Response To ALL CAPS NAME Theory

The truth about All Caps Names, Common Law Copyright 2006 by A Peaceful Solution Foundation 1
Response to ALL CAPS NAME theory

Consisting of:
an advertisement by some Texans,
my rebuttal to their theory/advertisement,
some questions by a man who bought, but did not study, Strategic Withdrawal,
and my response to his questions.
Color-coded as above.

You sent me this a long time ago, I think, but I've just started studying this stuff again.
This is brand new. I had never seen this advertisement before last week. However, the arguments
against the UCC stuff, the ALL CAPS NAME, and the fictitious corporation are as old as the
theories about the UCC and copyrighted name has been around. It is unfortunate that such a bad
strategy should hang around so long, but people who are desperate will listen to just about anything,
especially when there is a promise that they dont have to give up their government benefits.
Please check out: http://www.copyright.gov/
And http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
On these pages, under What I s Not Protected by Copyright? you find that you cannot copyright
names. Any names. So, although there is a strategy for dealing with loss of liberty, this is not it!
To set the stage for understanding the issues involved, here, I will show you what Blacks
5th says about fictitious nameand legal name, and explain a littleabout Rescission of Contract.

Fictitious name. A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in
some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic),
WI TH the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead. [emphasis added]

Legal name. Under common law consists of one Christian name and one surname, and the
insertion, omission or mistake in middle name or initial is immaterial. The legal name of an
individual consists of a given or baptismal name, usually assumed at birth, and a surname derived
from the common name of the parents. Application of Green, 54 Misc.2d 606, 283 N.Y.S.2d 242,
245.

They use legal process to prosecute you under your legal name, not your Christian name.
Your legal name is still YOU, and is not a fictitious name, and is not intended to deceive or mislead.
This information is in Strategic Withdrawal.
Regarding any attempt to reclaim control of ones life by some method other than
rejection of all Social Security and other government benefits, and completeseparation out of the
corporate state, this is what Blacks Law Dictionary says about rescission of contract:
Rescission of Contract. A rescission amounts to an unmaking of a contract, or an undoing of it
from the beginning, and not merely a termination, and it may be effected by mutual agreement of
parties, or by one of the parties declaring rescission of contract without the consent of the other if a
legally sufficient ground therefore exists, or by applying to courts for a decree of rescission.
Aballa, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn 416, 65 N.W.2d 641, 644. Annulling, abrogation or unmaking of
contract and the placing of the parties to it in status quo. Sessions v. Meadows, 13 Cal.App.2d 748,
57 P.2d 548, 549. I t necessarily involves a repudiation of the contract and a refusal of the
moving party to be further bound by it. See also Renunciation, Repudiation. [Blacks 5th, page
1174] [emphases added]

Because one is bound by the entire contract when they receive even a minimal benefit under
the contract [International Shoe v. Washington; Pennoyer v. Neff] then one must refuse all
benefits in order to exercise rescission of contract.

A few questions, if I may:
Absolutely!
A few is more than a couple and less than several [an attempt at humor], however, I would like to
answer ALL of the questions if I may, and I would like to use this response on our web site (duly
sanitized to protect your identity) so others can have access to the other side of these issues in their
investigation into the dangerously using the UCC and Copyrighted Name, as well. I sent most of
this rebuttal to the authors of the advertisement, and they have not responded, so I am leaving their
names in the rebuttal. Evidently, they are still happy with their work, so I will use their names.
Here is the advertisement, rebuttal, questions, and comments

Copyright - I ts All in the NAME
By: Ralph Kenneth Evans & Lewis Thompson Mohr
[Rebuttal by: Bernie E. Besherse]
Recognize at the outset that you are dealing with a bunch of criminals who have abandoned
their responsibilities as agents of the people by vacating the government and becoming a
corporation to advance the commercial interests of the world. They attempt to make a corporation
out of you, too, by writing your Christian appellation in all-capital letters, which is a clear prejudice
against you, according to;
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TCRP) Rule 52, Alleging a Corporation:
"Allegations that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as Truth unless denied by
affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or his attorney, whether such corporation is public
or private and however created."
Take note of the words "however created" because when those attorneys write your name in
all-capital letters on a summons or warrant or notice, you have now been constituted as a
corporation. [Assumption #1 lacks foundation in law and is contradicted by recent court
decisions.] Your name was similarly corrupted when a constructive trust was established as you
volunteered into Social Security, making you part of the national socialist democracy and assigning
you an employee I.D. number (SSAN). [Assumption #2 Taking the Social Security number does
not form a constructive trust. Taking the SSN means that you become liable for contributions
[see Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, for definitions for FICA and Contribution] that
will insure the Federal Bankruptcy. Nonetheless, when YOU volunteered into the contract,
YOU became bound by the entire contract as long as YOU voluntarily accept any benefit
under that contract, and YOU are not at liberty to unilaterally alter the contract. Because they
did not literally hold a gun to your head and meaningfully threaten to kill you for not signing,
or for not accepting a benefit, then YOU bound yourself to all of the conditions that the
contract stipulates.]
What about minors whose parents got their SSN for them before they were of age and who,
thus, had no input into it?
It is just like the Rites of infant baptism, confirmation, etc., in the Catholic church. None of the
contracts that ones parents did for them mean anything until one is an adult, and they make their
own [stupid, uninformed] decision to validate the previous preparations for slavery, just like I did
when I applied for and used a SSN.. This is explained very well in Strategic Withdrawal.
Thankfully, there is a remedy for these foolish decisions that we make.

[continued from above] TCRP Rules 53 and 54 affirm the notion that if someone alleges that
you are a corporation and you do not deny it in a timely manner, you are an indeed a corporation for
the commercial matter in question. Checking the definition of "name" in Bouviers law dictionary,
we find that if;
1) the opposing side does NOT use your Christian appellation, and; [Blacks Law Dictionary
says otherwise. Blacks even says that a mistake in the middle name, or even leaving it
out, makes no difference, whatsoever.]
If you are contracting with your "strawman" artificial corporate self, are you really
"contracting with yourself"? [I added the underlining]
Did YOUR strawman hold the pen that accepted the contract offer, or did YOUR hand hold the
pen? This is an attempt to defraud your creditors out of payment for benefits that YOU received.
The alleged strawman does not and cannot receive any benefit, because the alleged strawman does
not eat, sleep, need clothing, or need shelter. The one holding the pen is the one that derives the
benefits, therefore, the allegation that there is a fictitious strawman that should be charged with the
cost of the benefits, and that the fictitious strawman should be punished, not the hand that holds the
pen, is pure fraud. The burden of proof is on the one advancing the argument, and the people
making this advertisement are failing in their burden to show that there is a corporation, and the
identity of the competent contracting parties on both sides of the contract.
When you bring the allegation that there is a binding contract, then you are under a burden of
proof that you are contracting with a party that has the legal capacity for contracting with you. You
cannot contract with a non-existent party!!! You can contract with a real corporation because it
is a LEGAL fiction, not a non-existent, fictitious party, or I LLEGAL fiction. The proof that the
corporation is competent for contracting is in its corporate charter that is on file with the state.
Where is the evidence that meets the burden of proof that the alleged strawman has the capacity
for contracting? You may find some ambiguous information, but where is your evidentiary proof
that the allegedly fictitious party has legal capacity for contracting?
More accurately and to the point, you are NOT contracting with yourself. You are fraudulently
trying to make it appear as if you are contracting with yourself.

[continued from above]
2) you do NOT make an appearance, and;
3) you do NOT waive process-then they have NO jurisdiction over you.
One method of obtaining control over the all-capital letter fiction is to file a UCC-1
financing statement with the secretary of state. [The law of contracts says that you cannot
contract with yourself, and in order to file a VALID UCC-1, you must be able to produce
proof of a valid contract in court, or be faced with charges of fraud.] Another is to bring that
fiction under your domain as private intellectual property through a copyright, which enjoys the
protection of common law when made a part of the public record with the local county recorder.
(Copyright law existed before the modern statute was created.) Compare this with a trademark,
which is not a common law document since it comes under statutory law. [You cannot copyright
your name. The very first thing that you must do in order to copyright some words is to prove
that you created the words. If you gave yourself the name, then you MAY be able to put a
trademark on the name, but when the name was given to you by your parents, then both
common law and statutory law say that you cannot copyright the name.]
But what if what you are copyrighting - your ALL CAPS fictitious strawman name - was
created for you by entities without your knowledge, much less your permission? Could not
the same "law" that allowed them to create that fictitious name, so as to create liabilities for
you, be used as a remedy for same?
Whos name? You say YOUR all caps fictitious strawman name.?. Whos name, again?
Even the advertisement for the UCC/Name service makes the admission is that it is your name. It is
also admitted that YOU DID NOT CREATE this thing that you allegeto exist. YOU CANNOT
COPYRIGHT SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT CREATE. Read the U.S. constitution
regarding the law of copyrights. The statutes cannot expand on the authorization given in the
constitution. You must create the writing or you cannot copyright the writing.
The last question must be answered with NO. They used a contract offer under the common law
of contracts in order to offer you a chance to hang yourself. You responded by signing their offer,
baited by your desire for being given a perceived benefit by the government. There is nothing
illegal about them offering the contract [U.S. constitution, Article 1 section 10]. Both you AND
they have an unlimited right to contract. The fact that they used fraud in the inducement could be
a big problem for them, if and when you decide to exercise rescission of contract, but until and
unless you completely rescind the contract, and never derive another benefit out of the contract,
then you are bound to specific performance on the entire contract. [Pennoyer v. Neff;
International Shoe v. Washington]

