fifty to zero. We want no crime. We want
every policeman, every sheriff, every lawyer, every judge in the state of
Idaho unemployed. That's our goal. I want every single law enforcement
officer off the payroll and out doing something that's productive. We want
absolutely no crime whatsoever. We want every citizen obeying every law.
To do this, to achieve this goal, to combat and to curb crime, we're going
to educate people in the schools and churches, we're going to educate them
on television, and we're going to educate them in our jails, and we are
going to convert everybody to one hundred percent obedience to all laws at
all times without any exceptions whatsoever, and throw every law enforcement
worker out of a job, in a certain period of time.
Alright. That's our goal.
To accomplish that, we've got to increase the police budget by five percent.
So let's say we're spending ten million dollars a year, and increase that by
five percent. We've got to increase our police force from one hundred to one
hundred and five, so that's five percent. We have one thousand laws, so what
we're going to do is increase the laws by five percent. That's so the police
will have more tools with which to combat crime. And we're going to give
them five percent more police cars.
Now, instead of a hundred policemen out there on the road, we've got a
hundred and five.
Next we tell the policeman that in order to justify his job, he has to make,
in an eight hour shift, four contacts with the public. In order for the guy
to justify his job, doesn't he have to write four tickets, or doesn't he
have to arrest four criminals, doesn't he have to do something to justify
Now, doesn't that sound like we're creating crime?
Aren't we really, in fact, doing this: Every time we increase the budget by
five percent, the police by five percent; aren't we really increasing crime
by five percent?
Because if there are some real criminals out there who are bad types then
we've got to have other issues like drunks on the road so that the policeman
can have something to do.
Don't they have a vested interest in this the sheriffs and the jailers and
all these law enforcement people? Don't they have a vested interest in
trying to keep crime going?
You know, I don't want to pay seventy five thousand dollars to put somebody
in prison for five years because he's drunk. Or because he's an alcoholic,
because he's sick.
But for some reason, we've got it in our minds that that's what we've got to
do. You know really, all I want to do is to be protected from criminals.
I don't need any policeman to protect me from criminals because I carry a
I know that right away you're going to say, "Oh! He carries a gun."
That's right, our Founding Fathers understood crime. That's why the Second
Amendment's in the Constitution.
The police cannot prevent crime. Tell me of one rape that the police ever
prevented. Policemen catch rapists after they've committed the crime.
I'll tell you how to solve the rape problem. They did it down in Florida.
They did it up in Minneapolis one time. What they did is they went on a
campaign and started arming women.
I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: "You put a twenty-five
automatic in the purse of every woman in America and there will be no more
That's the end of the argument.
One of two or three things has to happen.
Number one, the women kill all the rapists. If women killed all the rapists
there wouldn't be any more rapes, would there? Isn't that logical?
If there's ten thousand rapists in America . . . I don't know how many there
are, let's say there's ten thousand. If we killed all then thousand of them,
there wouldn't be any more. If we killed five thousand of them, I'll bet the
other five thousand would become reformed rapists and we wouldn't have any
What we do is we disarm all the citizens. We tell them, "You've got to have
a gun permit to carry this gun." We take all the guns away from the
Now the citizen can't protect himself, and the policemen is not there. How
many rapists run out and say, "Officer, come on over. I'm gonna rape this
woman and I want you here to catch me." When did that ever hap pen? I never
So rape goes up every year, and armed robbery goes up every year.
I remember down in Oakland, California, there was a liquor store owner down
there. He had a gun and he killed three robbers; bang, bang, bang. He kept
getting robbed all the time. He got a gun. He killed three. He's not getting
robbed any more.
You know, there was some blood there for a while. And I'm sure that some of
these ladies will shoot their feet off, and shoot their husbands, and have
some accidents and there will be some blood and the bleeding hearts will
come out and say, "My God, we've got to take all these guns away from
Well, the problem with people is that they don't know how to handle guns.
