Chapter 23: Roger Elvick’s Redemption Song

    At this point in my study, I was a little depressed, or should I say, disappointed. Every person I was learning from had holes in their theories or what may work in one court, with one judge, may not work in another court with another judge. Also, the judges who enforce the system were getting a lot meaner with people who used “freedom” or “sovereign” tactics in the courts, and sentencing them harshly, or holding them in contempt, and keeping them in jail for months, until they changed their position or just not letting them out for a while. This was a direct result of the conference that was held and the solutions proposed and discussed in order to deal with the people who “think the courts are their courts.” (Which they are, it is the judges who think the courts are their courts and they are sadly mistaken, they are only an “agent,” in a “public trust” position, doing a “public duty” in an “official capacity.”) Those courts do not belong to them. They belong to us, the people.  But, since this is what they were doing, and it seemed like there was nothing we could do about it, even filing suits against judges and other methods were being dismissed by the same characters protecting these people, I was getting the feeling of hopelessness. Then I received an issue of The American’s Bulletin out of Oregon, and it had an article about something called “Redemption” and it had to do with the birth certificate etc. I thought to myself, “great another theory,” and only looked at it on the surface. But then I got a couple of video tapes on Sam Davis and Rice McCleod, explaining it, and it peaked my interest. It seemed like a blend of Montana Freemen stuff along with sovereignty material, but it made more sense than anything I had heard so far. It dealt with one central issue, and that is “a claim.” What I found out soon enough, is that this was Roger Elvick’s new material since he got out of prison, and this is what the judges were talking about when they spoke of the “trouble he would be causing” when he was released.
    What had happened to Roger was that, sometime around 1991 or so, he was arrested for being involved in something to do with “certified money orders,” similar to what the freemen were doing, but someone had testified against him in a trial, and he was convicted, and sentenced from 4 to 6 years. When he was there, in federal prison, he studied the entire time, having already had 20 years of studies under his belt. Today, Roger is over 70 years old. He was involved back in the 1980’s during the farm crises, and he has been a farmer his whole life. Having been involved in business, he had intimate knowledge of finance, and also, his parents served in the public sector in government, and he himself, worked in government positions as a youth. In a small rural town in Missouri, where it wasn’t anything like it is today. We’re talking Andy Griffith style here.
    Roger is very knowledgeable about the law, as well as commerce, and it might have been Roger that pointed out to Leroy Schweitzer of the Montana Freemen, that everything was now completely commercial, even the courts. Likely it was Roger Elvick and Hartford Van Dyke. Or perhaps Howard Freeman. There were only a few characters at this early point who recognized the importance of the commercial side of law. What Roger was essentially experimenting with and learning about was the proper use of “money.” The fact that we are the real people, and if a corporation can issue a note, or create credit, so could we, as real people, who should have even more power than any corporation. If a farmer, back in the 1930’s, during the Great Depression, didn’t have enough money on hand, or a cattle farmer didn’t have enough funds to buy his food, either he could draw up a note, or a “wheat receipt,” “sheep receipt,” to trade to the other, or anyone else to get what they needed.  This “receipt” was backed by the farmer’s word, or his “bond,” which is what your word is, and his produce was the product that this “receipt” represented.
    Therefore, anyone holding that receipt could exchange it anytime for what they needed, back to the food farmer, or the cattle farmer, and get what they needed, when the produce was available next season, or whenever. Also, there have been painters in history who have signed their names on handkerchiefs to pay for their meals at restaurants. Why a signature, you ask? What is the value of a signature? THE SIGNATURE IS WHAT GIVES THE VALUE. The signature is what creates the “money.” That is the single biggest secret the bankers do not want you to know.

    This is the biggest secret: All money is created on a signature, nothing more and nothing less. Actually, the party making the offer is the one who is creating the liability, and therefore is the one who is the debtor, and must provide a remedy, or check for endorsement, to settle the matter and bring about closure. There is also the difference on law between an autograph and a signature, but that is irrelevant at this juncture.
     Well, Roger also figured out while he was in jail that an “acceptance” of a corporation’s “offer” was all that was needed to complete the circuit. Everything was now paid in full, and not with a “debt instrument.” The “acceptance” is the FULL fulfillment of the obligation. Well what obligations are we talking about here? Any financial obligations whatsoever, based on HJR 192, of June 5, 1933, as previously mention in this book. The provision of law that says it’s against public policy to make a contract that calls for payment in any particular type of substance and that all duties must be discharged dollar for dollar.
     What does that have to do with criminal law, you may wonder, and how does that apply when I get arrested for marijuana sales or cultivation or some related offense? — Well, another thing Roger figured out is that the entire system is set up to mimic the electrical system of the body, and it correlates directly to the money system as well. For example, the courts are always after your money, right. You walk into court and see a line of “sheeple” all paying their fines and that is what the system is really all about, right? They are after your “energy,” as I explained in the Matrix chapter previous. This energy is electrical in nature, hence they call electrical energy, “currency.” Well, that is what we spend, right? Currency. That is what we trade with “as money.” The courts are always after it, because they are “Revenue collection agents” of the IRS, collecting Internal Revenue. They call them “Circuit Courts” because they regulate the flow of “currency” throughout the administrative system. When you are “charged” with a crime, for instance they charge you with 3 “counts” of sales, cultivation, and conspiracy to manufacture, or whatever, what Roger figured out they were doing is setting up “3 accounts to charge you with a contractual debt.” The charges are “financial” NOT CRIMINAL, but founded in Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The charges actually represent a “bill due” and payable and they are electrical charges as well that must be grounded or “settled.”
    This is not at all what they tell us, but, since that is the only way they can control us, the lawyers have subtly changed the meaning of the words, in fact, they have concealed the true meaning, and kept everyone thinking that these are “real government operatives enforcing laws of the state or country,” when in fact they are “employees of a corporation enforcing corporate regulations on all corporate members and employees,” and when they “create an offense” they are “fined by the corporation,” and held to answer for it in the corporate U.S. bankruptcy courts. When they create the “charge” they have to have a bookkeeping of that item and so it’s on the books of the corporation. This is very important to remember. They have claimed an asset on their books. At this same time, they take out a bond on the stock market (borrowing) in your name in ALL CAPS, for a certain set sum in money, and hold your body in prison, or wherever, or just on probation, as the collateral on that bond. 
    That “set sum” represents a “value.” Now, what is most interesting about Roger, is that since he has gotten out of jail and started teaching this to people, they have come and arrested him 3 or 4 times now, and he has spent no more than 2 days in jail, 2 or 3 of those times the whole procedure took less than 20 minutes, and he was free.
    A quick, and necessary note on “Value.” We set value daily in our lives. If you ask me “how much is my car worth?” and I had 3 of them, then they would be worth less to me, and I would say a lower figure. I have just set the “value.” Likewise, if I only had one, and it was a rare year, make and model, and it was not replaceable, and my grandmother had it in her family since she was a child, it would be worth considerably more, right? Well, to me, it would be worth even more, because of my Grandmothers history, than it would to say, a rare car dealer. So the value varies upon the conditions.

     Here is the definition of “Value”:


The utility of an object in satisfying, directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of human beings, called by economists “value in use;” or its worth consisting in the power of purchasing other objects, called “value in exchange.” Also the estimated or appraised worth of any object or property, calculated in money.

Any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract

The term is often used as an abbreviation for “valuable consideration,” especially in the phrases “purchaser for value,” “holder for value,” etc.  (Black’s 4th)

A person gives “value” for rights if he or she acquires them.  UCC 1-201(44)
(a) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if any of the following apply: (3) The instrument is issued or transferred as security for, an antecedent claim against any person.  UCC 3-303(a)(3)

    It would be good to keep in mind while reading this material, that Roger is not a fan of Federal Reserve Notes at all. He has a “closed bank account,” which is private, and used for accepting offers from corporations. In this manner, a check is simply used almost the same way a check is used in general, except there are no funds being drawn down on. The other way is by using a draft in a certified draft envelope, for accepting offers from the corporations. The main difference being the use and convenience of the “Bank Routing Number,” which I will not get into in this book.
    The reason I will not explain this in this book is simple. Responsibility. People reading this, in their first couple of years learning this material, have no business taking on the money issue in their own lives, unless they want to risk losing their own lives. It is more important for the bankers to keep people from learning about the money issue and how to use it to our advantage, than it is for them to keep people from learning how to be free. Basically, you can go out and live your life, do your thing, grow your pot or sell it or whatever, and you’re not really affecting the bankers as much as if you were to go out and become independent of the money system. Therefore, based on past knowledge and experience, and viewing situations like the Montana Freeman, Elizabeth Broderick, Roger Elvick, Ron Lutz, and all the other busts and jail horror stories surrounding these type of events, I would recommend getting to know the information in this book first, and getting some experience in court, FIRST, before taking on this issue in your personal life, should you decide to go that route. (Freedom from Federal Reserve Notes)
   There are safe options out there, such as “Hours” and other forms of scrip money. They can even be tailored to the individual, but one must know what they are doing and how to deal with them. There are groups who use these and there is much that can be learned from them. One example is Ithaca Hours. Though, this is a whole different ballgame in itself. This is not about the creation of monetary instruments, but the use of local currencies.
    I am going to give one quick example here, before I go on to the next section of transcript excerpts. I previously mentioned Ron Lutz, who was teaching common law and sovereignty out of Orange County. He stumbled upon Roger’s material, and started teaching it to others without a fundamental understanding of what he was teaching. He was mixing things like commercial law with common law and constitutional law etc. He was very confident that they could not touch him, and acted like he knew everything. When I was in my situation, he would tell me, “You just have to raise the issue of Barratry,” and “you should have done this,” and “you should have done that,” as if he knew just what to do. I attended many of his groups and studies. I could not accept what he was teaching or the theories exactly. I grew suspicious right away that Ron was one of the “patriots for profit” that was cheating people because he was teaching things he knew little about and giving them unexpectable reassurances of freedom and protected rights.