The mandate since 1935 from Washington is that all the state governments standardize their
state rules, procedures and statutes. References given here use the Texas code, however there are
equivalent sections in each of the other state rulebooks from which to derive similar authority.
TRCP Rule 52 was cited in Galleria Bank vs. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest
2nd, page 5, as follows:
"The failure of an adverse party [i.e. you] to deny under oath the allegation that he is
incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact."
So, when you receive a presentment (bill, citation, tax bill, lawsuit, summons), you are
alleged to be a corporation simply by how your Christian appellation is styled (all-capital letters) on
the presentment. [Assumption #3 is not supported by law. Recent court decisions have declared
that the all caps name is merely a style, and does not allege a corporation.]
But if these courts truly are operating in admiralty/maritime jurisdiction that functions well
mainly because that fact is withheld from us, is it not reasonable to assume that they will not
make rulings that will let their dirty little secret out of the bag and disallow their advantage?
Did you mean the fact that the courts are admiralty? Or did you mean that the fact is that they
are creating an ALL CAPS, fictitious corporation to put on trial for your sins?
The Admiralty courts will never admit that they are admiralty courts. As long as any UCC or ALL
CAPS NAME issue is going to end up in those courts, then your question and argument on this
point is self-defeating. Because you know that the courts operate in Admiralty, then you are
lacking any excusefor having any confidence that these courts will deliver justice, arent you?
When the higher Admiralty courts rule that the All Caps Name is merely a style, then the lower
courts and county prosecutors cannot use it otherwise, i.e., for alleging a corporation.
If you meant that the fact that the court creates a fictitious corporation to put on trial for
contracts that we signed, then the response above still applies. All they have to do is take silent
judicial notice of your SSN, your legal disability of bankruptcy, and your unclean hands, and rule
against you.
All of the foregoing having been said, I still recommend that a denial of corporate existence be
made a part of the pleadings in most court cases. It is just a good policy. The main differences
between what I recommend and the one advanced in the advertisement is that I recommend
following the statute and rules of court, to the letter, and not improvise. You dont get anywhere by
trying to make up your own law as you go along. I would also deny that they are a corporation,
depriving them of a corporate shield until and unless they prove that they have protection by
corporate veil. There are some other legal tricks available that make the individual liable, but I am
not going to go into those, here.

[continued from above] If you consent to that allegation by remaining silent during the time
given for responding, it amounts to acceptance of your corporate status (acquiescence by silence).
The fact that the opposition puts a case number or file reference or license number on the
presentment constitutes a claim number that completes the process of creating a private corporation
without your awareness. Thus, for that particular matter, you are presumed to be a corporation
unless you rebut it (contest it) with an affidavit sworn under penalties of perjury. [When your
name is on a contract (SS-5, Certificate of Title, other government instrument), then the way
that your name is spelled on the bill, citation, tax bill, lawsuit, or summons is irrelevant. As
long as you signed the application or contract, then you owe the bill, and it must be paid.]
What about the argument that a bill can never be paid with FRNs, something with no intrinsic
value? Does that not give some credence to arguments that there are alternate, parallel
methods using similar paper devices, to "satisfy" a "bill"?
In this case, the FeRNs argument would not have merit. The benefits that are being sought are
denominated in FeRNs, so, in FeRNs they will be paid. The Article to which I was responding was
not advancing the use of Promissory Notes, or other commercial paper for satisfying a bill. Their
primary argument is Thats Not Me!!!
A side note: People who attempt to use Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, or other commercial
paper, for paying off a bill have been running into big problems for the past fifteen years. Please
dont get innovative in trying to find some unknown sort of commercial paper for discharging a
debt. Some very intelligent people are in jail for life, or are being sought for prosecution for such
activity. Examples being Hartford van Dyke, Leroy Schweitzer, and Eddie Kahn. The bankers
own the government AND the courts, so any attempt to invent your own commercial paper in
competition with theirs will lead you only to grief. Keith Anderson, who is in jail for life because
he used the UCC arguments instead of facts as a defense, told me in a private meeting that he
refuses to deal with these commercial paper scams because when we know that it is illegal and
immoral for the Rothschilds, then it is illegal and immoral for us, too. I am thankful that I followed
the wisdom of King Solomon in this case, and harkened to the advice of many counselors. I just
wish that Keith Anderson had listened to his best legal counsel (Don Grahn) and not used the UCC
arguments in his defense. If Keith had been able to listen as well as he could talk, he might be
free, today.

RULE: Never accept a presentment without contesting it, but remember that the ONLY
thing you want to contest is the "style of the case," i.e. the corruption of your Christian appellation
into a corporate fiction form. [And if that is all you contest, that is the only thing that the court
can hear. The Rules of Court say you should enter ALL of your affirmative defenses in your
ANSWER.] To argue anything else in the pleading (even a contention that you are an ax murderer)
instantly causes you to traverse into the opposition's jurisdiction-and you're dead!
I tried that over the past year in a couple of cases that I have, now, before the [state] Court of
Appeals. Because I entered ALL of my arguments, including some good law that the judges
and the attorneys had not confronted before, they did not hear my jurisdiction argument. I'm
coming to believe that, had I stood on jurisdiction alone, they would have had to agree that
they could not hear the case and would have had to dismiss. I traversed in their territory and
attempted to use their courts, therefore I could not argue that they did not have jurisdiction
because I was appealing to them.
I was responding to the statement in their advertisement that one should only say Thats Not Me.
I was not making a recommendation for your situation.
When one wishes to challenge jurisdiction, then that is what must be challenged, and that alone.
The challenge must done correctly, with jurisdiction arguments, not UCC arguments or ALL
CAPS NAME arguments. In your case, if you had a legitimatejurisdiction argument, then you
should have brought it, and when the jurisdiction issue was settled in their favor [because your SSN
gives them jurisdiction], your other affirmative defenses would still be viable and you could bring
them in your ANSWER to the COMPLAINT.
If you included UCC or ALL CAPS NAME in your jurisdiction argument, then they would rule
against you, and with good reason. You cant succeed by using fraud. THEY might, but we
certainly cannot. Their courts belong to them, not us.

By the opposition successfully alleging that you are a corporation, you become caught in a
Catch-22. Commercial courts cannot deal with flesh-and-blood People -they deal only with legal
fictions (ACTORS) and you are entirely out of place in a commercial court unless they somehow
manage to join you, the Living Soul, with a corporation (ACTOR), which is how the court obtains
jurisdiction over you. [WRONG!!! The commercial courts deal with flesh-and-blood people
who make contracts!!!] However, corporations cannot speak for themselves; they depend upon an
attorney to be their mouthpiece and represent them before the court. You have NO STANDING
before the court, not being a member of the BAR, and thus cannot speak for the legal fiction
(ACTOR) whose name sounds exactly like yours (idem sonans). For you to attempt a court
appearance perpetrates fraud upon the court and NOTHING you say or file with the court may be
recognized or heard, in spite of your best intentions and most diligent efforts. The judge will take
silent notice of this immediately. Hiring an attorney only complicates issues because it makes you a
ward of the court (incompetent to handle your own affairs) AND it compromises your interests
(attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients).
Representing yourself pro se is no solution, either, unless you conveniently happen to be a member
of the BAR (perish the thought!). [The remedy is to follow the five peaceful steps to a Strategic
Withdrawal out of contemporary Babylon, and to refuse to do anything that is illegal or
immoral. http://www.aPeacefulSolution.org ]
Having traversed down the slippery slope, which leads to your own destruction, it is
virtually impossible to then reverse course and disassociate yourself from the legal fiction
(ACTOR). Once you've PROVED you are a fraud by agreeing to be a corporation, a powerful
principal of law rules your affairs: "No truth can come from a fraud". [And knowing this, the
people who wrote this advertisement persist in advocating the fraud of trying to copyright a
name that they did not create, and violating the law of contracts by contracting with ones self
by filing a UCC-1 on their own name.] Avoid that slippery slope in the first place by declaring,
"That's not me!" as your AUTOMATIC RESPONSE to any presentment, oral or written, where the
ACTOR'S name is used instead of your Christian appellation. "I don't know whose name you have
there, but that's not me!" [When you sign your nameon the contract, you will have to pay the
penalty. Dont let anyone fool you into believing such a simplistic answer they present in this
advertisement!!! The UCC says that when YOU sign YOUR name on an instrument
(contract) then YOU are obligated thereon. There is no strawman that is obligated. It is
the one who signs his name.]
WARNING: Your declaration of "That's not me!" needs to be made by affidavit when it is
to become a part of an official record. Refer to Dr. Pepper Company v. Crowe, 621 SW 2nd 466,
which held as follows:
Plaintiff pled defendant as a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading
pursuant to TRCP 52 and 93 that he was not a corporation. Thus, such fact was established.
Presentments may be handled in any of three ways:
1. Write "This is not me" in red ink diagonally across the face of the instrument and return it to the
sender.
2. Write "No such entity exists" in red ink diagonally across the face of the instrument and return
it to the sender.
3. First, record a copyright of the ACTOR'S name and then pursue discovery with the sender of the
presentment: Inquire whether the sender is making a claim against your copyright and, if so,
how they propose to handle the cost of such a claim (one million dollars in United States silver
coin per use per issuer). (The presumption is that the sender is using the ACTOR'S name in an
attempt to extract something from your estate.) Claims for unlawful use of the copyright fall
under common law and not under the commercial statutes regulating negotiable instruments and
contracts. Therefore silver specie may be demanded in any settlement, instead of Federal
Reserve notes or credit instruments of the United States.
The Texas Penal Code Articles 1.03, 1.04 and 1.07 (and similar language in each of the
other states' code) says that the only crime, which may be committed, by one of the People is a
common law crime. People are not "violators" of civil statutes. When someone sends a
presentment, they are contending that there is a contract on file somewhere and that one of the
People is a "violator" of some civil statute. "Violators" are persons, which includes inanimate
entities like corporations, trusts, legal fictions and ACTORS, but does not include People (Living
Souls). [Is there statutory support for this allegation? If so, where?]
Bernie, what is "statutory" and why would it, presumptively, trump other legal / lawful
arguments?
The comment to which I was responding was "Violators" are persons, which includes inanimate
entities like corporations, trusts, legal fictions and ACTORS, but does not include People (Living
Souls).
I was asking where in the statutes they might be able to find that a living soul could not violate the
statutes. Also, where can they find that men and women are excluded from the definition of
person or violator. It isnt a matter of trumping other legal or lawful arguments, or even
ecclesiastical arguments, it was a matter of finding support for their own statement, anywhere, in
order to meet their burden of proof. [following 5 USC 556(d)]
As a matter of personal opinion, based upon what I read in the law books, I believe that people
(flesh-and-blood men and women) who are in contract with the government [Hale v. Henkel] CAN
be violators and persons.