I'm not here on some kick to get you to arm yourself, because I don't really
care. What I want to do in this segment is I'm trying to show you what crime
is and I'm trying to show you what your status is. I'm trying to show you
what the root cause of our problem is. And then as we progress with these
lessons, how you go in on that courtroom floor and how you win every time.
Because, if you are going to go in there and you are going to lose every
time, then there is no advantage in going into the courtroom.
Citizens that go into the courtroom go in there in stark terror. I mean
literally. The average guy going in to a traffic court, he says, "Uh, I want
to plead guilty, you honor, with explanation. Let me tell you why I'm guilty
and why I'm sorry and why this happened so you'll give me a twenty-five
dollar fine instead of a thirty-five dollar fine."
Why doesn't he go in there and say, "I haven't committed any crime and I'm
not going to plead to this. I am standing mute. If the government wants to
spend two thousand dollars convicting me, then so be it."
"My attitude is, sir, that any crime that's important enough for my
government to prosecute is important enough for me to defend."
Now, that's my attitude.
I carry a gun because I don't need policemen to protect me. I don't need to
spend millions of dollars of tax money out here for people to drive up and
down the streets with badges on their chests, and nifty uniforms, carry ing
guns on their hip, acting as hired guns.
I don't need any of that.
Why would I need it?
I dare you to come rob me.
I'll tell you one thing, robbing me could get real hazardous to your health.
If we had two hundred million red-blooded Americans all carrying a gun under
their shirt, there wouldn't be any armed robberies. There wouldn't be any
The only reason you've got armed robbers is because you've got citizens that
don't have guns and can't kill 'em. That's why you've got armed robbers.
You know there was a time, about 1900, I think every man in the country
carried a gun. I came from a family . . . I can't remember a how many guns
my dad had. He must have had ten or fifteen. I can't ever remember living in
a house that didn't have a gun in it.
My house has got ten guns in it now.
You know, I talk to people all the time that not only don't have guns, are
afraid of them.
I'm sitting there going, "You're afraid of a gun? Don't you know how to use
one? Haven't you been in the army. Didn't they teach you in the army how to
use a gun?"
People come back from the army and they don't have guns.
Women don't have guns. Women get raped all the time, they get abused all the
Well let me tell you . . . you know our Founding Fathers knew how to solve
that problem and they wrote that right into your Constitution. Because
that's a right, it's inalienable and it can't be taken away from you. You
can give it up, you know you can give up a right but it cannot be taken away
Now that's the difference between status at law and privilege under
I would say that starting about 1900 we began to shift away from our natural
unalienable rights. I remember falling into that syndrome about 1965,
somebody got it in my head that the way to make money and be successful in
life was to get into debt. Borrow money, pyramid, buy, sell, trade and
become kind of a business man. Boy let me tell you all I had was misery the
entire time. I was in debt and I was a slave and I was a servant and I paid
My government was after me constantly for not paying my taxes. Gosh I
couldn't afford to pay my taxes. I could barely afford to keep ends meeting
and I think that most of you all have the same problem.
Then one day I began to find out what was the root cause of my problem. Well
the root cause of my problem was my status, I was a slave, a servant. I was
in the Constitutional sense a subject and a member of society. Not a
sovereign and a natural person who is a law maker instead of a law obeyer.
You know law has to be made for people who cannot govern themselves. You
have to have rules for Toby when he's driving the horses to town. Don't whip
the horses, don't speed, and stop for ladies as their crossing the road.
Isn't that the rule for of the master concerning Toby the slave?
So the insurance company does that to us they say, don't you whip the horses
in that car and drive over fifty -five because there's a possibility that
you might cause an accident which would then make us liable and we'd have to
pay these damages. You see where you're at. The master/servant relationship?
You know the root cause of our problem then is whether or not we're willing
to be responsible for our actions. I think that's where the bottom line is.
Most people want limited liability for debt. They want limited responsibil
ity. And the insurance agents, boy let me tell you, they can't preach a
sermon about well you know what'll happen to ya if you get in this accident,
well you could lose your house, you could lose this you could lose that or
one thing and another.
