Commercial Redemption Rejected as Valueless


Commercial Redemption Rejected as Valueless

by Gregory Allan

Permission to copy granted, if reproduced without editing the content.

Offered in the Name of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour

Jesus, the Christ, King of kings, this first day of the ninth month, in the year of Our King, nineteen hundred ninety-nine:

A new "law process" is making the rounds. It is known as Commercial Redemption, hereinafter referred to as "CR." If you read "patriot" literature, surf the Internet, or belong to a militia or jural society, then you very likely have heard about it. I have read its praises, read the manuals, and sat through at least fifteen hours of seminars. Just as the Holy Scriptures admonish us to post warnings near an open-pit, I have written this report to explain why I believe that CR is a fraud and a trap. Anyone who does not agree with my conclusions is welcome to please offer constructive criticism, provided he has the courtesy to first read this report carefully, all the way through.


Before I proceed with the body of this report, I need to lay some groundwork. It is very important in conveying ideas, that everyone speak the same language. The following definitions are my own, you won't find them just as you see them here, in any dictionary. Using numerous dictionaries, and through my studies and prayers, I have distilled them into their underlying meanings, as I see them:

Abandoned: Any thing to which no one will claim a right.

Acceptance: An oath, whereby one agrees to take on a duty or a right. One may only accept a right if entitled to it by agreement.

Agency: A contractual relationship between two or more parties, where some parties, the agents, are given authority by other parties, the principals, to act on the principals' behalf. The scope of authority granted is limited by the terms of the contract, and further limited by the rights of the principal. No agent may ever exercise authority in excess of the rights of his principal.

Certificate: An oath, professing that a statement is true.

Claim: An oath, professing that a duty is owed, usually by a party other than the one making the claim. Claims set the basis for a controversy, without which, law-forums normally cannot secure jurisdiction.

Commerce: The exchange of oaths.

Common Law: A body of oaths which are common between a specific group of people. Within any specific group, those oaths can be said to be public law. From the perspective of anyone outside a given group, the oaths of the group would be private law.

Duty: An action which a man has given his oath to do. The exercise of law.

Escheat: The right of a finder to any thing which is otherwise abandoned. The converse right of due-process demands that anyone to whom the right might belong must first be given fair-notice and opportunity to exercise his claim.

Jurisdiction: Literally, "to speak one's law." Every man begins his life with the inherent right (free-agency is from God) to make his own oaths, or to not make them. When one man assigns to another his own right to bind himself in an oath, thus allowing the second man's word to obligate the first, then the first man has granted jurisdiction, and the second has assumed it.

Law: Oath; contract; agreement; covenant; promise; as distinguished from "laws of nature," such as gravity, which are not laws, but are "facts." Law can only be made by a "meeting of the minds" between sentient beings.

Person: Any party to a given body of law. A man may be a person under one body of law but, not having given certain oaths, not be a person under another.

Registration: The act of making a record for the purpose of giving notice of a particular fact or intention to one or more parties, and granting jurisdiction to the law-forum which holds the record to decide any disputes which may arise from the subject of said registration.

Right: A power received by way of an oath, and dependent upon the terms of said oath. Breach-of-contract (failure to perform a duty) will often divest a man of any rights he may have under that contract, but may not relieve him of his duties. A man may have rights in common with others, but his own rights are to the exclusion of others. A man's rights are his property. If you cannot identify the specific contract whereby you came into the possession of a right, and the duties which you must fulfill to continue your enjoyment of that right, then you probably do not have that right at all.

Surety: An oath, promising to fulfill an obligation in the event of a damage, injury, or breach-of-contract. Also a person who has given an oath of surety.

Title: From entitlement. Evidence of a right.

You're probably not accustomed to thinking of some of these words quite in the way I've defined them. I hope that I have made their meanings much easier to understand than before. Please keep them in mind as you read the balance of this report.

Commercial Redemption in a Nutshell

I do not claim to thoroughly comprehend the complexities of CR, but I'll now attempt to explain the basics so far as I know them.