[continued from above] The subterfuge is confusing
until you realize that they are operating in two separate venues-one for legal fictions and the other
for real People. The People's venue is in the common law, which is based upon the constitution and
runs with the land. The corporate government, in order to function, has codified a lot of the rights
of the People into statutes, which they attempt to enforce under the presumption that the People
have agreed to be treated as corporations. The statutory side is the face that they show to the People
in order to distract and deceive-and thereby controls them. [Lying (breach of contract) is a
common law crime. You can be charged under common law with failure to fulfill a contract.]
Sure, but what if it's a contract that you did not knowingly agree to fully?
Even in this condition, you are still bound by the contract, and the other party has a right to
expect specific performance on the contract until and unless you legally rescind the contract.
When you believe that you have grounds for rescission, and fail to exercise your option, then you
are AGREEING WITH and VALIDATING the contract by tacit procuration. Until that time, the
other contracting party, or the court into which they will drag you, has no indication that you have
any legal grounds for failing to live up to specific performance. Neither the court nor the
opposing party has any authority for assuming that you do not wish to abide by the contract, even
though they might know that there was fraud in the inducement. [U.S. constitution, Article 1,
section 10]

In 1935, the Social Security Act came into being. It provided that if one of the People
voluntarily enrolled in Social Security and received a number, he was deemed to be an employee of
the government. [Not so. One became a surety for the National Bankruptcy. See Proverbs 6:1-5]
The State of Texas, as a subsidiary corporation of the United States Inc. (Title 28 3002(15) et
sequel), can thus point to a man's Social Security contract to substantiate their contention that the
man has become a person (ACTOR) and an employee of the state corporation, subject to being
regulated and controlled by the statutes. [WRONG! Under 3002(15)(C), a SSN holder is deemed
to BE the United States, which is bankrupt, and therefore taking and using the SSN creates
and affirms a legal disability for the SSN holder.] As said before, People cannot commit
violations unless they agreed to do something by contract. However, a contract may be invalidated
if it was entered into without full disclosure-which is almost always the case in these entanglements
with the state. [The fact that a contract is voidabledoes not mean that it is automatically void.
It is the same as the difference between a void and a voidable marriage. One must fulfill all of
the conditions stipulated in Blacks Law Dictionary regarding rescission of contract, among
which is a refusal of any of the benefits created by the contract.]
The Penal Code sets punishments for violations but it also provides a legal remedy for the
People. People CANNOT avail themselves of the remedy if they acquiesce to being a legal fiction
corporation/employee), so it is important to first gain control of the all-capital letter ACTOR'S name
by means of a common law copyright and remove it from commerce so the state cannot use it
against you. This is the highest form of title one can possess once the recorder's office attaches a
deed number. [WRONG!] With a copyright in hand, a man has returned control of his life to
himself and out of the hands of the state. [WRONG!] Anyone coming against the ACTOR after
that point is required to post a bond equal to double the value of the copyright property before
commencing action. [WRONG!]
NOTE: Occasionally[?], a county recorder will resist the idea of recording your papers by
contending that you cannot copyright your own name-and the recorder would be correct in that
contention. [They admit it in black and white, and then persist in advertising in their fraud!]
There is no way to copyright your Christian name (upper-lower case appellation). However, the
name that is being recorded for copyright is NOT your Christian name-it is the moniker of the
alleged fiction, the corporation or ACTOR, whose name just happens to sound like yours. [Looking
at Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, definitions of Name, one sees that the foregoing is in
error. The name is the name, and upper or lower or mixed cases are not a factor.]
Furthermore, your papers are being submitted to the common law side of the recorder's office which
recording takes precedence over statutory process. [And just were does one find the laws that
stipulate that there is a common law side to the recorders office filings? This appears to be
another unsupportable assumption.] Be aware that a man can copyright ANY of the fruits of his
labor, whether it be from his hands or his mind, and thereby protect those fruits for his own
exclusive use by withdrawing them from commerce and the public domain. [This is another
admission by the authors that one cannot copyright their own name. They admit that the ALL
CAPS name that they are trying to copyright is not the work of their own hands or mind.]
IMPORTANT: Use care in selecting your terms. "File" a statutory term. "Record" is a
common law term. The copyright is private intellectual property "recorded for public notice." [I
have no idea where they came up with their theory there file or record are different by
one being statutory and the other being common law terms. The fact is, that to file a
document means that your document is given a file number and placed in order in the public
document filing system, so it can be located again, should the need arise. When you record
a document, you give the document to the county recorder, who takes possession of the
document, gives the document THEIR book and page number, and returns your copy to you.
They now own the document. The highest level of government control is to register
something. This would include a registered sex offender. This is one of the reasons why we
will file our corporation sole instruments in some states but not in others. We will file with
a state, but not record in a state. We want to control the document.]
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (TCCP) in [illegible punctuation mark in the
original] 1.14 Waiver of Rights, says: "The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense may
waive any rights secured to him by law. If he does not object to a defect, error or irregularity of
form or substance in the indictment or the information before the date of the trial, he waives and
forfeits the rights to object to the irregularity on appeal." So, if you argue anything except "That's
not me!" in response to a presentment, you're dead! If you accept the contention that you're a
corporation, you've acquiesced to being treated like a corporation-and you are finished. You are
absolutely guilty of whatever they say you are because they run the courts. Your only defense is
owning title to the ACTOR'S name-by copyright. [WRONG! Not possible.] Get control of your
legal fiction and then you can get control of your life. [WRONG! You can only win by actual
sovereignty, not by fraud. Fraud, like trying to copyright something that you did not create,
voids everything that it touches.]
Agreed, but isn't that what the UCC folks are claiming, here - a mechanism whereby to notice
the courts that they did not agree to this contract that gave prima facie evidence to the court
of their presumptive non-sovereign status?
The people using the UCC-1 procedures DID agree to the contract and they are accepting benefits
under that contract. They can not have sovereign status as long as they are under the legal disability
of bankruptcy because of their SSN. It is not merely a presumptive non-sovereign status. It is
actual non-sovereign status. This means that the writers of this advertisement are under a grand
delusion that they have found a solution.
The laws of the nation, states, counties, and cities of the land have provided legal remedies, and
those are rescission of contract and release of powers of appointment. One cannot succeed by
making up their own laws and remedies.
The UCC and ALL CAPS NAME arguments do not provide any sort of evidence of anything
other than that the person advancing the argument does not know the law of contracts, and is trying
to copyright something that they have no legal right to copyright. In other words, the court will not
find favor with them because the court views them as criminals, not just that the courts are ignorant
and greedy.
When one advances the UCC or copyrighted name arguments against a federal agency, Title 5 USC
556(d) comes into play, and when in court, many other rules of court and settled court decisions
also apply. The proponent of the rule or order bears the burden of proof. Where, in any law book
or settled decision, can one find support for the UCC argument or support for the allegation that the
spelling of their name creates a corporation with all of the legal disabilities attached thereunto?
Where can one find evidence to meet their burden of proof that there is a strawman that must pay
for the benefits that the flesh & blood man receives from the government? When the confused,
subject of the government [14
th
amendment citizen] fails in their burden of proof, then they
SHOULD lose their suit, either as plaintiff or defendant.
If the people dont want the SSN and the benefits, then they are under no obligation to have the
SSN or the benefits, but they cannot have any of the benefits without all of the obligations.

Do not ever answer to the all-capital letter name. Always object. If someone announces
that they have service for you, respond with "Let me see the paperwork. Oh, that's not me." Avoid
entanglements with the state. You have no rights in any statutory corporation court. [Sure you
do! You have the right to accept the punishment that they give you for violating your
contracts!!!]
Love your sense of humor!
When you cant have fun, they have already won!

