Page 1 of 24

What do you think you are doing ?

Disclaimer: Nothing in this white paper is to be construed as legal advice. The reader should go to a law library and check every fact and citation for themselves, and form your own conclusions. The reader should get assistance of counsel, if you think you need it.

Page 2 of 24

Question: So, how can 1) a native of one of the

several States of the Union, a Sovereign Man or Woman,

2) living on the soil of one of the several States of the

Union, be induced to part with or

be separated from their Constitution, Laws

pursuant thereto, all of their unalienable Rights, and their very Citizenship?

Page 3 of 24

Or, in other words, to become [a] subject to the

exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress?

Page 4 of 24

Answer:

By becoming a party to a commercial transaction!

In a commercial

transaction, the Uniform Commercial Code governs,

not the Constitution or Laws pursuant to the

Constitution.

Page 5 of 24

The Problem:

The problem today is, 100% of your conduct is

presumed to be commercial.

This Problem can become

real in two ways; with three steps of history, and one act of your conduct:

Page 6 of 24

History Step 1: complete Power in Congress:

In the Constitution, Article I, Section 8,

clause 3 states:

“Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate commerce

. . . among the several States”,

in other words, interstate commerce.

Page 7 of 24

Step 2: interstate commerce was extended to intrastate

activity

In the case of U.S. v. Wrightwood Dairy Co.,

we see:

The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. citing Gibbons

v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 197 (A.D. 1824) It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power. U.S. v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110,

119 (A.D. 1942) (emphasis added)

Page 8 of 24

Page 9 of 24

Page 10 of 24

Step 3: interstate commerce extended to wholly private

activity

In the case of Wickard v. Filburn, we see:

During the Great Depression, Congress passed the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production.

The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the

amount of wheat produced. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted and was subjected to

penalty under the Act. Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm (feed for poultry and livestock, making

Page 11 of 24

flour for home consumption, and keep the rest for the following seeding), it never entered commerce at all,

much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the

Commerce Clause.

The Court held that: “It can hardly be denied that . . . home-consumed wheat

would have a substantial influence on [commercial] price and market conditions. . . . [I]f we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who

grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in

this sense competes with wheat in commerce.” Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Thus, home-grown and

home-consumed wheat “affects” commerce because the man did not have to purchase wheat commercially!

Page 12 of 24

Page 13 of 24

Page 14 of 24

OR, by an act of conduct, you can place yourself in commerce in a technical

legal way by abandoning gold and silver as money, and by making a use of “commercial” negotiable

instruments (Federal Reserve Notes)

as currency.

Page 15 of 24

Be aware that Article I, Section. 10,

Clause 1 of the Constitution states, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold

and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”.

When the People allow this to be taken away, what is

left is “The Problem”.

This was done by 3 events:

Page 16 of 24

Event 1: Gold was removed from circulation as money in

1933.

Page 17 of 24

Page 18 of 24

Page 19 of 24

Event 2: The Uniform Commercial Code was enacted in 1963 and became effective in

1965.

The UCC is “intended” to operate (and supplant the common law for a given

transaction) in circumstances where it is

applicable.

Page 20 of 24

Page 21 of 24

UCC 1-105 provides that “the parties may agree” to choose the applicable law,

and that “failing this agreement this Act applies

to transactions . . .”.

And so, without an express pre-agreement between the parties, the UCC will apply.

Do you make pre-agreements specifying

choice of law and money?

Page 22 of 24

Page 23 of 24

Event 3:

At the same time the UCC was adopted in the District of Columbia, Silver was

withdrawn from circulation as money in 1965.

Today, banks only emit Federal Reserve Notes.

Page 24 of 24

And so, without gold and silver, and with the default

feature of UCC applicability, transactions

are presumed to be commercial, and you are

trapped into the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress by your silence

and by your conduct.