Well certainly you could.
Why don't you go out and learn how your courtroom works?
What's wrong with learning how to be a responsible person when you cause a
damage, you have to pay for it.
But if you don't cause a damage, why should you be paying money into an
insurance fund to cover the dam ages and the irresponsibilities of other
That's what the insurance fund is all about.
The insurance company pays out about five percent. So you pay ten million
dollars in and they pay what...about five hundred thousand out. I think
that's about what the ratio is.
Somebody once told me that the insurance companies pay out about five
percent, and take the rest in as profit and commissions, etc.
I say "poppycock"! I can spend that money on myself just as well as they
can. I don't need anybody to spend my money.
I was thirty-seven before I learned how to count. Once I learned how to
count I fired my accountant. I try to encourage other people to learn how to
In review, when you get in on that courtroom floor, and if you want common
law rights, then you have to be responsible at the common law.
We're going to talk about the scene of the crime and we're going to get into
the nitty-gritty. I'm going to show you classroom scenes here of
arraignments, probable cause hearings, felonies, misdemeanors, traffic
tickets. We're going to show you in detail how you go into the courtroom to
learn that language. There's some words, terms, phrases; there's rules and
regulations that you have to learn.
But, the way I see this, it's about the equivalent of learning how to fly.
If you can learn how to fly an airplane, you can learn how to be a free
common law man. You can learn courtroom strategy and procedure, you can
learn how to get into that courtroom and demand your rights at the common
In order to do that, the first thing you have to do is change your status at
I'm going to show you how to win if you've got a driver's license. I'm going
to show you that even if you're wrong, you can still win.
I don't recommend that. I'm not saying you should get on the wrong side of
the issue and then go into the courtroom and win your case. I'm not telling
people to go out a get drunk and then drive down the road and, even if
you've got a driver's license, I'll show you how to win . . . although I can
I've done it and I've demonstrated it for a long time, for about five years.
We don't have any students here that have lost a case. Not a one.
Every graduate from this school knows how to win; because, he knows how to
conduct the scene of the crime.
For instance in taxes: Do you know how many people the government's laying
away every year on income tax evasion and willful failure to file a return,
I can teach you how to win those cases, but wouldn't it be better if you
corrected your status and didn't even owe the tax.
You know, some years ago I dropped out of the income tax system and I've
never even had an audit.
I go to audits all the time. I go with people that have tax problems that
just want to make you cry. I mean they are attaching their property.
Attaching their homes and leaving them with barely enough money . . . in
some cases I don't even think they leave them with enough money to buy food,
and they've got wives and children. I don't know how they can do it, how
those government agents can do that. It makes you sad.
So, what I want to do, and I've told people this and I'm going to tell you
now: You should start in, not with a drunk driving case that's coming to
trial next week. Because if you're going to trial next week, and you are a
novice, and you don't understand what you're doing, and you status is wrong,
and you've got a driver's license and you've already made admissions and
confessions, and they are going to use them against you, and you are on the
video tape down at the police station, and you've made these confessions;
its going to be tough. It's going to be awful hard for you to win.
What I like to see is a student who comes in and says, "Yeah, I'm a tax
payer now but I want to stop paying taxes."
You get the deal set-up for next year. You go ahead a pay your taxes this
year. You get rid of your checking accounts and your credit cards and your
obligations. You start paying off your debts and you get clean with the
world and then you drop out of the system in a logical systematic way and
they don't even miss ya. You're just gone.
All of a sudden, from tax payer to non-tax payer, from paying twenty-five
percent of your total productivity for your government to squander on Poland
guaranteeing the Polish debt that your international bankers made.
Put the money in your sock, or buy gold or silver or do whatever you want
with it. You don't have to send your money to Poland.
You don't have to pay your money out in property taxes. You don't have to
pay that money unless you want to.