     Well, he decided it was time to go out and “accept an offer” for a new car, which several people have done, both successfully and unsuccessfully, but totally lawful according to simple rules of contract and commercial law. Well, he informed several people of what he was going to do, and drove out to Ohio to meet the car dealer. The car dealer had contacted the police, who were waiting there when it all went down. Ron did not follow what Roger said to do, and instead of getting the contract first, in his hands, he turned over a “draft” to pay for the car. The police jumped out of the bushes and arrested him. It was a set-up, a sting operation to take him out of the “scene.” At first, he did what he was supposed to, but then relented and hired a lawyer. During testimony, evidence was presented that Ron never actually handed over the draft because the police jumped out of the bushes and arrested him, and the car dealer never even tried to put the draft through to see if it was any good, which it was. (It was good because of HJR-192, making it against public policy to draw up a contract that calls for payment in a particular type of coin or currency, and he was supposed to be accepting their offer.)
     Now, it would be one thing if the car dealer took the item, tried to cash it, turned over the car, but never got paid. Or maybe, it could be stretched a little, to the point of the car dealer getting burned by a bad check or something but not having turned over the car. No loss, no damage. All kinds of things happened during this situation, but it is Roger’s contention that Ron had a conversation with an attorney, who used that as the basis for a contract, to use Ron’s name to take out a bond, financed with Ron’s name as the debtor, and holding his body as collateral. Well, I would not doubt that Roger knows what he’s talking about when he says this.  But I would warn everyone out there that this could happen if you are not careful, and go out and do things that you are not familiar with. Ron Lutz received, to the best of my knowledge, a 10 or 15 year sentence, FOR DOING NOTHING WRONG, WHICH HARMED NO ONE and NO ONE LOST A DIME!!!!! — Still, they railroaded him, and now his family has to survive without him. Please be careful not to make the same mistake if you take on the money issue in your own personal life. — It’s not that he was doing anything wrong, it’s that he didn’t know what he was doing, that’s all. And to top it off, the bankers wanted to send a message.

     As you will read in this next section, Roger has been doing this for years now, without much of a hitch, even after being investigated by the Secret Service, still he continues without a problem. He is, and was, doing something right. In 2003 they arrested Roger as a Political Prisoner. Today, he is walking free and a friend of mine speaks with him on occasion, as I have done as well several times.
    Still, if they really want to get rid of you bad enough, there are ways they can do that, and there are ways we can make it much more difficult for them, or put them at greater risk, financially, and criminally.
    There are many important points to bring up that Roger uncovered for us. Roger discovered far too many important points to list here. I will list the most important points that relate to the understanding of the process of commercial law and enforcement. Be aware however, while reading all of this, that these are all Roger’s theories and many of them have proved out to be true and in the beginning, many people were seeing justice, in many different ways from all this, but the courts and political system took notice and took actions to crack down on the successes people had. As I write this today, I’m not so sure this is the best avenue to pursue, however, it is essential understanding for the freedom and sovereign minded individual. Roger successfully broke through codes and produced keys which unlocked doors which had never been opened before, by anyone outside the banker’s system. I recommend attempting to understand this without the urge to take action with this information. It’s worth consideration as truth and there may be a time in the future when this information will be more useful. Everything Roger is teaching is built from the foundation of everything we have been learning about so far. Its application may not be perfected yet.
    Barbara, a friend, who is close to Roger, transcribed over one hundred conversations with Roger, which I have made available online for study. These following tidbits are extractions from those transcripts of the most relevant and important discussions.

    In this instance, Roger discusses when it is exactly that Title passes from one party to another:

    Roger: Well, sure. But you’ve got to remember the exact point when “title” passes for the title or claim on that piece of property. See, I had this taken up with some attorneys years and years ago, long before we ever got into these kinds of disputes. Because I was in the middle of an action where there was a piece of real estate involved, and we had to determine the exact point when title passed, because the financial transaction was occurring on the 22nd of December, and we had to know the exact point when the title transferred, because of the implications.
     Dave: When is it?
     Roger: [What] the law firm came up with for me was:  He has a piece of property for sale, for instance, and has offered it for sale, and you accept the offer — at that point, when you accept the offer, is the exact instant that title passes.  You have the “agreement.”
     Dave: Not when you get the manufacturer’s certificate of origin?
     Roger: No, it is the “meeting of the minds.”  Because any manufacturers, and all that kind of stuff — the “mind” had to act on those things before those things ever came into existence. 

    What Roger is saying here is very simple, although many people will miss it completely.  Roger is saying that if someone makes you an offer, say a corporation like the United States, and you “accept” it, then title transfers at that moment. Title to what? The property which was the subject of the sale, or the “offer.” There has to be something offered! — When the United States or the State charges you, they don’t offer you anything. They are trying to get you to pay for something that they won’t turn over to you. Now, even if they charge you with cultivation, they have to give you something in return, an exchange, to make it an even and fair contract with consideration. They just didn’t tell you they were charging you financially. And if they gave you a gift or flowers when they charged you, it would seem a little odd, right? That’s how they do it. They make you an offer, and if you don’t “accept” it, they “accept” your “dishonor” and hold you as collateral. But, what happens if you “accepted their charges?”

     Jean: You mean the money doesn’t make any difference?
     Roger: No, because money — all money is, is the evidence of the exchange of energy after the fact. That’s all money is; it’s a form.

     The money only serves to facilitate the exchange from producer to consumer. Remember what Aristotle said earlier.

     In this next paragraph, Roger discusses the difference between a Fictional party and a Real Party of Interest, in relation to a claim:

     Roger: If we press them to the point to where they are going to have to compromise their conscience, when we bring the fact of the matter to them. It is just like here when I told you about the “three magic questions.” We go into court, and I asked them, “Do you have a claim against me?” or I ask him what his name is, “Do you have a claim against me?” – usually, you can get that far — and they will say, “This is my name” and “no I don’t have a claim.” And, of course, you go on from there: “Do you know of anyone else who does?” and they say, “Yeah, Farm Credit Services has got a claim.” Well Farm Credit Services isn’t a real person; it is a fiction. Now, some of these judges get cute, and they say, “My name is judge so and so.”  Well, that’s a fiction. That isn’t a real party. That isn’t a name that can enter the “commercial register,” because “Judge So and So” is a public name.

    What Roger is saying here is that by understanding your position, you are actually the highest on the ladder or chain of command. We are the ones they rely on for their existence. We are the owners/operators of the corporation. And, he’s saying that they, as “agents” cannot register in the Commercial Register and have a real claim going because they are acting in a corporate capacity. [DBA JUDGE JOE BLOW], which is a fiction, a piece of paper, in reality.
     Since we are in Public Policy, the government agents must discharge obligations like for like as soon as the meeting of the minds occurs with the acceptance for value, which a person simply writes across the face of the instrument. At this point, they now have an accounts receivable, and a tax obligation to the Treasury and IRS.

     Roger: OK then. When you accept the account for value, they have [it] withdrawn from your account. Now they have a “tax obligation” on their hands.
     Roger: When you accept the property for value, they are the payee, because they are in possession. We’re saying, “I accept that claim,” because they are holding a “lien” on the “claim,” and they have it in their possession, so they are the payee in fact. And the payee in fact has got to answer to the Internal Revenue for the funds.
     Jean: OK, so when you accept it for value, [that] means you accept the claim.
     Roger: Yeah.  I accept the claim, and I am the taxpayer in fact, because I’ll allow them [to] pass through “my account” to effect payment.