The underlying idea behind CR is that you, and nearly everyone in America, became the property of the United States and/or the "International Bankers" when your mother signed your Birth-Certificate. Then, so the story goes, those BCs are traded in commerce, and are the real basis of the American economy. Since the U.S. has no authority to own people, it instead creates a fictitious person for each one of us, and gives it a name just like ours, except spelled with all capitalized letters. This person is called a "straw-man."

The U.S. then makes and enforces various decrees, which it calls laws, and which effect all the straw-men which it created. It can do this because the laws of agency say that the creator always controls its creations. The decrees don't actually obligate the flesh-and-blood man, but since (almost) everyone is deceived into believing that the straw-man and the real-man are one and the same, no one objects. When the I.R.S. or the traffic-cop, or some other U.S.-agent somehow obligate you for a debt, the debt is not really yours, but your straw-man's. Since you are presumed to be surety for the straw-man, you are held accountable when he fails to act. When you argue with the other party in the presence of the judge, you immediately grant the judge jurisdiction, and admit that there is a controversy, thereby giving the judge the authority to make an oath and obligate you to it.

The CR solution then, is thought to be in immediately agreeing with the opposing party, by "accepting his complaint for value," and denying the existence of a controversy. No controversy, no jurisdiction. "But wait," you say, "if you accept the charge, then don't you have to pay?" No.

As the CR story goes, there's something you have to do first, to make sure you'll never have to pay. You see, this straw-man has an account with the U.S. Treasury. The account is identified by the number which you usually think of as an "SSN." This account has lots of "bucks" in it, and also somehow represents the value of your body and soul. No one I've talked to is sure how much is in each account, but I'm told that it is up to each of us to decide how much we are worth (lots of sly-smiles and winks). In my experience, those people who have the least to show for their accomplishments place the highest value on themselves.

Presumably, we can gain control over this account, or "capture the straw-man" as the lingo goes, by getting a certified-copy of his birth-certificate, and accepting it for value. Then we claim to be his first-secured creditor, and register our claim with the Secretary-of-State for one of the United States, under a body of decrees, or private, copyrighted law, which they call the "Uniform Commercial Code." This part relies on the old patriot-style argument that there are two sides to the government, the "public-side," and the "private-side." It is important, so I'm told, to register on the "public" side of the U.C.C., or the procedure won't work.

Now that you control the account, if you accept any charge "for value," then you simply instruct the charging-party to charge your account with the U.S. Treasury. Since you can presumably place any value you like on that account, you will never have to pay for anything again!

What's Wrong with this Picture?

I'll be the first to admit that the above description of the CR process is overly-simplified. But it is also substantially accurate, so far as I comprehend it. Although I will concede that it is marginally possible that CR is a valid process, the following questions and answers may bring out some important contradictions:

  1. Regarding the birth-certificate:
    1. Q: I thought slavery was illegal. Can governments or bankers really own people?
      A: Yes. Only involuntary slavery is prohibited by the U.S. corporate charter. That same charter (Constitution) also protects private-contracts.
    2. Q: If our mothers really signed us over to someone else at birth, then why does that someone need a straw-man? If someone holds title to you and me, then why not just produce it, and end the charade?
      A: Because the charade, not whether you are actually owned by someone else is the most important point. Your rulers know that if they are to continue to rule you, it is necessary that you must continue to believe either that:
      1. Your fate as a slave is inevitable, and you have no hope; or
      2. If you study hard enough you will one day be delivered of all tyranny, if only you can find just the right paperwork.
      Either way, they have you in their grasp.
    3. Q: What is a birth-certificate?
      A: Look, for example, at the "certificate of title" for a car. It is not a title, it just certifies that a title does exist. Since the certifier is an officer of a U.S. law-forum, that law-forum will accept the certificate as evidence of title, in the absence of the real title. Think: if the birth-certificate is a title, then why is it called a certificate? The mother almost-never signs the birth-certificate, and then, only as a witness.
    4. Q: Then isn't a certified-copy of a certificate, just someone's promise that somebody else promised that something is true?
      A: Yes.
    5. Q: If I obtain a certified-copy of a certificate, and then burn, staple, accept-for-value, or otherwise mutilate it, will that stop the very same person from making the very same certification again?
      A: No.
    6. Q: Is it possible for me to ever get my original birth-certificate back?
      A: While anything is technically possible, the real answer is no. The explanation is in two parts:
      1. If the clerk has the document: When a clerk is elected or appointed, he gives an oath to do his job, which includes sealing all incoming documents with the Seal of his Office, and marking them with an identifier of some kind so they can be indexed and found again. Some instruments he files, which means that he keeps the originals, and some he only records, which means he makes a copy, and returns the original to its rightful-owner. Then it is his duty to protect those records from ever disappearing. If he ever allows a document to be taken from his trust, he is in deep doo-doo.
      2. If the clerk doesn't have the document: If you ever find out who does have your original birth-certificate, he is most likely going to be someone of free-character, who owns or controls the law-forum represented by the clerk. The court itself, the U.S. law-forum, is a debter to this person. An employee cannot compel his employer/creator to do anything. No one with a position within that law-forum, not even their highest judge, will have standing to compel him.
    7. Q: I insist on living in fantasy-land, so please indulge me a "what-if." If I do ever get my original birth-certificate back from whoever has it, will that cancel the title held by whoever might own me?
      A: No. A certificate may be used as evidence of title, but is not the highest-evidence, which is the actual title. Anyone who has firsthand knowledge of facts can certify to those facts, and they can do it as many times as they please. If you get the "original-certificate" back, there is nothing to stop the same person who signed your certificate from signing another one. And, at any time the holder of the actual-title appears, the existence of a certificate is mute anyway.
    8. Q: Does a certificate even really have to be true?
      A: No, but the certifying-person can be held accountable for making a false-oath. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the certifying-person.
    9. Q: If the birth-certificate is only "evidence" of title, and not the actual title, then what is the actual title?
      A: First, remember that we don't know for sure that anyone actually has a title to our bodies; the idea is merely a widely accepted theory. Just because it has been repeated many times, does not necessarily make it true. That said, it is probable, if there is a title, that it would be something else that your mother might she have signed, such as a "Statement of Live Birth," or the "Application for Birth-Certificate. The main point is that if you're going to spend a lot of time trying to track down the existence of a title, then at least go after the correct instrument.
    10. Q: When other types of titles, such as land-deeds, mortgages, liens, etc., are canceled or transferred to someone else, how is that done?
      A: With another instrument. If the parties want a particular law-forum to take "cognizance," which means to assume jurisdiction over the cancellation or transfer, then they will register it with the clerk for that law-forum. When a canceling instrument appears in the same law-forum's records in which the original document appears, it is said to "lay on top" of the original, and the law-forum takes cognizance that the original is now without effect.
    11. Q: Do you know of any instance where someone's birth-certificate, or the underlying actual-title, was effectively canceled or terminated?
      A: Yes. This is done many-thousands of times each day, with an instrument known as a death-certificate.

  2. Regarding the Straw-Man:
    1. Q: If a straw-man exists, even in peoples' minds or on paper, and if the relationship between the real-man and the straw-man is based on deception, then isn't accepting the straw-man "for value" the same as agreeing to continue a lie, and to be obligated to that lie?
      A: Congratulations, you answered that one for yourself.
    2. Q: If the straw-man is a fiction, doesn't that mean he isn't real? If he isn't real, doesn't that mean that he doesn't exist? Then why are we talking about a straw-man?
      A: Yes. Yes. For the same reason that the news-media reports stories of little or no significance, just to keep you confused, it is so very-very important to your masters that you never figure out the real answers.