[continued from above] You only have statutory privileges and immunities. The
People are the created ones. The government serves the People to the People's benefit. [WRONG!
First Samuel 8:4-18]
First Samuel applies when the people place themselves under a king - a foolish thing to do. Is
it the same in your eyes, however, if the people - "We the People" - instead, bind themselves
by mutual compact to govern themselves?
First Samuel 8:7 clearly shows the intent of HWHY
1
*, that when anyone who chooses any form of
government other than HIM as KING, it amounts to a rejection of HIM as KING. It is no better to
want to rule yourself than to want Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, Prince Dubya, or congress to be
your ruler. How could it be any better to reject HWHY* as your king, just so you could rule yourself
(be your own king/God/elohim), than to desire to have King Charles or Prince Dubya rule over you?
I dont understand your logic. Such logic is inconsistent with Torah, which your Greek scriptures
admit will never pass away. [See: Matthew 5:18-19]
Furthermore, in First Samuel 8:18, we see that by merely participating in that government, HWHY*
will not hear our prayers for relief from the oppression of that government.
Can you find any BIBLICAL (by this I mean Torah, Prophets, or Writings [Tanakh]) support for
serving an earthly government that is not run under Torah law, alone? I cant find any.

[continued from above] If you allow yourself[?] to be contracted into their statutory venue as
a corporation, then you are going to have to abide by the fact that they have all the rules in their
favor and that you have no rights. [And by using the UCC in the manner that they suggest, you
admit to being an item of commerce, and are completely bound by all of your contracts.]
Well, if the UCC arguments are correct, we already admitted to being an item of commerce
with our parents' filing of our birth certificate, their marriage license, our SSN applications,
our voter registration cards, DLs, etc. We are, thus, ALREADY bound, are we not? (Unless,
of course, we unbind ourselves and establish our sovereignty, to do which, I know, you
recommend another method.)
In the first place, the UCC arguments are NOT correct, and cannot be correct under either mans
law or the law of hwhy *.

1
* Hwhy (YHWH) is the Hebrew spelling of the name of the Creator of the universe. Sometimes pronounced
Jehovah, meaning god of confusion, but is more correctly pronounced, Yahuwah, with the accent on the
middle syllable.
It is not what our parents did that enslaved us. It is what WE do. While it is true that our parents
may have set us up to be slaves, it was our own seeking of government benefits that ties us into the
contract. Read again Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe v. Washington.
No, you are not already bound. You bind yourself by making your own contracts or using the
benefits AS AN ADULT for which you parents registered you. You can unbind yourself by giving
up all of the benefits, including future benefits to your heirs. [5 USC 552a(13)] To simply deny the
obligations and retain the benefits is theft and fraud.
There are several ways to unbind ones self. The set of procedures that is advanced in Strategic
Withdrawal is completely legal, tried, and proven. I can assist with other ways if and when one
understands and is mentally and financially ready to go through the Strategic Withdrawal method.
However, unless they are willing to completely leave the earthly government benefits behind, there
is no hope for them, and I will not take my time in trying to explain or assist in any other way of
unbinding ones self.

[continued from above] Once you assert
your rights that you are one of the People, there are a number of things you can do to help your
court case to make certain that you will win on appeal. The Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure
in [illegible mark in the original] 1.27 states that the common law governs. [Including common-
law right of contract, which binds you to their jurisdiction.] If the statutory code fails to provide
a rule of procedure in any particular state of case, the rules of common law shall apply.
Even if we were placed there by fraud and treachery?
Absolutely!
And, incidentally, you were not placed there by anyone other than yourself. You went there
voluntarily, as a bird goes into a snare or a bear goes into a trap. [Proverbs 6:1-5] You were led by
your own desires for benefits that with a bit of gumption, you could have provided better for
yourself. Look in your Greek scriptures in Romans 1:24; Romans 6:12; Romans 13:14; Ephesians
2:3; Ephesians 4:22; I Timothy 6:9; II Timothy 2:22; II Timothy 3:6-7; II Timothy 4:3; James 1:14-
15; I John 2:17. One of these enticements is free public education. You know how free that is,
and what the trap is. The rest of the alleged benefits are just as deadly.
I realize full well, because of my own past schooling in Christianity, that it is very difficult to accept
that ones actions in this life have an eternal effect on ones soul, but I would like to point out what
your Greek scriptures say in I John 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he
that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. The desire for benefits offered by the earthly, secular
government are included in the lust spoken of in this verse. The actual DOI NG of the will of
hwhy , as stipulated in His Torah, is what abides with our soul forever. Obey Torah and live.
Disobey Torah and die -- Leviticus 18:3-5. The choice is ours.
One of the most difficult things to accept is ones own culpability for their own plight. When we
quit blaming others, and accept the responsibility for our own decisions and actions, ONLY then are
we able to find a remedy.

If, from the outset, you establish that you are NOT that legal fiction, then that case does
NOT apply to you; instead, the rules of common law apply. [You can only do this when you have
no contracts with the government. Exodus 23:32 applies. Leviticus 18:3-5 applies]
Agreed, but what if that hampers in the extreme our right to travel, our right to participate in
local elections, our right to earn a living, our right to banking privileges, etc., mainly because
the vast majority of bureaucrats who oversee those functions have not a clue what they are
really administering? (That is certainly true.)
If you lust for the benefit of easy living, in county controlled by a Fascist government, you must
play by the Fascists rules. What could ever make a sensible person think that they could go into a
Fascist governments courts and advance any sort of winning argument that is against the corporate
governments interests? What would Daniels answer have been? What would the answer have
been from Shadrach, Meshach, or Abed-nego?
The things that I did worked for me, and are still working for me and others INSIDE the USA, but
they will soon cease to work. NOTHING will work, once the Fascists take the gloves off, which
will be right after the next OKC/WTC event. Are you going to be inside the USA when this
happens? If so, and you still want your benefits, then you would be wise to burn all of your books
on Sovereignty, and quickly jump to do whatever Big Brother hints that they want you to do.
Would it not be wise to seek out a way to retain those apparent rights without accepting the
hidden nexus that comprises the contract with government but so that we can move and
operate freely without hassle from ignorant bureaucrats?
From a ministers point of view, I would invite you to read Exodus 23:32 and Leviticus 18:3-5, and
reflect on what you are seeking. There is no safe level of interaction with secular governments,
unless you are completely protected under both Torah and their own law. I continue to look for
other ways to legally become free, also, but having examined the UCC and ALL CAPS NAME
procedures, I find that neither of these theories measure up. Both of them violate the laws of both
God and man, and cannot work.
I mean, look, Bernie, you're living in Panama where most of these US issues do not confront
you daily, but does that mean that we all have to flee the land of our birth in order to live
freely and unmolested?
I left the USA twelve years ago, peacefully and deliberately, in a strategic withdrawal, so I would
NOT have to flee. There are problems all over the world, not just in the USA. I face different
problems, here, thats all.
What happened in Europe that made the Jews flee the land of their birth in the late 1930s and early
1940s? What is going to happen to YOU, after the next OKC/911/Pearl Harbor, even if that is
brought to you by some agency favoring Homeland Security enhancement? Are you going to use
your head, and flee? Or are you going to stay and go to a death camp, like the unlucky Jews?
I would really like for you to reflect on the following questions, and ponder your answers.
If you were Jewish and born in Europe in 1910, how would you have answered your own question
in 1933?
in 1939?
in 1944?
If you were born in the USA in the middle half of the 1900s, and you love your constitutional rights,
how would you have answered your own question in 1988?
what do you think would be a smart answer to your own question in the year 1998?
what do you think your answer will be the same question in the year 2008?
Please answer all of the questions, for yourself. I do not need a written answer.
I am a Choctaw Indian, and my feelings for the land that has been occupied by my ancestors for
over 3,000 years are very hard to describe in words, but my feelings for the invading, European
Aristocrats that currently control the land are not hard to describe, at all. I could make the decision
to stay, fight, die, and losing everything, or I could make the decision to leave, seek peace, and
return to the land of my forefathers when the smoke clears and the radiation dies down a little. It is
my choice. Which course of action seems to be most prudent to you? What you sow, you reap, and
the USA is the only nation on earth that has dropped nuclear weapons and used radioactive waste to
contaminate foreign battle fields. Do you really think that a nuclear war on American soil is not
going to happen?
Do you have a Panama DL or vehicle registration?
The answer is NO - to both halves of the question.

You may force them to move the case into a venue in which the common law prevails (Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure [illegible mark in the original] 257 and 259), back into the venue of the People,
to wit: A change of venue may be granted in civil cases upon a motion by either party supported by
his own affidavit and the affidavit of three credible persons, residents of the county in which the suit
is pending. (NOTE: The granting of a petition to move the case is usually automatic, unless some
agent from the government corporation objects under penalty of perjury that a fair trial by a jury by
due course of the law of the land can indeed be found in a court of equity-not likely, since your
affidavit becomes the judgment unless rebutted point-for-point. If rebutted, the affidavit must be
tried under the rules of common law, which must be heard by a jury in the county court for the
People. This is because a remedy for a common law controversy cannot be heard in an equity
court.) For an example of removal of a case to common law court, see: Lone Star Steel Company
vs. Scott. [When you read the note following the old UCC 1-207, you see that this section was
placed here in order that commerce may continue along the lines contemplated in the contract
until the matter in controversy can be heard in a common law court (adding a bit of 1-103:6).
This demands an answer to the question Contemplated in the mind of whom? The answer, of
course, is I n the mind of the commercial court judge. Therefore, when you use UCC
reservation of rights, you are telling the commercial court judge that you are giving HIM the
authority to decide what the contract requires, and you are agreeing in advanceto abide by
his decision until the matter can be heard by a common law court. Good luck in finding a
fair, common law court in the near future!!! Again, when you use the UCC, you are stuck!]