     Jean: So, when you ask them to release it to you, what are you in fact doing?
     Roger: Well, they have to release to you the order of the court. They have to release “the claim” to me — the money, the account.
     Jean: Because you have to pay it then?
     Roger: Well, it’s already prepaid. See, because I am the principle. They got the money from me in the first place.
     Jean: How did they do that?
     Roger: Well, because of my birth certificate.
     Jean: So they borrowed on your credit, then?
     Roger: Damn right.
     Jean: You became the creditor.
     Roger: Yeah.
     Jean: So you already paid the claim, and you are asking them to release the claim that you have already paid. 
     Roger: Yeah, and you see, if they don’t do it, then we can go and request that the district director file a “Notice of Federal Tax Lien” and lien up all the “creditors” [debtors].
     Dave: It is like when you make the final payment on a mortgage, and you ask “Now I want the mortgage paper given back to me so I can have a mortgage burning party.”

     You see, all the charges are, are a neat and tidy way of saying, “I have a claim against you and you owe me some money,” without saying it out in the open, thus hiding the fact that the whole matter revolves around a “CLAIM.” They are not charges like they try to get you to think, saying they are “criminal,” to get you to think “this is serious.”

     So, once you “accept” them, you have actually “paid them in fact.” Now they have to admit it, or else….This is where they become “tax fugitives” as Roger just explained. The “money” or “funds” they claimed you owed the United States or whoever, they have to admit they have been paid, or they are stealing money of the United States Treasury. The fact of the matter now, is that they have been paid, whether they want to admit it or not.
    Here is a little more of Roger’s philosophy about the Birth Certificate and how things got to be “Pre-Paid”:

     Roger: Because when the United States sold the debt to the corporation that built the car, it was your birth certificate that financed it. That (birth certificate) was the collateral under which the debt was sold to the (government) corporation. The corporation is now the…..
     Jean: The Federal Reserve, you mean, or the United States (government) corporation?
     Roger: Well, yeah. They sell “industrial revenue bonds” which are “Treasury issues” of the United States, o.k.?
     Jean: And, the bonds represent the “debt” that you paid for?
     Roger: Yeah. We financed the corporations to go ahead. We capitalized them to go ahead and pay the workers to build the vehicle. Those workers have already been paid, and they’ve gone home and spent the money.

     So, basically, everything in our modern industrial society today that’s manufactured has already been paid for, when they borrowed the money on our names. Now they are trying to get us to pay for things twice. Well, when you go to buy a house, and fill out a contract and sign a promissory note, then they get you to pay 3 times, because they are borrowing again on your signature the second time, and the third time is when you pay the loan back. It’s thievery at its slickest, and only something the British Masons/Lawyers/Bankers could come up with.

     Here is a section where Roger elaborates on “Commodity Contracts” like our Prisoner Bonds:

     Roger: As soon as an electronic transfer comes in like that, it is going to zero out the account, and there is no debt. You see, that’s what an “acceptance” does. That’s why they have the “Truth-in-Lending” under Regulation “Z.”  “Truth in Lending” is for retail, not wholesale, but you see, as soon as you agree that this is a retail matter, now the leaven leavens the wholesale or the whole bag. So you see, it is all now false under the “Truth-in Lending” as a retail matter, and that’s when the “call”…
     Jean: They have to disclose everything, don’t they?
     Roger: Yeah.  That’s when the “call” goes to the floor of the World Trade Center, to the bailee who’s holding the commodity contract who has got to bring forth the habeas corpus. You see?  Because he is the one who is administering the “fiscal year,” but you and I are in commerce, and we are calling for the calendar year now, the calendar call for the deputy in the circuit court, the docket, the deficiency, and to provide us with the “addressment.”
     Jean: What would be the body that the bailee has to produce?
     Roger: The vehicle.
     Jean: Oh, I see!  What you are doing in effect is, you’re demanding that they produce the “body” or the “vehicle”, and give it to you, that you have already paid for.
     Roger: Yeah. Whatever is in the “warehouse receipt.”
     Jean: And warehouse receipts are documents of title.
     Roger: You bet! That could be for CDs in banks, or it could be for bodies in prison.
     Jean: And, you have paid for everything, and all you have to do is get them to guarantee that they are transferring it to you.
     Roger: We have to acknowledge that it has passed into our possession, and that acknowledgement then zeroes out the claim, so that the corporation has to close their books.  That’s the “closing of escrow.”

     Here is another excerpt relating to the claims, accounts, and funding process on Wall Street:

     Roger: Yeah. But you see, the way they are doing it is they are sticking it into a “hedge contract” in Wall Street. Those “hedges” in there, they are alleging they are putting up their “reserves” for the claims, but they never ever fund them. All it is, is just a piece of paper, but you see, when somebody like you or I comes along, and says, “OK, buddy, put up or shut up” (that’s when you’re reading the Wall Street Journal, and it says, “call and puts”) well, we are calling the bailee to the floor to put up the deficiency on the court docket here and instructing the deputy of the circuit court to call the calendar.
     Jean: What would be the property?
     Roger: Well, whatever is in contest: The vehicle here that we’ve been talking about.
     Jean: Let’s say in a traffic ticket. What would that be?
     Roger: It would be your body or/and the money here that the ticket….
     Roger: Yeah.  It’s a Taxable Offence. (Jean: O.K.) A “Tax” is a criminal charge. (Jean: O.K.) And they are going to be charged criminally, if they don’t acquiesce. But you see, for you, once you have done this and once you have accepted the Bill, you just give them NOTICE that the property is exempt from Levy. Because it is pre-paid. Why??? Because now they have identified you as the Principle and this is where the money came from in the first place. Now you want the interest to accrue back to the Principle. They’ve got to make a “Return,” and they haven’t done it.  These attorneys are all holding the money “in Bar.”

    Basically, Roger is saying that if you “accept the charges” and they don’t “adjust the account to zero” and “zero out their claim,” they now have a tax obligation to the IRS because they are ones with the income, and they haven’t reported it. It is so simple it’s beautiful, and it all goes down, whether they like it or not. They hand you a football, you throw them back a bomb. I love it. Now they have a “hot potato” and all they can do is “write it off,” or face criminal prosecution from the IRS. It gets better so keep reading.

    One of the very important elements of court strategy that’s required to understand is the area of “Defendant.” Basically, being the party with a controversy, or someone “defending” some position and having an interest in it. These are areas to be avoided.

     Roger: Yeah. So you see, when you just give them a “Social Security” number, or you don’t give them ANY, you know you just get into an argument with them, and you answer their allegation……

     What Roger is saying here is that if you get into an argument with them or answer their allegations, then you place yourself in the position of the strawman, instead of the “holder of the strawman” which is the superior position. The Employer is the “Principle” from which all the funds are borrowed. We are the “Employers,” not the “Employees.” You become the “defendant” defending a position. This is an element of granting the court jurisdiction over you. Admitting there is a controversy and reason to be in court, to settle it.

    Basically, Roger is saying in the following passages, that they are the ones working for us, so they are collecting the revenue for you and I, in the flesh and blood, and they are liable for the return of those funds to us. So, when they have made a claim, and we have accepted that claim, and now it is our property, if we don’t have it released to us and in our possession, then they haven’t done their job yet. This could be the release of our body from custody, or a product ordered from a corporation. It’s also the same when the IRS is collecting money from JOHN DEBTOR DOE, and they come to your house or write you a letter saying they are looking for this “person” because he owes money to the IRS. Well, the IRS wasn’t collecting from “you” dummy. The IRS was collecting from the “dummy” you, to return the funds to “you,” the flesh and blood real living being, the “Principle,” who is in fact, no dummy, since you are reading this book now and you are made of flesh and blood, not corporate pieces of paper and ink.

     Roger: Yeah. And they are the ones that are liable for the return.
     Roger: But what I’m getting at here is these guys who are making claims on us — they also have to produce the money, here to support the claim. They have to put up the “Reserves for the Damages.” That’s because you can’t pay something here with money, when you haven’t got the money. Well, who’s got it then? The God Damned “Attorneys” have got most of it. And they are obstructing it. And they are NOT making the “Return” to the “Account.” Because I’m saying, – if you Buddy, if you have got a Claim, then I want you to adjust my account, because I am entitled to “Public Policy.”
     Jean: And it’s against Public Policy to draw up a contract that calls for the payment of “money.”  So THEY have the money. So, since they have the money, they have to credit my account.
     Roger: That’s right. They have the obligation.  You see, because “Public Policy” is “Grace.”

     Roger claims that even though there is a Warrant, there must be a signed Order for the Warrant to issue.
     Roger: Yeah.  And you see, if the warrant is issued and there is no “Order” for the “warrant,” all it is, is a search warrant then. It does NOT have the authority to hold a “Habeas Corpus.”  All it can do is search.
     Roger: Yeah, well, it’s even more than interest here. It’s Spoilage – see? That’s what the “State Warrant” is, or the Warranty. That’s what the Warrant really means. They have tried to get it so it means something else, but it is a warrant for your arrest. But you see, a Warrant is only a “Search Warrant.” A Warrant is no good without the ORDER for the Warrant.
     Roger: Yeah. And that’s “Public Policy.”  They’ve got to exchange Dollar for Dollar between themselves and zero out the liability.  And when they zero out the liability, then you see, the property is released to US and WE are eligible to request a “Release” and get it. And then, if they don’t release the property to us, then somebody is making a “Private Claim” here, and THERE’S where the “Criminal Charge” will go, – against that person who is making a new issue.  He’s a “Tax Protester,” and THAT’s where the jurisdiction reverses on these characters. And you see that Attorney, now, no longer has immunity.