You don't have to have a driver's license. You don't have to be a slave to
the traffic cop. You don't have to run down the road in fear and
And judges understand law. You know, your Supreme Court understands law. The
problem is that I don't believe a lot of the citizens out here understand
And the first building-block to becoming a sovereign is to get your status
straight. Once you get that status squared around you're gong to find that
about seventy-five percent of your legal problems are just going to evapo
rate and disappear.
Now that doesn't mean that the government isn't going to harass you. That
they're not going to charge you falsely, because let me tell you that when
you become a competent pro se litigant, and you become a what they call
You go out here and jail and they call after you: "Hey, he's one of those
Constitutionalists." I heard them say that the other day when they were
booking me, or trying to book me.
"You mean you're not a Constitutionalist?"
The conversation broke right down. The cop didn't want to admit that he
But, I'm one of those.
You know, they call me a Constitutionalist like I'm a Communist or a Nazi or
a queer or a sex pervert or something. They have to hang a label on me.
Slaves are that way. They have to hang a label so they can identify you.
They don't know what a free man looks like. They've never seen one before!
And so they don't know what a free man is, and it's a strange and foreign
doctrine to them, this thing of driving without a driver's license. Driving
a car without license plates. Building a house without your government's
permission. Holding something free and clear and absolute alodial free-hold
fee simple. How many people do you know like that?
When I was a kid, there was a lot of them. But there's not very many of
those any more. I'll bet you there's not but a million or two Americans left
in the United States who aren't in debt.
Show me a farmer somewhere who isn't in hock. You know these farmers out
here, they owe five hundred to seven hundred thousand to a million dollars.
I used to be in the cattle business. I remember, I used to be in debt back
in the fifties and sixties. You know, it used to be, when I was a young man,
the objective was: You borrowed thirty thousand for production credit and
you tried to bet it paid off within the terms of your first lease and you
were free and clear and you were out making money.
Something's happened. You know, our land is mortgaged to the government. I
don't know if there's very much land . . . I'll bet you not only does the
government own over a third of all America well they claim to, but that's
another subject matter but I'll bet you that the government probably owns
ninety percent of all the land in America.
We like to think of ourselves as property owners. Why, we're not a nation of
property owners. We're a nation of people who are indentured in feudal
serfdom. We've done it to ourselves voluntarily. We have voluntarily taken
on this debt and squandered it.
Look at the national debt. Look at our mortgages. Look at our local debt and
our government debt. Nobody complains about debt. Why, people have been led
to believe that debt is wonderful and good.
Let me tell you, debt it slavery. It's just that simple.
Debt is slavery in Scripture. Debt is slavery in practical every-day
application. Debt is slavery in law.
When you walk in on the courtroom floor, that judge assumes that you are a
merchant and trader in equitable debt.
He doesn't assume you are a free man walking in there demanding your common
law rights. He assumes you are a merchant in trade or in equity that has an
equitable interest in some piece of property or some issue, and you're
coming into the courtroom to throw yourself on the mercy of the court to
have them decide how to divide up you marriage.
Have you ever seen a divorce at common law?
Show me a divorce with a jury. Have you ever seen one of those? Well, you're
starting to see one or two, once in a while. They're called "palimony"
You know when this fellow Lee Marvin broke up with his common law wife, you
had a common law divorce. That is so strange and bizarre, so foreign, the
news media picked that up and said, "Here's a milestone in law in America."
That's nothing new. That's the common law working. The woman had a right to
what she claimed . . . abso lute alodial free-hold right and claim at law to
what his property was.
He's sitting there going, "Well this can't be right. We weren't even
married." Right? He said, "I'm not even married to her."
We've got people here that can get married without a marriage license. I
just heard of one the other day. A young fellow went out with this lady and
had this nice wedding. They couldn't get a preacher to come over there and
marry them because you know preachers are licensed.
Do you want to talk about separation of church and state? Don't believe it
for a minute. We don't have separation of church and state.
Government licenses all preachers! You show me a preacher in America that's
not licensed by his government. I don't know of any. I'm not saying there
aren't any. There's probably some of them out there. But as a general rule
the churches are all corporate organizations.
