Freedom Domain - Get Out of Debt Free

Freedom Domain
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Roger Elvick Transcript
Jan. 17th 1999
"Sir. are you the defendant?" something like that or "What's your name? Okay?
Elvick does the perfect mirror image right back to the judge and takes over.
He says. "Well sir, what is your name? Question number 1.
Because Elvick understands that your trying to write an agreement. And the first thing you need in
an agreement is the name of the second party. Okay?
So the first thing you do is get the name so the record is set there. So Elvick says: "Well what is your name?" and then the issue is (can't
decipher) Elvicks also going on this principle of agreements -- the third type -- if somebody fails to respond in protest, you have in essence
got a
default agreement with them. So the first thing he gets is the name. Now if the judge won't give his
name, then Elvick goes ahead anyway with question number two because if somebody fails to
respond or is standing mute it literally means your in control and they're waving their rights.
Question number 2: "Do you have a claim against me?" Now if the judge comes back and says
anything then you've got to adapt to what's going on.. But basically the judge is never going to
admit that he has a claim because then he becomes the prosecuting party and he doesn't want to be
in that position. So he'll either stand mute or he will decline to answer the question or most likely
he may come back and say "well this doesn't involve me"... or he's going to try to do a demur to
what's going on.
Audience question: "At that point could you not now say "Please let the record reflect that the judge has no claim against me?" (Editor -NO!!!)
Yes and No. Here's part of the problem. They're in a record court and that's one thing I wanted
to research because we usually want to make sure that records reflect certain things. But this issue from Elvick is that theirs is a record
statutory, legislative court. Your's is a non-record court
because what this guy is doing is common law proceeding. And i'll talk about what Elvick's doing in a minute. So he isn't (in) a court of
record per se. Common Law is not necessarily a court of
record; it just does what it does under the authority of law. So he doesn't want to establish - quoteunquote -- like a record of proceedings. He is doing the damn thing, he ain't talking about doing it.
So the second issue is: "Do you have a claim against me?" Getting no response or a
non-responsive response, he goes on to question number 3. "Do you know anyone who does have
a claim against me?" Now, he didn't say any "person" or "anybody that" -- it's anyone "who" has a claim against me. He is talking about a
non-fiction, living human. Which is the difference between common law and the statutory world. In the statutory world, they're dealing
entirely with fictions
and corporate entities. So what he's doing is he's living and breathing the real world here. he's not pleading into a fiction or a legislative
venue which is the major legislative premise. Okay? Anyone who has a claim against me. Now if he gets a "No" answer or a
non-responsive answer then he goes on.
1st question: "What is your name?" - 2nd question "Do you have a claim against me?" - Third
question - "Do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?" - NOW 4th position is a
statement: "I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately." Now, let me explain
what "order" is.
These people are all acting under the major premise of a legislative venue. They MUST have delegation of orders that give them any
authority to do anything they're doing. And obviously, once he's gone through the first 3 questions: The name, the claim, know anyone who
has a claim. If
there's a non-response then nobody has come forward with a claim against the one asking the questions.
Audience question : Okay, so when your speaking of the "Order", that;s referring to a delegation
of authority then?
Answer: well, it is whatever anybody's attempting to move on. Okay? Now here's where Elvick's
commercial background comes in. Okay? The United States bifurcated military. The sale, the
motivating drive behind the military to protect. And in order to protect it must have funds to pay the
protectors. So it operates as a commercial enterprise. And it taxes commercial commerce to exact
the funds to sustain itself. The commercial enterprise is private banking behind that "democracy",
but the office of the Secretary of the Treasury runs the commercial aspects of the "democracy".
Consequently, each and every act and action of that military government has a corresponding
parallel on it's commercial side. In other words, if a security issues, i.e., a complaint, an
information, a warrent, a citation, an invoice, it's all got commercial value to it, right?
Question : Correct. Every piece of paper that comes out has commercial value.?
Answer: OK, so when they issue a citation or an indictment, somebody's already established a
commercial value on that instrument. And although there might be a set of papers in the
administrative process, like the court documents, we know, and reason, logic and common sense
tells you -- there's also a banking or a commercial set of documents in a series of accounts
paralleling it. So that if an indictment goes out, let's say on tax evasion, there's got to be an appraisal
that says that the appraised value of this indictment is $100,000.00 . So, in the Treasury, whenever
an indictment goes out on that basis, they now claim an assett by way of the security instrument
of $100,000.00 . And then there is a corresponding side to the ledger sheet which is an accounts receivable of $100,000.00 to back up the
assett. DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKKEEPING, right?