     So, just as the fed regulated every dollar and its geographical location, when your body is in prison or jail, it has to be “accounted for.” That is what Roger is doing, he is getting into their accounting and they don’t have anything to move on anymore.

     One of the steps undertaken when an acceptance for value is done, is to provide a copy of a W-9 Form from the IRS and ask them to fill it out and send it in. This is because they are in receipt of income and must account for it.

     Roger: Right. And I want to see the “Fiduciary Tax Return” then. Because I can tell here and I know when he is delinquent on his taxes, and the reason I know is because I don’t have an adjustment on my account. So I know there is a delinquent somewhere.
     Jean:  If YOU don’t have the money in your possession, because of “Public Policy,” how can HE be liable for the Tax if HE doesn’t have the money, either?
     Roger: Because HE is bound by “Public Policy” to discharge his duty Dollar for Dollar. HE’S got to zero out my account. And when my account is zero, I am entitled to the release of my property. That’s why I know.

     A very important element that Roger gets into repeatedly is the one of “Assumption” and how the government operates on this basis.

     Roger: The assumption of conspiracy or criminal evidence. They base it on assumption, not on fact.
     Jean: You have to rebut their presumption.
     Roger: You have to overcome it. You can’t argue it or rebut it. What you have to do is accept it, and accept it for value, and then you have to cause “the fact” to displace it. Otherwise you can’t get rid of it.
     Jean: The value accepted displaces the assumption?
     Roger: Right. Because it’s a fact now that you did it, so when you sign that Ticket “Accepted For Value,” and it’s laying on that judge’s desk, and you are in there, they no longer have any “assumptive evidence.”  They’ve got “the fact” in there, that YOU are the “Holder in Due Course,” you’re the holder of that Bond.

    This is very important because what he is saying is that everything is based on presumption, and you cannot rebut it, you have to overcome it by displacing it with a fact. That is why you cannot go into the courtroom and argue on the merits of the case, you are trying to rebut their presumption, EVEN IF THAT REBUTTAL is a rebuttal to the money issue or a sovereignty issue or the fact that the U.S. is just a corporation and doesn’t have jurisdiction etc., or to try to argue that you owe no debt to anyone. All of those approaches are rebuttals and will not overcome the presumption, unless you “insert a fact.” The fact being the “acceptance” and it’s known existence in the minds of those who you have accepted the offer from.
    Here is what happened to Roger one time, between his release in 1999 and his re-arrest in 2003. This also relates to Orders for Warrants:

     Roger: See, when they arrested me, I asked them, “Do you have an Order for the Warrant?” and he said, “Yes we do.” Well, when I got into court, we found out that when I asked the person that signed the Warrant for my arrest, it wasn’t for me at all, it was for my “Straw Man” (corporate fiction name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) She admitted it right on the stand.
     Jean: Explain to David, what you did. How you got out of this whole thing in 15 minutes.

     Roger: Well, I had the U.S. Marshals show up at my door, and they said “Mr. Elvick, we have a Warrant for your Arrest.” And I said, “Do you have an Order for the Warrant?” And he said, “Yes, we do, but it is down at the courthouse.”  He didn’t have it with him. And I said, “Okay, let’s go.” So we go down to the courthouse, they proceed to book me in. We go down into the courtroom. I sit down. Somebody walks up behind me, and throws an Order down on the desk so I see what the ORDER is, and the Order is a “Request” by the Sr. Probation Officer to seek a Warrant for my Arrest, and the District Judge signed it. So that was the Order for the Warrant. So, the next thing is, they proceed to swear-in the Probation Officer, and somebody from the Probation Office starts to interrogate her about all the reasons they ought to send me back to prison, and then the Magistrate turns to me and she said, “Mr. Elvick, do you want to examine the Witness?”  Now remember the word “EXAM.”  I said “Yes I do.” I asked her, “Would you give your name please?” and she gave her name. Now I am the “Holder” of her name. Then I said “Do you have a claim against me?” and she said, “No, I don’t.” Then I said “Do you know anyone else that does?” and she said “No, I don’t.” So I said, “No further questions, I request the ORDER of the Court be released to me immediately.” And I was on the street in 15 minutes.

     Dave: Because she said she didn’t know of anyone who had a claim against you?
     Roger: That’s right. And she didn’t have one either.
     Jean: When you said “I request the Order of the Court be released to me,” what did the judge say?
     Roger: The judge called an end to the case and went out and had the ORDER typed up. To be released from the Marshall Service immediately, which I was. And it was a Magistrate, it wasn’t a Federal District Judge, it was a Federal Magistrate.
     Jean: In other words, what they are trying to do, this is actually Fraud, isn’t it?
     Dave: They brought a “False Claim.”

     Well that’s what happened to Roger the first time they tried to arrest him after his release from prison. He waited until the witness was entering testimony into evidence and got the testimony that nobody had a claim against him, entered into evidence as well, and therefore there was no case! Very simple!

     Here is what happened to Roger while he was in jail that led him to understand that he was onto something “big” with the “Acceptance”:

     Roger: Uh, hum, yep. See you can also ask the District Director of Internal Revenue to file a “NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN” and wipe out all the other creditors. Then all you have to do is accept the Federal Tax Lien “for value,” and then you just deal with them.
     Jean: Okay, “NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN,” on who, the Dealer?
     Roger: On Anybody, because the “FEDERAL TAX LIEN” wipes out everybody else. I did it here while I was in Sandstone. I had a guy who came up to me. I really didn’t know him from the man on the moon. He didn’t know anything either. He didn’t hardly know why he was in prison. He had a $97,000.00 Tax bill that came down on him from the IRS and he came to me with it. I really didn’t know how he was going to handle it, but I’ll tell you one thing. You better Accept it. Because, they came with a “10-Day Demand Letter,” either 10 days he makes settlement with them, or they are going to seek a “Detainer” on him and they were going to extend his prison term. They do it to a lot of them in there. I’ve seen a lot of that happen. I told him “I really don’t know how you are going to pay this thing, but you better get a letter off right away,” and “Accept the Bill for Value,” and we’ll see then and figure out how the hell you are going to pay it…. So that’s what we did. We wrote the letter, and then I told him, “Well ask for an extra 90 days.” And I know they’ll accept that. Any time anybody gets these “Internal Revenue” things, and they really don’t know what to do, and if it’s a 10 day left, just write a letter of “Acceptance,” and ask for 90 days to effect payment.

     This next section contains important info. The public defender or the D.A. or the judge is holding a “bond” on you, and it is not the bail bond. This is what is keeping people in jail.

     Roger: The Public Defender who is the Bailee who they hand over the “Investment Portfolio” or the “Warehouse Receipt,” and he’s holding the “Warehouse Receipt” on you.
     Roger: And then they just railroad you off to prison.

     Jean: Okay. He’s a Bailee, and he’s holding the “Warehouse Receipt?”
     Roger: Yep, – Let’s get back to where we were, we were getting into things that we shouldn’t have. We lose sight of what I am trying to tell you. When I told this guy, to go ahead, and that he had to “Accept” that amount of debt that IRS had claimed on him. Basically, it had to do with the Mortgage on his house, $97,000.00. So we wrote the letter, and told them we accept the accounting, but we needed an extra 90 days to effect payment. Well, four days later, he gets a call from the IRS at his work, and he gets on the phone, and I told him, I warned him about these little capers that they use, so they can try and get him in another agreement, so they can set aside the agreement that they have just bound him to.  Okay?

     Roger: So I told him, you don’t need to get into any arguments with them or anything, just have a congenial discussion with them, and then before you end the discussion. You tell them, “all those things that you say are well and good, but we will talk about doing something about those, after you complete what I told you to do in my letter.” You always fall back on your “paperwork.”

     Roger: That’s what he did. He was so naive, he didn’t know anything so he followed what I told him to the “T.” That’s why it was so nice working with him. He didn’t second guess me on anything. He just did it. So now, he comes and tells me about this at the end of the day. Well, now, that indicates that they are serious. “Do you have anything else laying around out there?  Because you won this round….” The only thing was “Child Support” that they were hounding him for $23,000.00 in Child Support. Well I said, “We can look for them to be coming through the door any day now that because they failed in this attempt. No, they are going to take whatever they have got left to use it on you.” Well, exactly 3 days later, he gets a “Certified Mail” letter in the mail from Social Services, demanding money, for Child Support. And it was a 10 Day letter again. So, he asks me, “What are we going to do about this?” We’re going to do the same thing we did with the last one, except after we got to talking about it, “We’ve got the Internal Revenue Service Claim, and I said we are accepting the obligation to pay this thing. That we will invite them to take the amount of payment out of the Federal Tax Refund which was that $97,000.00 Bill that he got. Because when he “Accepted it for Value” he became the “Holder” of it.