P E T I T I O N I N R E M O V A L
"I am not that fiction on the warrant or information that was served upon me. I am one of the
People and a living soul. I am not a corporation. I demand my remedy in the court of the People in
the county court of record. I petition the court to remove Case No. 121212 from admiralty court
under contract law into the county court for the People under common law."
Equal footing doctrine (under the full faith and credit provisions of the federal constitution
[Article 4]) says you may import Texas law into your state and Texas law will have standing (to
govern) in your case. [ONLY if you are a Texas Citizen in a foreign state.]
Refuse to give your "name": ...The omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or
defendant in a legal process prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction, there being no other
description or identification or appearance or waiver of process. Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th
Edition. See: Boyington vs. Chamberlain, 38 Texas 604; Thompson vs. McCorkle, 136 Indiana
484 NE Reporter 813.
All crimes are commercial crimes with commercial remedies. Penal code violations are
NOT crimes. Prior to 1939, there were four causes of action in the courts: civil, penal, criminal and
admiralty. After the "Great Combining" in 1939, the only cause remaining was civil action in
equity. (FRCP Rule 2, Title 28). Constant throughout the ages[?] is the 7th Amendment to the
constitution, which preserves the right of the People to a common law venue. Any "crime" with a
monetary value of more than $20 attached to it entitles the accused to due process under the
common law. (One day in jail is normally worth more than $20.) In Texas, all criminal action must
be dealt with under the common law where the People have sovereign immunity. If you remember
to avail yourself of the constitutional remedy codified in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, you
discover you do have a legal leg to stand on. Even attorneys have rights under the common law.
[Nice theory, but this does not apply when you have a SSN. When you have a SSN, you are
legally disabled.] In a disbarment action, an attorney may petition to have his case heard in the
county court of record (common law court).
Mandatory steps to taking back control of your legal life:
1. Copyright the name of your legal fiction. [Not possible.]
2. On receiving any presentment, respond automatically with "That's not me!" [YOU signed
the contracts, so YOU are stuck, like it or not.]
3. Find the remedy in your own state statute or code to counter the action being brought against
you and FILE THAT REMEDY in your own real name. "The fiction in which the case is styled is
not Me. I , am really Me, a living soul, one of the sovereign People of the several states united. I
demand to move the case into my venue where the People have remedy-in common law."
A landmark case for establishing who the People are is Kemper vs. State, 138 Southwest
1025 (issued in 1911), which says on Page 1043, [illegible mark in the original] 33: One sovereign does
not need to tell another sovereign that he is sovereign. The sovereign is merely sovereign by his
very existence. The rule in America is that the American people are the sovereigns.
You have the right as a sovereign to control both sides of your life, the common law
(private) side and the statutory (public) side where you engage in contracts with others. The
presumption of contracts lacks full disclosure, but if you don't know who you are you are going to
innocently accept a piece of paper with your capitalized name and, whether you like it or not, you
will be captured into a statutory venue to be treated like a corporation and manipulated to the
prejudice of your own best interests. You are one of the sovereign People. You have a right to
copyright your Capitalized NAME.
There is an insidious aspect to the states becoming corporations in order to execute public
policy. We have grown used to seeing the activities of the Texas, a Republic carried out under the
banner of The State of Texas (a corporation). The Powers That Be may have gone one step further
in the development of the corporate fiction than the state constitution and the statutes actually
permit, because we now see the corporation styled in legal documents as THE STATE OF TEXAS,
which has no foundation in law or statute nor is the all-capital letter name registered with the
Secretary of State of Texas. This amounts to a fictitious plaintiff, which leads to the possibility that
some band of international rogues may have stolen even our de facto corporate government from us.
See Baldauf vs. Nathan Russell, 96 Atlantic Recorder, Page 96 (88 NJ law 303) which says under
Abatement and Plea in Abatement-Fictitious Party: The defense that a plaintiff is a fictitious person
attacks the capacity of the plaintiff to commence or continue the suit and is properly the subject of a
plea in abatement.
Under the TCCP, the state only has the authority move process under The State of Texas. It
appears, however, that today all of their process is running as THE STATE OF TEXAS, which may
prove to be a fictitious plaintiff. This amounts to a colossal fraud upon the People, requiring the
collusion of judges, the admiralty court system, the Bar Association, the attorneys general, the
district attorneys and all the corporate officers who are supposed to be answerable to the People. It
amounts to abdication of office in order to go over to some fictitious venue for which there is no
foundation in law. Furthermore, a fictitious plaintiff is a fraud upon the court because it goes
beyond his or her own code. Every accused man should notice the court of that fraud and demand
his remedy. [Which the court already knows, but the court also takes silent judicial notice that
you are under the legal disability of bankruptcy, and therefore, you lack legal standing to bring
such arguments. Also, the court knows that by virtue of the SSN, among other things, that you
are a Federal [United States] citizen, and the court is not restrained by the bill of rights when
they deal with you. Downes v. Bidwell; Balzac v. Porto Rico; Hooven and Allison &
Company v. Evatt]
The state corporation has co-opted the state constitution for use as their corporate charter.
The label on the front may say TEXAS CONSTITUTION, but notice the all-capitalized style being
employed in the title (subtle hint). The legislative council is responsible for the care and upkeep of
this document, assisting the house and senate in their capacity of board of directors of the state
corporation while they impersonate officers of The State of Texas. Taking these criminals to task
for their deeds is nigh unto impossible, so long as they control all of the courts. Additional
evidence that the CONSTITUTION is nothing more than a commercial charter is seen by realizing
that it may be amended at the whim of registered voters who are voting their interests as members
of the national socialist democracy. Organic dejure law may be changed only by property owners
who are qualified electors, not by persons of diminished capacity possessing social security
numbers. [The constitution, itself, is a bankruptcy instrument (article 6) and any instrument
such as a SSN that puts one into the D.C. jurisdiction disables that persons legal capacity (28
USC 3002(15)(C)).]
I'm intrigued by that argument and have repeated it loosely to others in conversation. Can
you provide more substantiation for it?
You have the constitution, or can get it on line. I am sending the Treaty of 1782. I am sending the
Treaty of 1783. I am sending the Nutshell-Timeline document. These documents are also
available on our web site, by request, free for the asking. I thought that I had sent them to you
before.
If one does not agree that the constitution is a bankruptcy instrument, then can you answer for me,
without speculation:
1. what are the all debts contracted that are incorporated by reference into the first sentence
in clause one of Article 6?
2. what are the engagements entered into regarding the debts that are incorporated by
reference into the first sentence in clause one of Article 6?
3. what prior treaties (before 1787) are incorporated by reference into the Supreme Law of the
Land? [Article 6, clause 2]
4. which new treaties (after 1787) are incorporated by reference into the Supreme Law of the
Land? [Article 6, clause 2]
5. what is the effect of the judges in every state being bound by these debts, engagements
entered into, and the treaties, any Thing in the constitutions or laws of the states to the
contrary not WI TH STANDI NG (in the court)? (You may already know what legal
standing is, but if not, please look it up.) [Article 6, clause 2]

The only crimes, which may be legitimately prosecuted against the People at common law,
are for;
1) causing injury to another one of the People;
2) damaging your neighbor's property, and;
3) violating the rule that your word is your bond. On the other hand, if you venture into
commerce and make a contract, you become bound by the terms of that contract under the Law
Merchant. [They contradict themselves. They admit that you are bound by other contracts, yet
they tell you to use arguments that are not available to you.]
Citizens who obtain a voter's registration card become members of the County Corporation.
You join the socialist democracy when you apply for a social security number and become an
employee of the corporate state. [They contradict their own conclusions, again.]
If you know that you are one of the sovereign People and you have taken control of your
alleged commercial entity (ACTOR), where do you go for remedy? [As shown above, their theory
of how to control the alleged commercial entity is not viable.] The opposition has closed all of
the People's courts. [Article 6 of the constitution, plus the first set of supreme Court rules that
were written by John Jay, Esq., show that the control of the courts has always been in the City
of London, and has NEVER been in the control of the common People of the U.S.A.]
However, they cannot take them away-by law. The state constitution (corporate charter) identifies
the county court which is a court of record consisting of 12 justices called from among the People
and presided over by a magistrate who keeps order and maintains the seal of the court. The
presiding magistrate serves as chief justice of this One Supreme Court, moving in common law.
Notice that the United States Supreme Court is NOT the One Supreme Court, as we have been led
to believe, having jurisdiction only over federal officers and employees in Washington, DC and the
federal territories.
Since most of the contracts which imperil your standing in law were entered into voluntarily
(social security, driver license, marriage license, voter registration), making you an employee of the
state corporation and a member of the socialist democracy, consider volunteering OUT of the same
contracts to restore your sovereign status under a republican form of government. [Volunteering
OUT is not optional, it is MANDATORY before one can claim any aspect of Sovereignty. One
cannot be both a slave and a sovereign at the same time, any more than one can be partly dead
or partly pregnant.]
I agree...and I think they do, too. They are saying "consider volunteering out..." as an
invitation to do what they say.
They have already said that they think that their way will work (which it will not) in taking back
control of ones status, so, because volunteering out is a completely different procedure, then it
can only be an optional extra, that one may consider volunteering out of Social Security. They
obviously dont have a clue about how one may legally volunteer out or they would not be
advancing their fraudulent copyright or the UCC as a viable theory.