Now the problem is... if you don't address the commercial aspects of the indictment, then they've
got an assett on their books which remains on their books, and if it's not adjudicated then they've
got accounts receivable that;s aging. And if you come back and dishonor the assett -the indictment -- then, in essence their books are out of whack because there's a dispute as to the
assett, but there's still an accounts receivable of $100,000.00 that they're looking for. So the books
are out of whack.
Elvick is suggesting that there is a parallel commercial world and universe in bookkeeping that
parallels the legal judicial bookkeeping.
Now, what Elvick is doing here is , in essence. If you go into court and you say " Do you have a claim against me?" etc. etc. His last
question..."I request..." It's not a question it's a request -- he's
not moving the court because if he moves the court he's asking for a benefit.
Audience question : So he asks these three questions and then makes a "request"?
Answer : Yes. "I request that the Order of the Court be released to me immediately". In other
words, what he is saying is "If we have no firsthand witnesses or claimants present -- what the hell
are you guys operating on? Give me your marching orders". That's what he's saying. "I'm
demanding to see the order of the court."
Now, here's what Elvicks saying -- Where would that order come from? The order would have to come out of the Secretary of the
Treasury. Because he's the man with the liability for all the
books and he's the one that appraised the security instrument. So, if they don't have an Order
going back to the Secretary of the Treasury, they don't have any authority to collect the debt.
What's the probability that the Secretary of the Treasury issued them an order to collect the debt?
Zero...
Now if they don't have an order to collect the debt from someone who's the holder in due
course. i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury, then they are acting as rogue agents. In that capacity,
do you understand? Now let's go beyond that. If the Secretary of the Treasury gave an order,
where did he get the order allowing him to give the order to the court to collect the debt on that
security? Where did his authority come from? You keep going back until you get to God.
Now the issue is, did Congress -- the legislatively created democracy -- ever issue any kind of
acts or orders that permitted the Secretary of the Treasury to cut orders to the local judges or
anybody else to collect debts from the American people on the military takeover? Nobody thinks
so, but if they've got them -- produve the damn things. Okay?
So, here is what Elvick is doing. When he goes into court like this he is exercising his rights under
public internation law to determine what kind of business these people are trying to do with him.
And remember, you are there in your "public capacity". Because under public international law,
private rights are recognized. But as soon as you engage in a co-business venture in their private
business, you're in their court in a business venture, you're in an agreement and everything is
proceeding.
Now, the judge calls the case in order to transact "private" business in his "private" court. So
when Elvick stands up, he cannot see their "private business". He stands up and he's there for his
'public appearance' outside the venue. And he says, "What is your name?", in other words, "I want
to know with whom i'm doing business. "Do you have a claim against me?" In other words, "Are
we here on any 'public business'? "Do you know anyone who has a claim?". More public business.
Who's the witness?
Question? Does he also ask the question. "Are we here on public business?"
Answer: No. He never asks that question. That's in the background. That's behind what he's
doing. You don't have to teach them. All you've got to go through is what you've got to go through.
Believe me, the judge will perfectly understand what's going on. And then , "I request the Order of
the court be released to me immediately", is the demand that if we're here on public business
involving me, I want to know who's behind the claim. With those four statements, has he not just
made a public verbal demand for a Bill of Particulars? He's trying to find out the nature and cause
of the claim. Okay?
Having no response from anyone then he would most likely make the following statement,
"It would appear as though I have completed my public business here today. There being no further
public business to carry on, i'm leaving." Now you're giving your equitable notice to the parties present, right? You turn and walk out.
Let's say the judge yells from the bench: "Stop that man!".
Immediately stop in your tracks, turn around and say, "Sir, do you have a claim against me?"
You're right back to question two again. "Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?"
"I request the Order of the court be released to me immediately." "It appears that there is no more
public business to be carried on, i'm leaving". And turn around again and go. Do you understand?
Now the judge may go off his looney toons and yell for them to seize you. You don't want to
resist or anything. You've already put the judge on notice. "Sir, what you do is your private
business". You could say that and then just passively go with the flow and see where he's going.
(Ed.- Not recommended,. Don't give testimony. Only ask the questions and give the final statement)
(Ed. -I am going to say this once and for all right here. This just in: Only do this questioning after you have called someone to the witness
stand, like the D.A. or public defender or even the judge. Just say, "I would like to call a witness to the stand for 'Direct Testimony' " , then
once you have them
'locked in' they have to tell the truth right there. If you don't do this, it is not 'Direct Testimony' and you still might wind up in jail.-- Do it
once, do it correctly)
Now, here is what Elvick is doing. When he makees these four questions and statement, he has
created a small claims court. And a small claims court has different rules and procedures. There are
not Titles of Nobility. Not only are there no Titles of Nobility, but lawyers basically can't be present.
The parties themselves do the claims. And we will know who has got a claim and who doesn't.