     Jean: So he can pay them out of the $97,000.00

     Roger: You bet he can. And we did just exactly that. But I told him, “I think we will do this a little different,” Because we had our hands on some Missouri UCC-1 Financing Statement forms.

     Jean: That’s a Lien form, isn’t it?

     Roger: Well, it is not a lien, it’s a financing statement.

     Jean: It’s a “Security Agreement.”

     Roger: Yeah. So we took that, and we attached the letter to it, and we did the accounting on it, and we instructed the Social Services to take their money out of that particular lien.

     Jean: Did you send them a copy of the lien?

     Roger: Yeah. Well, it wasn’t a lien. It was a Bill from Internal Revenue. It was a NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY. It wasn’t a full-fledged NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN, at that point.

     Dave: It wasn’t “perfected” yet.

     Roger: Well, No. But it did here, real soon, I’ll tell you. So then I decided, we are not going to put any money into this thing, and it’s hard to raise up the money in Prison for these filing fees, so we sent it in to the “Secretary of State” for Missouri, with instructions to the filing office, – to please file the UCC-1 statement letters that were attached to the STATEMENT, with the letter to Social Services telling them that he had “Accepted the accounting,” the obligation to pay, and if they would please take the amount owed from the “Tax Refund,” as done in the accounting here that was attached in the Federal Bill.

     Roger: Right. See, when he borrowed the money, he paid the money out for the property. So that was repayment of the loan.

     Jean: So he just used the, in other words, that was his loan money.

     Jean: The Tax Lien that the IRS had on him was HIS loan money that the government had borrowed. So he just used that – because that money was his. So he used it to pay off the back Child Support?

     Roger: Yeah. So we told the “Secretary of State” to please file this STATEMENT, and then after filing, please send it on to Social Services, for payment of the filing fees.

     Jean: You instructed the “Secretary of State” to do that?  (Yeah) Okay.

     Roger: And the “Secretary of State” did it, we told him after payment of the fees, please provide us with a copy of the receipt. They sent it to us. We got a receipt that it was paid.  Nineteen dollars, by Social Services, for the filing of that thing. So then we knew we were home free. We never got an accounting sheet in dollars and cents back from them, but we got an acknowledgement back from them to where it showed that they had zeroed out his account.

     Now that sounds like a miracle to me! If you don’t think so, or don’t agree, you may want to re-read that last part of the transcript. They billed this guy for $97,000, he “accepted” it, they adjusted his account to zero, and basically the $97,000 bill became his property. Then when social services wanted money from him, he told them to take it out of the $97,000 tax bill and they did and sent him an adjusted balance of “zero.”  Wow! That sounds miraculous to me.

     Not only that, Roger is also saying that when you argue with them, and don’t agree with them right away, you “become” the defendant, when you were an “offender” before that. That is how you actually the defendant. When your name is called and you answer to it, and they ask you how you plead, and you say “not-guilty,” or “guilty,” or whatever. If you answer their questions, you have stepped into their court, and if you are the one asking the questions all the time, you keep them in your court. Never argue with them, always agree, and “accept” it.

    Roger is saying that this is the proper position to take with them to stay on top of the contract or to hold onto your Employer position. An Employer does not argue with his employees.  Only other employees argue with other employees. The Employer fires the employee that argues with him.

     Roger: But we knew they had zeroed out his account, so what happened – this was the first time he had ever heard, in three and a half years he had been in Prison, he heard from any member of his family. He had no idea where they were or what was up. She wrote to him because she was so relieved that he had taken some of that burden off her.

     Dave: She thanked him.

     Roger: Yeah. So he got a report on the condition of the kids, and then I had him write to her and ask about the actual accounting and how much that was really paid. She told him. So then we knew from that, what it had meant. Then you see, the new account number that they had given him, shortly again, for $300.00 bucks. And pretty soon, within two weeks, he got another one for another $300.00, so he had $600.00 he had to pay. See that new number that they had given him. She was still drawing payments, and they were paying $300.00 a month, and they were giving him the Bill. So we handled that the same way.  We just “Accepted For Value” and then they came back on him and stated that he had to report to the Clerk of the Court that imposed the judgment, that the payment had been made. So he asked me “How are we going to do that?” –  That’s easy, – you just take care of that NOTICE we got from Social Services, of settlement of this obligation.  We just signed it, and we kept copies, and we sent it in to the Court, and that’s the last we ever heard of it. So you see then, we didn’t have to even take it out of anything else, because “Accepting the Bill” (For Value) was an offset right in itself.

     Here is what Roger has to say about people running out and using this information.
     Roger: You can send me a copy, that’s fine.  I am just not going to correct it.

     Dave: Oh, I can. Okay, then I will. Fine. I just don’t want to do something without permission.

     Roger: We put this information out here just for the reasons we are doing it, to examine these matters. I don’t mind that. But you see there are other connotations. If it’s going to be represented for somebody to say, “This is all correct.” No. This is my “opinion.” And other people, when they take this, they can’t go and say, Mr. Elvick said this, and this is the reason I’m doing it. He better not do it for that reason, or he’s going to find himself in a lot of trouble. People have got to learn to make decisions for themselves.

    What Roger is saying here is very important and applies to anyone reading this book. Do not do anything in this book because you read this in my book and say you did this because I said this or I wrote that. Everyone has to take responsibility for themselves and if trouble comes from some attempt at securing your personal freedom, try to view it as a challenge to overcome and once overcome, an event in your life which made you stronger, and wiser, rather than blaming the messenger who inspired you to error. Many times, the method was correct and the applicant did not apply it properly. Then who is to blame? Don’t assume contracts when there aren’t any. And don’t act on assumptions based on what others say or do. Don’t misunderstand intentions, either. The intention of this book is to educate, not to activate. If you are activated by this information, that is your own responsibility, not mine. I do not encourage anyone to break laws. I only encourage people to investigate the lawfulness of them and whether or not they apply, and in what situations. I will applaud anyone who is brave enough to stand up for themselves and stop being pushed around like a slave. That takes bravery and those who perform with that bravery deserve applause.

    We live in a very difficult society where criminals have complete control over the lives of average people and some of these criminals are armed and some even have code books they enforce. It’s not safe out there, always. Be careful.
    This next part is a vital concept to grasp. The accounts are being traded on Wall Street and they are “accountable” for those contracts. This also relates to 72 Hour Truth in Lending, and prisoner holds.

     Roger: They do that. They enter a plea for you.  If he’s beyond the preliminaries, whatever he does, – if he gets into the sentencing. Whatever you do here, when he says “Will the Defendant please rise?” At the sentencing, he better not rise.

     Dave: (In background) He never enters a plea, the Judge enters it for him.

     Roger: He better tell the “Public Defender,” – “You rise buddy. You’re the Defendant. You rise.  Get up there.”

     Jean: So, what they do is, substitute the Defendant.

     Roger: Yeah, yeah. I know a guy here in California, and they were not going to give him a bond to bond him out…

     Dave: That’s involuntary servitude, and kidnapping, isn’t it?

     Roger: Yeah, but how are you going to get that in there? They have to do it, and you have to “Accept” it for value.

     Jean: They wouldn’t give him a Bond?

     Dave: They entered a Plea for him?

     Roger: Frank Stamos was his name. They entered a plea for him. He accepted the actions every time, but he did it, in writing, but any time they did it in open Court, and questioned him, he said, “What is your Name? Do you have a claim against me?” And other than that, he just buttoned his lip. Buttoned up tight. They actually held him overnight. But there is a 72 hour period under the “Truth-in-Lending” that they have, which is the Delay. When you ask for relief, you ask for immediate relief.

     Jean: They have to “deliver the Body,” they have to make the “Firm Offer.”

     Roger: Yeah. But, there’s 72 hours, and you know what they do with the 72 hours? They’ve got you, and the account in fact, and they have to start covering their Hedges, because there’s a “call” in to “the floor” of the “World Trade Center,” and they’ve got to put up their “Hedge Funds,” and they’ve got to take this through your account, otherwise, they can’t get them.

     Jean: And the only way they can take it through your account is to get you to “consent?”

     Roger: Right. So, if there’s a good chance that they are not going to prevail, boy is there ever a scramble. Because if that “Hedge Fund” ever, if they haven’t got that money in there, and the end of that 72 hours comes along….

     Jean: They’re in “Default.”

     Roger: Right. But the U.S. Marshals will be on the way looking for the collateral of that “Hedge Fund” within 5 minutes.

     Jean: The “Hedge Fund” is what? The collateral that they put up for the amount of the Bond?

     Roger: Yeah.

     This all has to do with the “commodity contracts.” There will be more on this shortly, but remember it is really important to have a basic understanding of this.

     Roger: …..”If that happens, then you better remember those “THREE MAGIC QUESTIONS.”