Where do you get corporate privilege?
Well, from the government!
The churches are corporations and they are regulated by then by the
government. All the preachers are licensed by the government. They're doing
something that would otherwise be illegal.
Since when has it been illegal to be a preacher without the government's
I don't claim to be a preacher, but I'll tell you one thing: I sure as Hell
don't need my government's permission to tell me whether or not I can or
can't be. I don't need my government's permission to do anything. I'm the
sovereign, not the government.
When you learn to be the sovereign, then you can learn to be free.
When you go into a court in your county, you're going to find this to be
true. The first time that you walk in there, those judges are going to be
shocked out of their gourd when you walk in and demand all of your rights at
Watch this: "Your honor, I demand all of my rights at law, and I don't wave
any of my rights at any time. I'm not coming in here to grovel before you,
or to explain to you that I'm guilty. I'm here to tell you that no crime has
been committed and I'm not going to plead to this cause of action. There is
no cause of action before this court. Driving eighty miles an hour down the
road is not against the law. I haven't broken any law. There's no corpus
delicti. There's no loss to anybody involved here. There's no contract.
There's no penal clause."
Well the poor judges are sitting back there and wondering what sort of
foreign and bizarre behavior is this of this fool coming into this
courtroom, who doesn't plead guilty.
Not one person in a hundred and pleads not guilty.
If you took a hundred people who plead not guilty, there's not one of those
in a hundred that could go in and competently argue his position at law. He
goes in and argues, "Well, I didn't do the act."
What's he saying? He's saying, "Well, yeah I was driving the car and I've
got the driver's license and the government commissioned me to go out there
on that road, but I wasn't going eighty, I was only going sixty-five. I
wasn't breaking the speed limit by twenty-five miles an hour, I was only
breaking it by ten, and it's for that reason that I'm pleading not guilty."
He can't even shut up and keep his mouth shut. He's got to spill the beans
and go into the courtroom and show the judge that he's guilty of doing
something even if it isn't what he really did.
That's the problem that our citizenry has. In the last eights years we have
moved from status to contract. We are all of us operating in equity.
We've got marriage licenses and so we have children that are owned by our
government and controlled. Take your ten year old kid out of school and find
out what your government does to you.
Start educating, training and teaching your own kids in your own home and
find out what your government is going to say to you.
I'll bet you that you haven't got the nerve to go in there to that school
and tell the principle, "I'm taking my kid out of school, dummy. I don't
think you are doing good job here. I think I'll just take him home and teach
him myself." Try that one.
Your government tells you when to come in and it tells you when to go out.
It tells you when to get up and it tells you when to go to bed. You know
that's true and I know that's true, we've all lived through it. We've all
been raised, educated, taught and trained by the educational system. They
taught you how to use the legislative and executive branches of government.
They taught you that redress of grievance come by writing letters to the
editor and picketing up and down at the state house to get redress of
grievance, and writing letters to your congressman.
Poppycock! Balderdash! Bon phooey!
You get redress of grievance, if you are a free man, on the courtroom floor,
by being a belligerent claimant in person and demanding it. You walk into
that courtroom and you demand your rights. You don't go in there like a
groveling slave named Toby to plead and beg and whine and wheedle before the
master and say, "Oh please, massa. Don't beat me, don't whip me, massa."
Isn't that what a slave does?
He understands and recognizes the status. He isn't ignorant.
You know, we citizens of the United States think we're free, and we tell
each other we're free, and we kid ourselves that we're free, and our
government propagandizes and tells us that we're free.
But I'll tell you, the status of a free man is the man that doesn't have to
show his driver's license to some officer on the road, to drive.
The status of a free man is a man that can work and earn a living and
doesn't need a number or somebody's permission to work.
The free man is the man that educates his children at home or sends them to
school, or to any school that he wants to, whether the government likes it
A free man, then, having assumed full responsibility for his actions, acts
as a matter of right, not as a matter of privilege.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.