Article 5, Section 28 of the Texas constitution speaks to the issue of filling vacancies in the
"superior court" which only exists in the counties. Know what court in which you have remedy.
Apply that remedy, whether the opposition pays attention or not, by creating documents to cite
applicable law and statutes that codify your contention that "That's not me-I 'm not that THI NG."
[There is no government court in which a Social Security Number holder has a remedy for
loss of liberty. Get over it.] You have the right to make dilatory pleas and point out their errors.
What are their errors?
1) That's not me on that piece of paper. [As long as you signed the papers, and you have a
SSN/Voter Registration Card/Drivers License or any other instrument issued by a 28 USC
3002(15) entity, then you are legally disabled and they can do as they wish.]
2) In fact, that's not YOU on that piece of paper. (Recall the fictitious plaintiff that has no
foundation in either the constitution or the statutes.) [As long as YOU signed the application for
the benefit, then the defendant is certainly YOU.]
Don't go into their courts; simply return their process to them with an appropriate notation.
Remember that if;
1) the opposing side does NOT use your Christian appellation, and; [They dont care what
name that you use. They just want you to pay your bill.]
2) you do NOT make an appearance, and; [When you dont appear, they issue a bench
warrant, and are taken to jail the next time you get stopped by a cop.]
3) you do NOT waive process-then they have NO jurisdiction over you. [They certainly have
jurisdiction, because you are a U.S. citizen/subject, and you signed their application for
benefits.] Don't argue on behalf of or against the ACTOR or the charges-it's of no consequence and
you risk traversing into their jurisdiction. The only issue is "That's not me!" [When you signed
the application for the benefits, the not me argument is frivolous.]
The ACTOR, being a fiction, has no capacity to speak, or write, or act, or pay fines, or serve
time in jail. For those purposes, the system needs a real live man to step forward and agree to
become the agent for the ACTOR, thus responsible to the principal to indemnify the obligations of
the fiction (see "indemnifying party" and "accommodating party" in the Uniform Commercial
Code). [The real, living man or woman has already stepped forward and signed the application
for the benefits, using their SSN. To back out now is fraud.]
Again, if what I signed was an application for a driver's license that I was always taught to
believe was necessary in order to travel up and down the highways in an automobile, or an
application for a marriage license that the preacher told me I had to have in order to get
married, but beneath it all was a contract that was deliberately withheld from me, then the
first fraud is on their side. Does not fraud void all contracts? If the only way to do those
things without being hassled or treated as a criminal and I get rid of all of those items because
of the hidden contracts that underlie them, I will have to give up a lot of things that I have a
natural or common law right to simply because of the enforcement agents who will lie in wait
for me. There has to be a middle ground...
We were all lied to about the requirement for a SSN, drivers license, marriage license, public
school attendance, vaccinations, and so forth, but are we going to continue to follow the lies? Fraud
makes a contract voidable, but not automatically void. When you realize that there is fraud
involved, and you continue to participate, KNOWING that you are committing fraud, you are
more culpablethan the public sloth that is behind the desk or gun that is enforcing the fraud from
their side. Righteousness MUST begin with the one who has knowledge. In this case, it is YOU.
In your book of James (who is thought by some to have been Jacob, the brother of Jesus) it says in
chapter 4, verse 17 Thereforeto him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
You must make up YOUR mind, based upon your real, internal, un-feigned religion. Are you going
to participatein a fraud, or not? There is no middle ground.
If you believe that you have a common-law right, then exert that right and vigorously defend it.
Others have defended this right and met with success. There are still people in the USA that are
using the Strategic Withdrawal method of obtaining these rights, and are traveling in unlicensed (by
the state) autos, without a state drivers license, and not being ticketed.
The fact is, in the Fascist country in which you live, they ignore their own law as well as the
common law, and if you want to find peace, you will most likely have to either die or leave. From
what I have been given to understand, the grave is quite peaceful. Your own bible, in both the
Tanakh and in the Greek part, tells you that at some point, nothing that you do is going to work, as
long as you are interacting with the secular government. Strategic Withdrawal deals with these
issues. I suggest that you set apart some time and read the book again, CAREFULLY, three times
in quick succession. You will be amazed at how much clearer these issues are the third time
through. So much clearer, in fact, that many people choose to continue re-reading the book for as
many as twenty times, and dont let a year go by without reviewing the book in light of new
legislation and current events.
I wonder where, in the bible, you find that there is a middle ground between secular slavery and
Gods blessing of Liberty to those who choose to obey HIS commandments. Again, I would refer
you to Leviticus 18: 3-5 to see how much middle-ground is allowed by the Creator of the universe.