     Dave: 1. What’s Your Name? 2. Do you have a claim? 3. Do you know of anyone else who does?  4. There being no Public business, goodbye /or “I request the Order of the Court be Released to me.”

     The first important element of Roger’s Redemption procedure is the filing of a UCC-1, which is now done with a Security Agreement and a National Form, or other Public Notice procedure. This involves placing a Lien on your Strawman debtor, (Your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on the Birth Certificate and claiming the title as your property and registering it with the Secretary of State on a UCC-1, including an Accepted for Value copy of your Birth Certificate, which also gets sent to Treasury for setting up a pass-through account. (Note: This process has been revised. See last chapter.)

     Roger: Now, when we give a partial release here to the people when we go to pay our debts, we’re releasing to them the shadow, because that’s what money is. We give them the shadow, and we keep the object. And then the UCC-1 here is the security or the Certificate of Title that the State holds. They use that to sell a mortgage to a national mortgage company so that they create an artificial principle in the local community. They have a principle that they can draw down on for the taxes that they’ve been drawing down on us previously. See now that’s putting in the artificial corporation that is going to pay the taxes for us now.
     Roger: But if you take your straw man in there and that’s a piece of paper, you tell them “No, I’m going to put this one here in the electric chair.” And now I’ll allow you to charge the account and I’ll accept those here and we’ll have them on my side of the account here. Now you see, and I’m going to give this to the state. They’ll charge it to you and they’re going to give me the item here that that energy has manufactured.

     Here is one of the enforcement tactics behind what Roger is doing. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear: Regarding Prisoner Bonding:

     Roger: Oh no! No! Of course not. See we’re dealing in cycles. We’re dealing here to where they have all this stuff on paper that’s hedged in the market someplace. At the end of the period is when these accounts are doing their bookkeeping. A lot of this stuff stays in suspense accounts of the accountants. They’re using people on the criminal side here to finance the change-over of these corporations. I know a guy here, I just got a copy of the docket sheet the other day and there is 3 docket sheets for him. For 3 different cases all stems from one prosecution to where they’re holding him in prison in Texas. Well when we looked and got to the bottom of one of these for what some of these were all about there was an in-house litigation man listed on there and the address that he gave were the Walmart Stores in Arkansas care of Walmart there in Arkansas. What they’re doing…that’s how Walmart is financing some of their organizations. The guy in prison is collateral on it. See that’s what they’re doing.  When they throw these guys in the can that’s what they use to finance Public Works.

     Here is an experience a man had in court. Roger is explaining how to deal with situations where the judge takes control:

     Roger : Well, we fixed this one. He was going to go in and fire the attorney and I said, you can’t do that here. You just wait until they’re in the middle of something, then at some point in time, you stand up at the most awkward time, and tell them here that you are going to call a witness here for direct examination and name the attorney. Don’t mention his title or anything, just his name. And that’s what he did he stood up, he didn’t give the name of who he is calling, he stood up and said he would like to call somebody for direct examination. The judge jumped up and flew at him, started threatening him right away, and he turned to the judge and asked, “what is your name? Do you have a claim against me?” It was a woman judge, she turned her back to the audience immediately, she didn’t want to be an eye witness and she is the witness he was calling.

     This next section is really important because Roger discusses the 1099 OID. There is a 1099 INT for the “Interest,” as well. But whenever someone comes at who with an action, this is something you can ask to see, and they have to have it or they don’t have anything. He uses this example in the context of a vehicle that was taken, but it applies to criminal charges as well.

     Roger: No, don’t start the extras here. What you’re going to do here is put the letter to him here stating what you’re giving back to him. In the event that they refuse and/or otherwise deny the acceptance in exchange for the item, then at that point they have admitted that they are making a taxable claim.

     Elexis: Oh, okay got it.

     Roger: Now what you want to do is a request a 1099 OID to mark the transaction here as it occurred.

     Elexis: Oh a 1099.

     Roger: A 1099OID now remember that.

     Elexis: Oh? What does OID mean?

     Roger: It means original issue discount. See they have to admit both sides of the account here with that one.  In other words that goes back to the principal account that they rely on here for their claim. So that’s what you do. You get someone to serve it on them. The server requests the release of the vehicle and to return it, physically, from where they took it.  So they better get a tow truck out there to take it back.

     This next piece is for people who think they need to go offshore or create another identity or do business under another name:

     Roger: Well you just need to operate in your own name and know where you are at. You see that has to come together here with the fictional claim.

     Elexis: We have more power in our own name than anything?

     Roger: Yea.

     This conversation excerpt relates back to enforcement and what forms to serve on people who are forcing you to contract:

    Roger: Well the enforcement is going to be the tax liability on that jerk. You can also, after this here, then you request here, whoever serves the paper on him then can tell him, if you are not going to return the item immediately, then I have some other papers to serve you. Then serve the W-9 on them and request them here that because here of your refusal to deliver this into our possession immediately then you are required then to provide me here with a 1099 OID and here is your W-9 request. Slap those on him

     Elexis: Everybody fears IRS.

     Roger: Yea, and it’s not just going to be the Internal Revenue Service because on that letter, what you are stating here, copies to the Internal Revenue Service here and also to the Franchise Tax Board.

     What Roger is saying below, that in order to get you into prison, evidence has to come from testimony from the witness chair, and that is why when the witness is up there, you cannot have a hired attorney, because YOU need to ask these questions, and your attorney won’t.

     Elexis: I know, but would they still keep him and not give him another chance? Because he’s under the impression they are going to keep him six months.

     Roger: Well sure they are going to tell him that.

     Elexis: Oh, but you think 72 hours.

     Roger: They still have to bind the contract on him. They still have to bring him here to where they have the evidence here; they haven’t done that yet. They have got to take the evidence in under oath. Somebody’s going to get in the witness chair and identify him as the defendant. So he has two people he has to be careful of now. One is the witness that is going to go into that witness chair.
     Roger: What he has got to do then, and he should do it when they are involved in something here of their expectations, and just get up and interrupt at the most opportune time, you see. Then notice he is going to call a witness for direct exam. Then he names that attorney.
     Roger: You see, everybody thinks they are going to walk free, but there’s always that 72 hours that they can hold you here because they have to have you there and start moving the account from one side to the other, from one fiduciary to another. They can’t do it when you’re not there.

     Here is an example of a success story and “proof” that Roger is correct about everything he is doing.

     Success story that took place down south. The guy was being hassled by the state for not paying sales tax for his business. They had arrested him in October 2000 and the court ordered him to pay or close down his business. He didn’t have a good understanding of the Redemption process so he took off for another state and worked for a while. When he came back in December, sure enough they were still waiting for him. They subpoenaed him to court. At that point he called me for more help. What he did: First he filed a UCC1 in Washington State because they will do it by fax. He needed a number so he could use a sight draft. He accepted all the documents he had received and filed them with the court with a letter requesting various items like copy of 1099 OID, 1099 INT, who is the fiduciary debtor and who is the fiduciary creditor (the versatile letter basically). And surprise, surprise; they didn’t answer (they stopped the negotiation). He filed and took extra copies to court for the subpoena. After the tax attorney went on about how much this guy owed etc, the Judge turned to the business guy and asked for his statement (testimony). The guy said, “Do you have the paperwork I filed?” Judge responded that he did.  He then said, “Well what does it say?” Judge looked through it and asked him some other questions. The guy then told the judge that he had accepted everything for value but they stopped negotiation and didn’t provide him with a remedy. The Judge commented to him about why he didn’t pay them with money? He responded that would be against Public Policy.  Judge then turned to attorney and said “You didn’t provide him with remedy.” Attorney ranted and went on about how this guy was in contempt of court and what the Judge should do.  The judge then turned to the guy and said, “How would you like to handle this?” The guy said that he had a ‘money order’ for that amount and he could give that to them. The guy then handed the bailiff the sight draft with all the offers attached to give to the Judge. The judge looked at it and handed it to the bailiff to hand to the attorney. The attorney started in it was not a real “Check” and it didn’t even have a bank it was drawn on etc, etc. The Judge than said, “The case was closed.”

     Now, we are going to focus on some more of the solution and remedy. Involuntary Bankruptcy. Something many people are not aware of is the fact that, when there is an offer, and it is accepted, and remedy is not provided when requested, the “refusal” can be “accepted” as a “dishonor” and the accepting party can proceed to liquidate the debtor’s property to settle their claim and provide remedy. This is called “Involuntary Bankruptcy,” and this may be done to the public officials in their “private” capacity, because they have overstepped their “public” duties, by not adjusting the account and dishonoring their oaths. They have become in dishonor for not accepting the acceptance, and now they can be moved on privately because they are now making a “private claim.” The original person to whom the offer was made becomes the owner in equity of everything the person in dishonor owns in their name, and they can now sell it off, or do other things to take it over. Here Roger elaborates on this as well as other important issues.