  3. Regarding Claims:
    1. Q: If I claim to own or control something, does that make it true?
      A: No. You, just like anyone else, might lie or be mistaken. Remember, a claim is a statement that someone has a duty. When you claim to own something, you are stating that everyone else has a duty to leave you alone in the exclusive peaceful enjoyment of that certain something. A claim can sometimes create the presumption of a right, if unchallenged, but more often it just creates the basis for a controversy. The burden of proof is on the disputing-party, which might be a point in favor of CR, if there is no other titleholder, or if the true titleholder is unwilling or unable to produce evidence of title.
    2. Q: What is the purpose of registering my claim with the Secretary of State, under the U.C.C.?
      A: The only purpose for registering anything with a given law-forum is to grant jurisdiction to that law-forum. In doing the above, you are saying "I have made a claim. If anyone disputes my claim, then the law-forum in which I have registered it has the jurisdiction to decide who has the higher claim. Please use the U.C.C. as the common-law upon which to base your decision. I have voluntarily waived any objection to the probable fact that the only likely adverse claimant is the same person who created and, therefore controls this law-forum." If you examine this statement carefully you will understand that if the adverse claimant does control the court, then your waiver-by-registration gives the court permission to take silent judicial notice that you have no standing; have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and dismiss the case without even the obligation of explaining why. This drawback more-than negates any possible advantage gained from paragraph "A" above.
    3. Q: But what if I'm careful to register with the "public side" of the U.C.C.?
      A: The U.C.C. is a body of law, not a law-forum. It cannot make decisions, it is only a set of rules which can be used by a law-forum to help in the decision-making process. Please reread my definitions of "common-law," and "registration." Prior to registering your claim you may or may not be contractually obligated to observe the U.C.C. If you are not, then to you it is foreign private-law. Upon registering your claim with a clerk for a U.S. law-forum, it is now under their jurisdiction, and the U.C.C. is your public-law. Congratulations, you've successfully registered your U.C.C.-1 on the public side!

  4. Regarding Acceptance:
    1. Q: Can I accept someone else's right, without their consent, and make it mine?
      A: No. Therefore, your "acceptance" is merely a claim. You can claim any right you want, but that doesn't mean it's really yours. If I accept your car for value, is it now mine? Of course not. Before you can accept a thing from someone, they must first offer it.
    2. Q: When someone charges me with something, is he making me an offer, and if so, what is he offering?
      A: If you damage or injure someone, or breach the terms of a contract in which you are a party, and someone charges you for that, he is making a claim, stating that you have a duty to make restitution, and he has a right to be restored. He is offering you the opportunity to demonstrate whether you are an honorable man, or a lawless heathen. Honor means that you are collectable. If you are honorable, you have the duty to act honorably. All duties have corresponding rights. You now have either the right to accept the duty to restore the claimant, or the duty to dispute his claim of a right. If you fail to do either, you have left the claimant without a remedy; you are acting without law or honor, and have abandoned your right to "speak your law" (see the definitions for "jurisdiction," "abandoned," and "escheat."
    3. Q: If I accept a duty, does that mean I am obligated to fulfill it?
      A: Of course.
    4. Q: What happens if I accept a charge "for value," instruct the charging-party to get payment from the U.S. Treasury, or any other third-party over whom I have no direct control, and then the third-party doesn't pay?
      A: When you accept a duty, "for value" or otherwise, that duty becomes yours. The charging-party is not obligated to collect from a third-party, any more than you can obligate a third-party without their prior consent. The charging-party may or may not choose to even try to collect from the third-party, and unless you demonstrate to the charging-party a very strong contractual obligation on behalf of the third-party, he probably will not. In any case, once the duty has been accepted, restitution must be made. You accepted the duty, and you are now the ultimate surety for its satisfaction.
    5. Q: If I decide to try CR and it blows up in my face, can I later claim that the straw-man doesn't really exist and, therefore, the obligation doesn't either?
      A: Again, you can claim what you want, but that doesn't make it true. The straw-man isn't real, but you are. Once you've accepted a duty, the burden of proof shifts to you if for any reason you fail to perform.

Silver Bullets

It seems like a lifetime has passed since I became involved with the "patriot movement," as many people call it, though it has only been about seven years, and I no longer consider myself a patriot now that I know the meaning of the word, and its implications. Though I may not be an "old-timer" in the sense of years, I have studied much and worked hard. I've seen many new "processes" come and go, all of them thought to be the silver-bullet which would slay the beast called Tyranny. Some of them were ridiculous from the outset, though I didn't know it at the time. Some worked for a time, and later were defeated. A few are valid, and when used correctly will work sometimes, depending on how they are applied, and how vital the issue is to the adversary. But none is the proverbial "silver-bullet." That doesn't, and should not, stop us from trying. Hopefully we will learn from our mistakes.