If there are no claims then there is a default to our appearance to investigate. So what he's really doing is he's brought an inquest hearing on
a 'show cause'. You are doing a coroner's inquest or a
probate into the matter of any claims against you in common law. And in that inquest, only those
people that testify and have first hand information as to the claims are coming forward. If you are conducting a public inquest into the
matter concerning any claims that may be brought against you,
and no claims are brought, the matter is concluded, the public inquest is over and you are outta
there.
Now, there are some variations that can happen with this. These people in Michigan were telling
me how they've been using this in all kinds of cases -- tax cases, traffic cases, murder cases, you
name it. They are using it all over the place. Usually the judge goes quiet or every now and then
when we say, "Do you know anyone who...", the judge or the prosecutor might say, "The State of
______ has a claim against you". At that stage of the game, you've got to alter your questions a little
bit. "Is there anyone present to press the claim against me in any alleged name other than
their own?" Now, if the prosecutor wants to stand up and press that claim, then you demand that he
be sworn in to testify under oath as to the damage in the claim in which he is testifying... There's
your inquest. He is not going to swear in. If he fails to swear in, then at that stage of the game you
say, "There being no claimants who have sworn in under penalty of perjury today with a first hand
damage claim, it would appear as though there is no more public business concerning me, i'm
leaving". Don't allow him to hoodwink you into allegiance.
Now I was told about some people who tried doing this without understanding what they were
doing. One guy went up there was chewing a toothpick. He knew how to ask the three questions,
and he was cruising through them and he got down to the end and then looked a little bit confused
as to where to go from there. At that point the judge from the bench said "Take that toothpick
out of your mouth". And the guy reached up with his fingers, took the toothpick out of his mouth,
and the judge immediately yelled at the bailiff, "sieze that man and throw him in jail for ten days for contempt". When he followed the
orders of the judge, the judge became the head and he became
the tail. What he should have done was continue to chew the toothpick and say, "Do you have a claim against me?" Because see, it's either
the judge's private business that's going to go on in
there, which is the business of the corporate state, or your private rights under public law. If you
traverse into his business, you've just abandoned your claim. But with some exceptions like that,
where these people either didn't have the faith, or enough knowledge, or understanding of how
these things operate, there have been more sucesses than failures in which they just walked out of
the place and whatever it was that was coming against them just fell by the wayside or they had to come back and attempt something else.
Here is what happened to Elvick. Elvick was in federal prison for about 6 years because when
he was last charged with something, he did a patriot type thing and traversed to the charge that
found him guilty and was sentenced to 7 or 8 years. When he was there, he used all his time for
research. When they came to him at the end of 5 years they said, "You're outta here on probation".
And he said, "Look, if you release me it's non-conditional. I didn't come in on conditions and i'm
not going out on an agreement and a contract. They said, "Get the hell out of here".
Well in the last 6 months they have come back twice and arrested him on alleged probation
violations. The Marshals come out and arrest him. They drag him in to town in front of the district court on show cause on probation
violations. Both times that Elvicks gone into court, when the
judge called the case, he stood up and said, "May I have your name? ... Do you have a claim against me?...Do you know anyone who does
have a claim against me?... I request you release the
order of the court to me" The judge stayed quiet in every case. And he said, "It appears as though there is no more public business here.
I'm out of here". He said that the most time he has been in
that Federal Court is 15 minutes. The last time, when he walked out after 10 minutes for which
the Marshals had dragged him about 80 miles into town in their car, he didn't have a ride back.
The probation officer said, come on with me, i'll drive you back home" and they became good friends.
The last time the Marshals went out to get him, Elvick was a little smarter. He said, "hey, that
works in the court, let's see if it works with the Marshals". So when the Marshals showed up
saying, "We got a warrant for your arrest for probation violation". Elvick looked at them and said,
"What's your name?... Do you have a claim against me?... Do you know anyone who has a claim
against me?.. The Marshals were silent. He said, "I request you release the order to me. The Marshal said, "well, we got the warrant but it's
back at the office". So Elvick looked at him and
said, "Do you have the order that issued to allow the warrant to issue?" And he said the Marshals
looked at him and said, "Why yea, we have that back at the office too". Elvick says, "Hot dog, copme on, i'm going with you, I want to see
a copy of that order". So they walked outside. They
has him in handcuffs and put him in the back of the car and Elvicks smiling from ear to ear. The two
Marshals got in, started up the engine and one Marshal looked at the other and said, "Get him outta
here". They got him out of the car, released him and said, "You go inside, we'll be back". They
haven't returned since. "Do you have a copy of the order that gave you the authority to issue the
warrant?" And I guess he said, "Now if you don't have that order, your operating in your private
capacity and I hope your insured and bonded". So you can see how it works.