I was reading someone's question about getting out of social security and this was one man's answer... I think this is what the libertarian party
leader 'badnarik' has been doing for some time now. He doesn't drive with a licence or plates...
This is long but it was meshed somewhere in the middle of everyone else's questions so i'm going to paste it...
It's very interesting... Anyone who has knowledge of this area, feel free to comment...
I am shocked.
contrary to what the resident expert has told you there is a way to
legally get out of the SS system. What you need to understand is that
there are two nations in one. One being the Constitutional Republic
that "State Citizens" have access(i.e. your constitutional rights) and
the other is the legislative democracy based in D.C. whose citizens
only have access to "civil rights", although they may appear similiar
they are vastly different in that state citizens are not subject to
any amendment above the 13th.
From the 14th on as a federal or better yet "United States citizen"
you HAVE TO FOLLOW AND OBEY ALL THEIR REGULATIONS,
statutes,ordinances,codes,administrative law(private policy),etc. etc.
NOw the person is right in saying that once you disconnect yourself
from the feds you CANNOT ever go to them for anything. The only
exception being the use of federal reserve notes
now here I need to elaborate:
Federal Reserve Notes are "fiat money", that means that in terms of
intrinsic value they are no better than monopoly money. Think about it
in the most basic terms, its just paper and ink. If the fed gov
dissapeared tommorrow you wouldn't be able to buy a cup of coffee with
it. This is very important to understand as every court in the land
has accepted and recognized the UCC(Uniform Commercial Code) which
establish the rules for any type of commercial transaction (anything
and I mean anything that involves fed notes is a commercial
transaction.). The UCC basically says that you must honor and fulfill
any commercial contract you enter into. EXCEPT IF THERE WAS NO FULL
DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS in the contract. this applies
to the government as well.
where is all this going you ask? well for a full and detailed
explanation of what has happened to our country it would take a 500
page book,so the short and sweet of it is this: the federal
government(legislative democracy)declared bankruptcy in 1938,at that
point their international creditors stepped and took power of attorney
over the government. Public Law(Constitution) became Public
Policy(private law) laws became statutes(actually Admiralty Maritime
Law but they would not dare reveal this to the public.) In order to
not be dragged into court by one of the few hundred thousand state
citizens who know better and charged with treason(the constitution
guarantees a Republican form of government) they provided a way out,
this can be found in UCC 1-207.7.
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy
and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The
Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law, you can
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the
Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long
time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see
the Uniform Commercial Code they will show you a tremendous shelf
completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up
one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been
intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to
discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the U.C.C. They
are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever
rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights
by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a
commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say.
"I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!", the judge will most likely say,
"You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of
court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn
to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged
under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction.
For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you
filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the
French government and say "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The
proper answer is: "THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A
FRENCHMAN." You must make your reservation of rights under the
jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other
jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of
Rights under UCC 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say...
"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its
assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an
intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without
prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve
Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4)."
This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have
sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example,
one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the
judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on
his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the
concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket.
He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant
by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against
anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and
he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1.207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your
signature, you are saying, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to
perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not
enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the
liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver
dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative,
so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the
benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your
debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts.
How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under
1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore
obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the
government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge
when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the
court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and
recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library
and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get
the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have
the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand.
In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most
importantly, it is written in plain English.
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in
force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be
construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)
This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common
Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have
had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely
owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the
Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the
statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for
example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you
may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to
'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves
ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last
sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a
rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously
reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a
week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights
before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers'
Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a
Common Law section. Tell the judge, "Your Honor, I can sue you under
the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial
Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the
Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe
this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused
and ask this question: "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has
this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of
the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are
operating under, are not valid law before this court?"
Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the
Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put
this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination." Of
course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge
knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.
I hope this helps on your path to understanding
Link to page
[edit on 26-8-2005 by TrueLies]