My perspective of the world, based on my study of history, can be summed up briefly:

The greatest influence on society, since the beginning of time, has been man's desire and ability to inflict violence on his neighbors.

When man was a hunter-gatherer there was very little incentive for violence, since he could not easily save more food than he could acquire in a day. He moved around a lot, so material possessions were more of a hindrance than a benefit. An occasional squabble over a woman was pretty much the extent of conflicts. As man learned to farm, he became increasingly violent. Now he could produce much more in a day than he could eat, and he learned to store it for the future. If others came into the area and tried to take what he had worked for, he would fight. People learned to band together for protection, and also for conquest (theft). Most people did not want to concern themselves with protection on a daily basis, so they hired people who were more interested in violence, and paid them with their excess. Successful farmers could afford a lot of soldiers, and soon found that hiring those soldiers to steal the work of others was a lot less work than farming. Soldiers also often took matters into their own hands.

Thus have evolved governments. And so long as governments are not perceived by the people to steal too much, or to be excessively violent, most people will tolerate them in exchange for protection from outside conquest which they fear might be more severe. The only difference between a modern government and a mafia-style protection-racket, is its size and scope. For its authority, government does not rely upon law, but upon its perceived capacity to do violence in exchange for noncompliance.

Notice my reliance upon the word "perceived." The people who rule over large numbers of people are, by definition, outnumbered. They know that they could never win a battle where their own subjects were determined to defeat them. They must rely heavily upon the good-faith of the people, to maintain their position. If that good-faith ever waivers, governments will do anything necessary to reclaim it.

Those of us who have studied history and government know that we live everyday with a great deal of fraud, and we suspect that we are only aware of the tip of an iceberg. But we are a minority. Most people believe the Big-Lie. If enough fall away, then almost invariably a charismatic government-shepherd will appear to lead them back into the fold.

When I first began my study of law, I believed that if I could find just the right paperwork, and if I could draft it flawlessly, and use the correct procedure, then the government-agencies who were set upon stealing from me or controlling me would have to give up, and go away. I now see the folly of that belief. However, I have discovered that governments will always do the "right thing" in a situation where a large number of people are paying close attention. The trick is to wake people up and make them watch, and care.

We know how difficult it is to bring people around to our point of view. Governments have had an iron-fisted control over the education of our children for so long, that even stark reason is sometimes hard to get across to them. No matter what procedure we use to try and separate from Babylon, governments will try to resist letting us go. They will, no doubt, trump up charges in an attempt to demonize us, and turn the common man against us. If we use a procedure which is not understandable by the common man, then we make governments' job easy for them. If we find and use a procedure which is easily understandable, the common man will probably still not support us, but it will be much more difficult for governments to move him to actively prosecute us, or even to stand by idly while others do.

I have already stated that I do not fully comprehend the CR process, even though I have made much more effort to do so than most people, even "patriot-types," ever will. I am not a stupid man, and I think it is safe to assume that if I don't see the validity of CR now, then most people will never understand it. That means that even if CR is a valid process, it will never ultimately achieve its intended purpose.

Worse yet, the CR process involves commercial instruments which use the banking system and the U.S. Treasury. The last process we saw which used similar tactics was put forth by the Montana Freemen, and resulted in many of our own friends going to prison. I do not believe that their procedure was valid, but even if it was, they were not able to convince a jury. They were not able to turn public-opinion in their favor. Right or wrong, they were prosecuted. We expect persecution in our quest for freedom. Many of us are willing, if necessary, to go to prison for being right. But who wants to go to prison for being wrong?

I believe that the Commercial Redemption process is wrong. I also believe, for the reasons stated directly above, that even if someone can now prove to me that CR is valid, it is nevertheless still wrong. The only chance we have of ever finding a "silver-bullet," is in using a valid procedure which is understandable by the common man.

It is my prayer that the reader will carefully consider all of the above points, and accept them for value. In my next article I hope to present a procedure which I believe fulfills the requirements I have set forth above.

(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.