     Roger: Like for instance here you could take out a classified ad and advertise For Sale by Owner and advertise anything these people have under their names. Because when they refused you they have agreed to involuntary bankruptcy and that means liquidation of their assets to provide you the remedy.

     ** How do you find their assets?

     Roger: Well you’re going to have to write to them and ask them for them to start with. Just tell them the reason for it is, is that you have agreed to involuntary bankruptcy by refusing to comply with the bankruptcy. That agreement means that your property is subject to liquidation in settlement.
     Roger: Okay well they have the funds… it’s just like they withdrew the funds from your bank account. So now they have to provide you with these funds as the remedy in bankruptcy and in the event they refuse you are now the owner of the equity and will advertise it for sale and then …oh and you do it under their name. You take the name and then just advertise in a classified ad “For Sale by Owner” and then list it that you will sell in equity under this person’s name for that much.
     Roger: Somebody could actually go and give you a check for that and if they do you give them a bill of sale.

     Roger: The attitude is …”I’ve accepted all your offers you have made to me and I want it returned to me now as a remedy because you didn’t provide one. In the event you refuse to do this I will accept your dishonor for value and in that event you will have then, since you have refused to volunteer into the bankruptcy remedy then you have agreed in the alternative to the involuntary bankruptcy and now you’re property is subject to be taken for liquidation of your assets to provide me settlement of this account.” That’s basically the position we go into… See that’s what equity is. (But be careful what you write them in a letter, so it isn’t viewed as a threat of any kind.  DO NOT write them a letter like Roger just described. It appears too threatening, and Roger had a small problem for something similar to this.)

     Roger comments on liquidating an involuntary bankruptcy.

     Roger: No, see the person that buys it you give them a bill of sale. The person that has the bill of sale will then go to the sheriff to claim the property if it is not relinquished. The buyer has the check and bill of sale. That’s enough for the sheriff. That buyer than becomes the “holder in due course.” 
     Roger: Right but see if you own real estate or some of the buildings that they have and you do this, …let’s say you have an attorney doing this and the building they use as their offices and you take the property descriptions of that particular building and you offer it for say and they can holler all they want that they have legal title but you’re holding equitable title. You don’t care what’s on title at the court house. This is equitable and there might be others that have a grievance against these jerks. They might come in and say I’ll bid this much for the property they may love having a sale like this.

     Roger: Just go find out where his house is and then you’ll get some results. Tell them you have an equitable interest now on his property and if he fails to deal with you then you are going to proceed with an equitable sale of his property. Then advertise it for sale. Put an ad in the paper.  See as soon as you sell it to somebody you just give them a bill of sale. Once that guy has got a bill of sale and you register the stuff then he is the innocent holder in due course. He can go to sheriff now and have the sheriff do the eviction.  If they have a business… just take the building and if the Secretary of State gets cute well just go down take the description off the court house and put it up for sale.
     Roger: Well you can or you can actually take their automobile or their house and go and list it with a realtor. Then you can borrow the money on it. See just borrow money on it right away here. If you ever took and listed it for sale at that point then the lender would lend you the money as long as it’s up for sale. See that’s the way you take it. Anybody that wants to know is that your house … Damn right it is, and you don’t give them any reason why because that is private business….
     Roger: Well see they can volunteer to take it here. That’s no problem for them. But you see they get cute. Some of these guys think they are really Casanovas and they can do what they want. Now when they do it they risk losing everything they have in their name. See they don’t own any equity if they owe somebody something. If they owe us and they admit it now you see what they’ve done is open themselves up for personal liquidation.

     ** That’s exactly what this lady did to me.

     Roger: Yes… all you have to do is learn that they did it to us! Now we’re going to use the same rules and do it to them. Except you see, they didn’t have a legitimate claim, they assumed they did. The difference we have now is we have the claim in fact. As a matter of fact… they didn’t. They were operating in fraud and you see they don’t have anywhere to go.

     A little more on the “Involuntary Bankruptcy Process”: Make sure “good and valuable consideration” is written into the purchase agreement.

     **: Okay, so I’m going to sell Joe IRS agent’s car and I’m selling the equity in that and give the buyer a bill of sale and give them an address of where to go pick up the car or tell them to contact DMV?

     Roger: Sure just give them the address of where to pick the car up and if you sell it you can also sell it for $50 plus good and valuable consideration. See now the good and valuable consideration is nobody’s business. Now you have a friend of yours purchase this equity or equitable interest in this property and that supersedes the legal title.

     Here is some background on Roger and his history and experience:

     Roger: Well because you see I was involved in it when I was on my farm.  I grew up in a rural community. I was on the township board.  We’d conduct the polls… close the polls… count the votes… seal them and haul them to the county auditor. Things like that. My Dad he was a county manager for 35 years. He also did other things for the organization for all federal funds to come into the local venue.

     **: Through the state?

     Roger: Comes in through the ASCS – Agricultural State Conservation Service. I think they call it something else now. Because you’re banks can’t even get funded unless they are holding surplus treasury bonds and the surplus treasury bonds had to be given value by municipal funds. So, even the treasuries here are not an original amount of money. It had to of been funded by a municipal.

     Here, Roger comments on the Strawman and its purpose:

     *** How do they collect through your straw man?

     Roger: They have to use that name because you have to tell them it’s for my benefit that these fiduciaries are operating. They can’t possess anything in their own name…in their titles. They have to possess or function their accounts for the benefit of the owner.
     **: It’s a 50/50 cause they are going to do what they do. I guess it depends on the judge.

     Roger: You see when I see that some of these people have done everything correctly and we can’t see where there’s any discrepancy and they’ve been taken into custody. See some of these people are held in prison but only held part way in. They’re not in general population and things like that. So we know they are still shopping for the means there to finish them off.  They don’t have that because they’ve been taken into custody but you see what they are doing is… they are doing the same thing we are… They are TAKING delivery. When they do it they are holding people in secret. In other words nobody can find out what is the basis of the arrest.

     **: Right, like Ron Lutz. Have you heard that he, this is rumor only, he got 10 years?

     Roger: No I haven’t heard that. Okay Ron had an attorney that called here. I wasn’t here but I’ll give him a call tomorrow. What I see that’s happening from other cases … see when a warrant is issued, then there has to be a booking. There has to be an order for the warrant… That’s the money order you can accept and return. So when they are using a warrant as a basis for arrest, well then an acceptance will work pretty well. But if they don’t use it and simply come and take you into custody in secret then you see they hold you indefinitely because nobody can get in and find out who the holder is. Well that’s when I think the only way we can move at them is you move to take them into Involuntary Bankruptcy. You can’t get by with the acceptance. That is because they’ve already dishonored you. Now it’s a matter of a power play to “TAKE” the equity.

     Roger has stated repeatedly that we must be “identified” as the “principle” even to the point of the booking in jail, as the way to identify you as the principle. Roger knows what he is talking about. He went through it himself. As you will soon see, he figured everything out.
    Here, Roger identifies a new technique they are using to scare people and make them think this isn’t working:

     Roger:  That’s the guy you need to get on a draft and make the deposits. For her it’s easiest for her to go on the auto. She spent a lot of time finding property descriptions. She can sign his name and that, she’ll have his permission to do it, I’m sure. Do it that way that’s the way he can bring them face to face with themselves. When they’re in custody like that and you can’t get to any other procedures or anything. He was even thinking about an appeal. How is he going to appeal? … he hasn’t even got a legitimate arrest. He is still in custody… he is not out in the general population of the prison…

     **: Well I think because they went through a trial and then they were sentenced to 3 years…

     Roger: It is not legitimate proceedings… they went through that as if it were but it is not. Otherwise they would have to have him in the general prison population already and they don’t. So you see they go through all those motions hoping you’re going to capitulate along the line. Then if you do, well this was the sentence all along. So they (those in captivity) are going to have to take the equity.

      I just thought I would throw this one out there to show you how much of a Freeman Roger Elvick really is. The Treasury Department was investigating him because he is using his own money, not federal reserve notes, he accepts offers from the corporations and forces them to turn over the property, or the object of their offer. So the Secret Service visited him and a Grand Jury was looking into his affairs in mid-2001.  Here are a couple sentences relating what happened.

     ** Hi R, won’t keep you just wanted to see how everything went with you yesterday with the grand jury.

     Roger: Oh it went okay. They’re trying to tell me –You can’t buy stuff without money. I said, “I know. There isn’t any money!” You see I just had to hold their nose and give them some castor oil. (chuckles)

     **: So you talked about some of this stuff?

    Roger: Yeah, I gave them 300 drafts and pretty soon they didn’t want to call them sight drafts.  They thought they could call them something else. Yeah, my own business authorizations, that’s what they’re called!
     **: You gave them 300 drafts that you’ve used…sent out. Different ones that you’ve sent out?!
     Roger: Yeah… Ones that I’ve used and not only that but the correspondence that I used with them so you can identify the drug dealers (Roger uses this term to describe people who use cash that is unaccounted for, and not redeemed – This is also based on the IMF description of people who are in the public) on the other end.