[continued from above] The system
convicts the fiction and the live man serves time in jail! The state creates the fraud, but a real, live
man must agree to it for it to be carried to execution. [The state OFFERS the fraud, but you have
voluntarily participated in the fraud. Until and unless you legally rescind your participation in
the contracts, then, you are stuck!]
The military, by reporting to the civil authority, is supposed to come in and protect the
People when the court and legislative systems break down. [Nice theory, but not true. ALL of the
police powers are to enforce the constitution, which incorporates the Treaty of Peace of 1783,
by reference. The primary purpose of the military is to collect the debt for the Rothschilds,
under Article 4 of the Treaty of 1783.] There are powerful forces arrayed on the other side,
whose very existence depends upon their continued ability to fleece the sheep. They won't
relinquish power or control easily. [They will NOT give it up, at all, ever.] Taking back the system
has to begin somewhere and the starting point is for the People to record affidavits into the county
record with copy to the government, which then become the basis for prosecuting actions in law. [I t
is not possible to take back something that you never had.] An affidavit, properly recorded, holds
as much sway as a grand jury indictment. (The county attorney referred to in the Texas constitution
is not the district attorney-it's one of the people.)
The state grand jury can only indict for misdemeanors because that's the only thing over
which a district court has jurisdiction. If a felony is involved, it must by law be handled in the
county court (common law). That's why cases are moved to contract law (equity courts) where the
state attaches criminal penalties to civil contracts. The penal code is civil so that they may take
felonies into the district court. Reason: They don't have constitutional or statutory authority to deal
with one of the People charged with a felony in a state district court. So, how do they get
jurisdiction? They claim that that the real man is an ACTOR (corporation) and an employee of the
government, just like all judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks and officers are ACTORS and
employees. [Wrong again. They indict their SSN-holding, legally-disabled slave with the
charge of violation of the contract that he signed when he applied for government benefits.]
Unless the claim is rebutted, the real man finds that he has contracted away his right to a republican
form of government and joined the socialist democracy with responsibility to adhere to the rules of
the corporation and opportunity to enjoy a perceived benefit. It's all in the NAME. [It is in the
hand that signed the name, not how the name is signed. NO STRAWMAN OR ACTOR EVER
SI GNED AN APPLI CATI ON FOR GOVERNMENT BENEFI TS!!!]
The copyright is your private property and it is your right to get it recorded with the county
recorder. [They have already admitted that you cannot copyright your name.] Challenge the
reluctance of any county recorder to accept your paperwork by citing [I was unable to decipher the
meaning of the marks by the authors, here] 5407 and 5408 of Revised Statutes of the United States, 1st
session, 43rd Congress, 1873 -1874 (see website for sanctions available for non-compliance with
duties to record). The clerk has NO right to make a judicial determination on whether to accept or
reject your papers. That determination would have to come by convening a common law court and
have 12 justices rule on the issue. [They are actually doing you a favor when they refuse to file
your fraudulent papers.]
The legal fiction is an ACTOR, a corporation, an employee, a Strawman-it's all of those
things-but, it's not you! [According to the UCC, the one obligated is the one whos hand held
the pen that signed the paper, which is the flesh-and-blood man or woman, not an Actor or
Strawman.] However, so long as you have NOT staked your claim to its exclusive use, the world
of commerce will infringe on it for their purposes. But, once you copyright the legal fiction and
remove it from the public domain, the use of that property without your permission will cost the
user a price, which you set in the public record when recording your copyright. [Even if the name
is a legal fiction, when you did not create it, you cannot copyright it. These people are
encouraging you to commit a fraud.]
A discussion of idem sonans is appropriate. [It is also irrelevant, as the sound of a name
does not sign documents, and you give up your rights with your own hand signing your own
signature to any document with your SSN on it.] It means "sounding the same or alike" and is
the means by which the real man is tricked into answering to the illegal conversion of his Christian
appellation (name). When a case is called in court by the bailiff announcing the defendant's name,
he is reading the all-capital name of the ACTOR (corporation) which SOUNDS exactly like the real
man's name but is NOT his name. The natural reaction is to respond by walking forward. The
moment the real man enters the bar; he has just left the venue of the People and entered the
admiralty court, where by presumption of contract he comes under some obligation to obey a
statutory code, rule or regulation and that he failed to comply with it. [And when he does NOT
enter the bar and ANSWER the charges, a bench warrant is issued for him, and he is
arrested.] Idem sonans amounts to criminal conversion (contract made without your consent and
lacking full disclosure) that is willful, malicious and deceptive trade practice. [You signed the
contract. Dont try to back out now!!!] The opposition assumes that you will not know the truth,
will traverse to that fiction and will automatically be captured into their venue-and be the means to
creating additional revenue to fund the state machine.
So, how does one avoid falling into the idem sonans snare? One way is to file a petition for
an identity hearing-in advance-to clarify which party the opposition really want to appear in court.
[The simple answer that the District Attorney can give to your question is to say Whoever
signed the application for the benefit is required to appear. No Actor/Strawman has ever
signed an application for a benefit. When you dont appear, you will be arrested and taken to
jail until you make bail or go to court.] This is a deal killer for them because, if they make
truthful disclosure, it exposes their fraud. (You can help dissuade them from proceeding by
attaching a copy of your recorded copyright when you file your petition.) [When they see a
fraudulent copyright on a name that you did not give to yourself, they laugh, and know that
they have some easy money coming in, soon.]
Any attempt by a real man to appear in court is foolhardy. The ACTOR is the one on trial
and he needs legal representation (a BAR attorney) to mount a defense. The real man, not being a
BAR attorney, cannot come into the court without permission and thus he cannot speak for the
ACTOR. Nothing the real man attempts to put into the record will have any effect. The judge and
the opposing attorney will take silent notice of the fraud the real man is attempting to perpetrate on
the court, but no one will tell him the reality of the situation. Result: The ACTOR is recorded as
NOT having appeared and nobody made a legitimate appearance for the ACTOR, which leads the
court to award a declaratory judgment in favor of the opposition. Nothing can stop this process
because real man cannot object without having a BAR card. Even if the judge wanted to rule in the
ACTOR'S favor, he cannot, being constrained by the rules that govern the court. HINT: If you
want to go into their court, first get a BAR card and obtain standing with the court.
Stay out of their courts! Only attorneys can appear in their courts. They are moving by
contract and statute and regulation, not law. [When you signed the contract, you submitted to the
jurisdiction of that court and you are volunteering to appear on demand by the court. You
signed the contract, so dont try to back out, now.] If invited to appear, choose to abstain.
[and be arrested on a bench warrant.]
1. Send their citation back within 72 hours, with an appropriate notation. Wait for a warrant.
2. Receive the warrant and insist without hesitation, "That's not me!"
3. If taken into custody, be prepared to contest jurisdiction when asked to give your name. The
correct response is, "I am me." When queried about being JOHN DOE, you respond, "I'm not the
JOHN DOE you have on your paperwork. I am me. Do you have a claim against me? Do you
know anyone who has a claim against me?" They can't have a claim against you because they don't
have title to you, like they do have title to the ACTOR (unless you have recorded your copyright).
[This is a variation of the Roger Elvick questions, and is a sure ticket to jail. They DO have
a claim against you, over your own signature, or you would most likely not be there.]
4. Who is the bondholder indemnifying the case? "I claim the bond because I own the property
as evidenced by title to a deed recorded in the county." [Your SSN/Voter Registration/Drivers
License number on file proves that you do not own yourself, and that you are committing
fraud.]
5. I own exclusive title to the ACTOR being charged in the action. [NOT TRUE, in over 99%
of the cases.] What commercial purpose do you have for that ACTOR and how do you propose to
pay for the privilege? [You have already given them the right and power. Dont try to back out,
now. The citation is U.S. v Kuball, an Anchorage, Alaska IRS case.] The fee is one million
United States silver dollars per use per issuer. [A legally disabled man or woman cannot make
this kind of determination without permission of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the
holder of their ownership papers.]
6. Resist the urge to sign a bond for your release. [And stay in jail.] You are signing a
contract whereby you agree to hire an attorney and give up all your rights. [You have no rights, so
signing the paper will not change that.] Even if a friend agrees to post a cash bond, you the
accused are asked to sign the bond prior to release. A proper response might be, "No thanks. I don't
contract with demons." [And you will stay in jail.]
Send a bill to anyone infringing on your copyright without permission. Typically, a
presentment involves two parties, assuming an attorney is in the picture, so the minimum fee is two
million silver dollars. Wait 30 days to receive payment and then record an Affidavit of Non-
Payment, with your bill attached, into the county recorder's office. (An unrebutted affidavit
becomes a judgment nihil dicit after 30 days and you don't need a court to collect on it.) [And an
affidavit containing fraudulent information can be used against you in the court. When you
have a SSN or other federal/state instrument that obligates you, you are in danger of having
the courts rule against you for whatever reason they wish to state, and not tell you the real
reason. After all, they want to protect the income they can gather from other followers of the
I ts All I n A Name and UCC-1 scams.] In this way, you are generating paperwork in their
venue, which will eventually be noticed by the bonding companies who indemnify the actions of
government employees. [People who use this approach traditionally make good, permanent
inmates in prisons.] The bond company may refuse to renew coverage at some point because of
unacceptable risk. [The operative word is may.] Without a bond, a government employee
cannot fulfill the duties of his office and conduct his commercial business.
Nihil dicit means that when a party is under the obligation to respond and cannot-or does
not, you have created a controversy, which can only be settled in a common law court (nonexistent)
and that puts the opposition in a severe bind. [Most of the time, the courts are not required to
respond to someone under legal disability, such as an SSN holder. If they respond to
something from these Texans, it is because the court is being courteous.] You can add fuel to
the fire by filing a criminal complaint charging deceptive trade practice through the fraudulent use
of commercial paper and fraudulent commercial process. [This is a ticket to jail, on any sort of
crime that they may wish to allege.] It is up to the court to determine what the criminal penalties
amount to, however, by your bill and affidavit, you have already set the civil penalty at one million
silver dollars-plus. [And the Admiralty court is free to assess the fines against YOU, as you are
co-criminal. Admiralty courts have the power of assessing joint or shared responsibility and
liability for damages.] The opposition is caught between a rock and a hard place because they
cannot legitimately answer or dispute your claim and it becomes a judgment by their silence. [They
dont have to worry about anything, because they are friends with the judge, and the appeals
court judges. You are the one that should be worrying, not them.] "You have used my
copyright without my permission to extort some benefit or money or property from my personal
estate and I am lodging a claim for damages. I have taken steps to protect my estate and you have
used my copyright without my permission and you owe me one million silver dollars." [You allege
your fraudulent copyright on something that you did not create, and they may well throw the
book at you. If you just shut up and dont mention your fraudulent copyright, they may be
happy to let it go, but if you push it, they will hit you, -- HARD.]
Maxim of law: "For the defacto officer to have the presumption of office, there must first be
the dejure office." This means that the government may not wish to use the constitution or deal
with real law-but their lifeblood is determined ultimately by their adherence to the law. They will
get as far away from real law as the People will allow, but at some point they have to answer to the
law because they know they cannot exist without the dejure office being there. So, when affidavits
alleging crimes against the People begin to pile up, it will begin to have a snowball effect. [The
constitution supports THEM, not YOU. Read the entire constitution, including the
documents and treaties incorporated by reference into Article 6, and you will see that the
constitution is a bankruptcy instrument that installs the Bank of England as the government
of Washington, D.C., and the We, the People of the United States in the Preamble means
we, the Aristocrats that own the United States.]
Wow, that's heavy! Some support for that?
When you understand the reason for Article 6 of the constitution, and what it does to the
meaning of the entire document, then the identity of We, the People becomes crystal clear.

The highest form of complaint (even higher than a grand jury indictment) is a sworn
affidavit placed into the public record by one of the sovereign People. Actions commence in the
county court (common law) by affidavit of the sovereign. [You cant be the sovereign and a slave
at the same time, and your SSN or other government instrument proves that you are the slave.
Get over it.] There is no need for a grand jury to be convened and no cause for the police to go out
and investigate-all that's required is for a sovereign to write an affidavit and declare, "This crime
occurred to me" and put it into the county recorder's office. Already, we have seen decisions to
resign made by a number of recalcitrant Texas public officers in lieu of contesting the complaints
made against them. [I have heard this alleged in many cases, but have never actually seen it
happen, in spite of being active in this field of research for over 20 years.] It is incumbent upon
each of us to refuse to allow public officers to get away with their crimes and to hold the truth up to
their face at every opportunity. [The constitution protects them. Find all of the incorporations
by reference in Article 6, and you can see that the people who try to use the UCC in this
manner are the criminals, not the government and the courts. If you want liberty, then you
must get completely out of the contracts that have placed you in subjection to them.] We have
got to start asserting our rights and the way we do that is to take control of the presumption that we
have a commercial identity (ACTOR) that belongs to them and for which they make us the
indemnifying party. [Dont look now, but until you get rid of the SSN, you dont HAVE any
rights to assert.]
I haven't gotten the "how do I do this" answer from you yet, I don't believe...
If you dont yet understand how to get rid of the SSN, then it is because you are still wanting to
retain the benefits, and are not allowing yourself to give up the attachment to the secular
government mammary gland. The answer is in Strategic Withdrawal, which you have, and is
summarized by the full meaning of the legal phrases rescission of contract and release of
powers of appointment. In most cases, it is the refusal to give up the benefits that requires the
payment of the premiums (still bound by the contracts).

When you copyright that ACTOR, you take away their power. [So, because you cannot copyright
the ACTOR, you must look elsewhere for a way to take away their power.] By not answering
to that fiction, you take away their power. [They are not asking you to answer to a fiction. They
are asking you to live up to the contract that you signed.] By sending them a bill every time they
use the ACTOR'S name without your permission, the accumulating weight of the civil and criminal
affidavits that lie in the county recorder's office will take away their power. [By sending them a
bill, you will continue to make them angry, and they will have their police pick you up every
chance they get.] They will have to come back and be responsive to the People. [They never have
been responsive to the people, and they are not about to become responsive just because you
file a fraudulent copyright notice and send them a bill.]
Once your copyright is recorded, you have the ability to stop the progress of cases being
brought against you. [Wrong!] You load the record with affidavits and counter every move of the
opposition. This may not halt the psychological warfare they wage against you and, at some point;
you may be intimidated into hiring an attorney. You do this at your own peril because the judge
will likely order your attorney (an officer of the court) to purge offensive documents from the
records-and you will have nothing to say about it-to be replaced with documents of the attorney's
choosing. [At least this part of their document is true.] A better way to go is to stand before the
court as yourself and to always proclaim, "I am me. I 'm not that fiction or any other entity on
God's green earth. I am only me." [And because you signed documents with the SSN on it, you
will be held responsible for performing on the contracts that you signed.]

The Christian name (title) given to you when you were born is your "address". If questioned
as to your address, it is proper to respond, "You may address me as Ralph. I am Me." "Ralph" is
not your mailing location; it is your address. If they attempt to label you a resident, declare that you
are an inhabitant. Inhabitants have domiciles, not residences. Where do you live? You live in your
body, where else? You SIGN NOTHING that is placed before you unless you understand the full
implication of the act. By giving your name to someone else, you relinquish title over yourself. By
giving your date of birth, you relinquish your birthright. With neither title to yourself nor your
birthright, you have given over total control of yourself to others. Remember the trickery
perpetrated with idem sonans. The cop in the processing section, the property office clerk, the
guard in the prison-are all in on the ruse to get you to traverse to being the fiction. If successful,
they own you and you become a ward of the state. [Dont look now, but you are ALREADY a
ward of the state, under legal disability, and you do not have the legal standing or capacity to
make the arguments alleged above. You have already thrown it all away.] "I can't give you my
name (my title) because then I wouldn't have one. I can't give you the date of my birth without
giving up my birthright." All judges, prosecuting attorneys, policemen, and officers of the court are
ACTORS with jurisdiction only over other ACTORS (employees of the government)-unless you
give them permission to exercise jurisdiction over you. [Again, you have ALREADY given them
this right. Your only remedy is to be a good slave until you get ready to leave their system,
entirely. By this, I mean use the five step, Strategic Withdrawal process.]
Get the common law copyright of the fiction recorded with your county. [If you do, YOUR
fraud can be used against YOU. Reminding you one more time, - the fraud is over your own
signature and cannot be denied.] Remove that ACTOR from commerce. [This cannot be done, at
least by you.] It is the highest title over yourself you can possess. [Wrong.] You own yourself at
that point. [Wrong. Your SSN contract over-rides your allegations, and the fact that you
continue to be eligible for Social Security benefits makes you liable for criminal fraud by
acting otherwise.] You determine who will use that fiction and when and at what price. [Wrong.]
It is the ultimate device for protecting yourself. [Wrong again. Only complete obedience to all of
the laws of the Almighty ONE will provide that kind of protection.] It is more powerful-and
more useful-than a UCC-1 because the copyright is under the common law. The UCC-1 comes
under the commercial code, which may be changed without notice and is overseen by attorneys who
are the fiduciaries for the corporate bankruptcy. They all work for the bankers and they're
primary job is to collect the debt. [To Collect the Debt that is defined in the Treaty of 1782,
is the purposeof Article 4 of the Treaty of 1783, and is enforced in Article 6 of the Constitution
of the United States. When you become a U.S. subject under legal disability of the SSN, you
have agreed to pay the debt, and accept the penalties associated with failing in your duty to
pay the debt. You have already given the courts their jurisdiction, so quit whining and pay up.]
Find your remedy for anything that occurred within the boundaries of your county in the
venue of the county court (common law). [Your lawful remedies are called rescission of
contract and release of powers of appointment.]
I know I've seen that. Was that in Strategic Withdrawal?
I am again recommending that you follow the directions in the foreword of Strategic Withdrawal,
and read the book at least three times, in quick succession. When you follow these simple
directions, you will understand more reasons why it is not possible to use phony methods and
shortcuts to become free. Free means FREE. Free does not mean dealing with a fraudulent scams
like this, that allege that there is an ALL CAPS NAME that is a slave and owes money on benefits
and a that you are still a free man that is flesh and blood. There is only one God and you are only
one man, and the one that receives the benefits is the one that owes the servitude to the provider of
the benefits.
Yes. Rescission of contract and release of powers of appointment are thoroughly discussed in
Strategic Withdrawal. When you are ready to get out of the system and quit wasting your time and
your familys substance in court on fraudulent ALL CAPS NAME/UCC stuff, you will get serious
and study the book. I have been a free man, and out of the system since December 1, 1994. I
dont know of many people, in OR out of the 50 states, that has been in this movement as long as
I have and still has the liberty that I do. I did not get this level of liberty by riding a fence, trying to
receive government benefits, and enjoy freedom from the secular government at the same time.

[continued from above] Remember that none of the People have
rights under the Constitution of the United States, which is a compact between the several States
and the United States. Your rights are preserved by the local contract, which is your state
constitution. The federal Bill of Rights does not apply to you, except where it has been replicated in
your state constitution. Neither does the federal government have authority over you, unless you
are a resident in a federal enclave or become a federal employee (social security contract). [So, they
are again admitting that the SSN holder is a slave, and cannot make the claims that they are
alleging in their document. They are wrong on one important point. The federal Bill of
Rights does restrain the Federal government regarding Citizens of the several states, but does
not constrain the federal government when dealing inside of the seat of government
(Washington DC & its States). Of what earthly good is this advertisement of the ALL CAPS
NAME and UCC-1 process, when over 99% of the people who read it cannot use it, and the
very few people like the writer of this rebuttal, who do not have Social Security Numbers, do
not need it?] So, the feds cannot put you in their prison-unless you volunteer. [and you have
already volunteered, so the authors are selling you a ticket to jail.] One way of volunteering is
to speak improperly at allocution (time of sentencing). When the judge asks if you know of any
reason why he should not pass sentence, you had better jump to your feet and speak with as much
conviction as you can manage; [Read Allocution in Blacks Law Dictionary. It says
Formality of courts inquiry of prisoner as to whether he has any legal cause to show why
judgment should not be pronounced against him on verdict of conviction. You must give them
legal reasons, not opinion, speculation, or conjecture. The court can ignore anything that you
say, providing that evidence of your possession of a SSN, or equivalent binding of the public
debt, is shown during the states presentation of evidence. As one lawyer told me, When you
owe a debt, you must pay the debt. When you have a SSN, there can be no lawful impediment
to the collection of that debt. See: Article 4 of the Treaty of 1783. When you have a SSN, you
owe this debt, no Thing in the constitution or laws of the state of Texas to the contrary has any
standing (Article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution of the U.S.]
"Yes sir, I know SEVERAL reasons why you should not pass sentence!
FOR THE RECORD, that fiction listed on your paperwork is NOT Me! [They did not try a
fictional character. They tried the flesh-and-blood man or woman that signed their contracts.
Fictional characters cannot sign documents.] You can sentence that fiction to anything you
please-if you think you have title to him. [Dont worry, they will!] But, you do NOT have title to
Me, [YES, THEY DO!!!] so you cannot do anything to Me-and I do NOT give you permission to
do anything except dismiss the case and discharge all charges with prejudice! [You gave them
permission when you got the SSN, and gave them permission all over again, every time that
you used the SSN for receiving another government benefit.] Furthermore, there is evidence of
fraud and collusion on the part of the prosecution who has brought an action in the name of a
fictitious plaintiff. [There is also evidence of fraud against YOU, and the doctrine of unclean
hands applies. Under the unclean hands doctrine, you are barred against bringing suit
against them.] This is an equity court and you either move by contract or by title. I don't have any
contract with you [Oh, yes you do!!!] and I know for certain that you don't own me nor am I your
slave. [Will Rogers said that I t isnt what you dont know that hurts you. It is what you know
for certain sure, but it just aint so. In this case, when you have a SSN or any other
instrument issued by an instrumentality of the U.S. (28 USC 3002(15)(C)), then you ARE a
slave. What you allege that you know just aint so and it is going to hurt you, real bad.] I am
a living soul and NOT a corporation or a fictitious creation of the state. Furthermore, I am NOT an
employee of any government corporation. [This may be true, but it is irrelevant, because your
SSN makes you an instrumentality of the U.S., and as such, 28 USC 3002(15(C) places you
under the legal disability of bankruptcy, and liable for the entire national debt.] I am ME.
[True, -- and YOU signed the contracts.] I claim subject matter jurisdiction and in personam
jurisdiction for myself alone and I refuse to relinquish either jurisdiction to you. So, you cannot
fine me or put me in jail. [You say this in contradiction to the obligations on the contracts that
you have signed, and the judge sends you to jail, under silent judicial notice of your perjury.]
I demand to be released immediately!" [Demand all you want, but the steel doors will still slam
shut behind you, just like they have slammed behind so many others.]
Send Comments to wtpcc@lycos.com
Get a copy of the Video: Copyright - Its All in the NAME for a suggested donation of at
least 20.00 to cover cost of mailing and materials. [and pay another $200,000 in lost time from
work, legal fees, confiscated property, etc.]
A sample copyright instrument suitable for recordation will be included, if you request it.
Mail donations: [Cash (FRN's) or Blank Money Orders]
For use on envelope only.
G-Man
P.O. Box 241
Weston, Texas [75097]
Please do not make checks and Money Orders to G-man.
A CD is now also available for a donation containing documents actually used.
All material contained in this presentation is for educational purposes only. It does not
constitute legal advice. None of the contributors are lawyers or members of the BAR.
Consult your own legal professional before attempting to make use of any of this material.
There are no guarantees-implied or express-as to the accuracy or adequacy of any of the
information presented.

Response To ALL CAPS NAME Theory

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Response To ALL CAPS NAME Theory

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The truth about All Caps Names, Common Law Copyright 2006 by A Peaceful Solution Foundation 1

Response to ALL CAPS NAME theory

S-ar putea să vă placă și