     ** The ones that would not adjust their books on the other end?

     Roger: Right!  And I told them “Now you see you guys are catching them delivering the property into the hands of the confederates. You better go to work on it because I’m filing involuntary bankruptcy action that is going to follow this up here if you don’t get it done.”

     ** On them or their organization?

     Roger: The organization of the people that are listed in there. I told them, “You guys are my bankers now, you better get busy.”

     ** What were their faces like when you were telling them that?

     Roger: Well I mean I had to be nice, but when they started their strong arm tactics I finally turned to him… See he didn’t want to hear…. He tried to discourage me from the involuntary bankruptcy.  He was saying things like “Oh! Are you threatening me?” and oh boy he backed down right away. I told him, in fact I gave it to him in writing that “This isn’t a formal notice to you but this is what I was figuring on doing that if you guys want to get cute with me. That badge that you guys showed me is…is just a cheap disguise.” That’s a treasury agent badge. “It is just a cheap disguise that I don’t appreciate. You’re dealing with the Prince of Peace here.”  That means I’m suing them for peace.

    ** Wow, what were their faces like at that point when you told them they couldn’t hide?

     Roger: It went on from about 9:00 in the morning until about 1:30 in the afternoon. We didn’t even stop for lunch… nothing.

     ** Was one an agent and one a supervisor or…

     Roger: No they were both agents. They have to be special… they can’t deal here with grand jury. But you see, what they are, they are actually bankers. They are taking handwriting exemplars, voice exemplars, photograph exemplars and fingerprints. That’s what they have to have to identify my authorizing something to come in to the treasury.

     ** Oh..Oh… So you gave those to them?

     Roger: Hell yes I gave them to them. They’ve got to have them to identify me.

     ** Oh so they now know for a fact who the principal is… in fact?

     Roger: Darn right they do! They had better be doing their homework because otherwise the action is coming.

     ** Wow! Okay so they were actually intimidated by the concept of the bankruptcy of these other organizations?

     Roger: Oh yeah.  I could tell that. They had all they could do there… see they are all so entrenched in their old interrogation methods that they had a hard time holding back from it. I kinda let a little of it slip because of that. When they thought that maybe I wasn’t on top of it here I had to remind them.

     ** Did you let them know in essence that it was your procedure that was taking place?

     Roger: Right and when it got to those drafts you see. When he didn’t want to start calling them drafts I said, “Hey Buddy, these are the tools that I do my private business with.  I had these printed… I had to take them back and proof read them and change them two or three times before we got the final draft.” Then he said, “Well how did you pay for them?” I said, “I paid for them with a credit card.”  So you see… they are all batting zero here. They are trying to find a source of money here outside of something …
         ** and you let them know what is going to happen to them with their own process…

     Roger: Right, cause if they are not volunteering in bankruptcy, they’re telling me I’m here voluntarily. They made a big point out of that.

     ** There wasn’t a warrant for your arrest?

     Roger: No, no. But you could ask “What about you guys?” You threatening me? You mean to say a threat is they are not volunteering. If you are not volunteering, you are making a claim and you’re going in there with the rest of the boys. And they know where they’re headed. I told them here also they can’t hide behind that badge. I could put them into involuntary bankruptcy and the US Marshals could liquidate all of their personal assets.

     ** So you are going after them personally?

     Roger: Oh yeah.

     Here is another one of the tactics they could use if they get desperate: They did this to Roger, but fortunately, there may be solution for this. See final chapter:

     ** Hi just a quick question about yesterday in court with R** and also with K*, they are putting them through a psychiatric evaluation. When they are required to go through that should they be talking and cooperating or stay mute? Now R** said that is private information and now they said they are going to hold him for 90 days and put him through a whole psychiatric series and they will be doing other things, which I’m sure it is more just threat.
      Roger: Where they are going to give him a mental evaluation…. Well that evaluator that is going to administer that exam is probably going to be a holder of that particular account or they are passing it to him. So you see he needs to be included on there… that this request applies to all the assignors, assignees and the holders.

     When you need help finding their property and getting their SS numbers, just call: 1-888:

     Roger: Well I haven’t either, but what I was going to give you before I forget it. I forgot this thing before. I’ve got a phone number of an outfit that can get social security numbers and property descriptions. But you see I think it is just somebody that’s in business to do this so they charge for it but I got the phone numbers from some people that are using them.

     ** Well shucks it is worth it if you can get the information and they know what they are doing.

     Roger: Yeah.  Okay it’s called Asset Finders and I think it is in Texas. 1.888.729.8976. I’ve never called them but I just happen to get that yesterday.

     Here, Roger talks about a central “key” issue of why people go to jail. They never actually get charged, until they plead, then they are charged, and the crime has already been plead to. It took some time to see that this is what they are doing to us.

     *** See it’s like that form 9132 that mentioned earlier. That isn’t the one that is the equity notice is it?

     Roger: I don’t really know. I don’t know what the specifics are. I just know there has been some reason to use these because those would be the forms the Internal Revenue uses and that’s how they’re used to take and commence a drug action. In other words, they’re reporting the substance here that they use to prosecute a case. So some of this stuff they use here, these so called licenses, to continue to march ahead and here sets the charge. Because here is the problem….when they come and threaten you with charges, what you need to do is tell them, “Yeah, give me the charges so I can take it accept it and return it for settlement.” Accept it and return it for settlement. Okay?

     *** Yeah.

     Roger: But they never give you the charges, because if you get the charge then you can make the settlement. So everybody goes to jail for the absence of charges.

    In case anyone is thoroughly confused at this point, so allow me to clarify a couple things here. Roger is saying that since there is no real claim, they are charging us financially, but since there is no offer to charge us for, they even fake that and we answer to fictional charges which then become real once we answer to them. It is certainly twisted, but it also makes perfect sense once you understand the history of law and court cases in this country like I have pointed out in this book.

     Now, is when things pick up and get even more interesting. A new investigation into Roger Elvick, followed by a new arrest, and subsequent release with the result that ALL charges were dropped and the “bond discharged.” A whole new procedure emerged for dealing with things from the get-go. This occurred in March 2002.

     Roger: Yeah, any of them that get out of line because you see they are operating in debt money and as soon as we charge that particular parcel, bang, the debts are removed. They don’t have a claim on any of the property that’s in question. When they electronically charge your check you see, that then discharges the debt claim. It goes to zero. See it’s just like here… When I went up and paid the taxes on my property, eventually the state’s attorney got around to threatening me with a warrant. And he probably did issue it. At least he wrote me a letter and told me he did. … He was charging me with writing a check without an account.

     Roger: They may have had to have a strawman somewhere along the line, but you see that was the first indictment, but the second indictment that was superseded. See they brought an indictment on me but couldn’t get an arrest warrant for me to start with so it was just through some of these private things that they did so they could get a so called arraignment so they could do whatever they had to do but you see I reported them all to the internal revenue service on a 4789 form. So then the marshals came to the U.S. Attorney looking for the money and they didn’t have it. (chuckles)
     Roger: Well then later on you see, when I didn’t appear up there cause it was a long ways for me to go and he didn’t make it imperative that I be there. It just stated you can appear on such and such date at this court if you would. So it being a class A misdemeanor.
     ** And he probably has the attitude that he’s going to get you either way…

     Roger: Probably but you see I’m out of state and he couldn’t go outside of the county with the warrant he had. Even if he gets a bench warrant he can’t come outside the state. He hasn’t got an extraditable offense.

     ** Now where was your property?… it wasn’t in Minnesota?

     Roger: No….no it was up in North Dakota. So anyway what happened I let the 10 days run out. See that’s basically the same as a 10 day letter. Those warrants are only good for about 10 days.

     ** From what I understand, all warrants are only good for 10 days.

     Roger: Yeah, but see when the 10 days run out that’s the day he went in and went before the judge and got a failure to appear bench warrant.   Now you see it’s not voluntary. But you see
the whole thing is based on appearance.
     Roger: So I went up to a funeral and after the funeral they invited me down to a local bar and as soon as I went into the bar the whole street filled with squad cars. It was a set up. So then we just proceeded. I just really submitted to the arrest without any games because I knew at that point when I was talking to the arresting officer it was a special team sent in from the state on the criminal apprehension division. See because the guys in the county don’t have the ability to serve a warrant like that.

     ** Wow….

     Roger: See they do a lot of implied things here when they don’t have a lot of authority to start with, especially when it’s based on a misdemeanor.
     Roger: Well it’s the implied this and the implied that. You listen real close now because this is what we’ve been lacking all along. All of this offer and acceptance and return balances only one side of the account. We had someone out east the federal judge told this lady that. He said you had done that successfully but you only balanced one side of the account. See by the time that news got back to me I already knew why because of the incident that I ran into.

     ** Oh… okay

     Roger: So now what we’re coming up to is the balance of other side of the account now.

Pages 278, 279, 280, 281, 282 Not Included in Free Version – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.

Chapter 24