HOW TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH YOUR LAWYER...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I hope that everyone realizes that UNCONDITIONAL signature creates an NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. Now it wouldn't if we still were under common law, but under the current Law Merchant, UCC, an unconditional signature makes you subject to IMPLIIED liability. As UCC-3-104 says:

§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.

"(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order,..."

“Without Prejudice” UCC 1-207 (308) means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctly set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” Negotiable Instrument Law UCC 3-104.2 states that a summons, license, or draft ‘must’ be signed “unconditionally.”

A reservation of Without Prejudice places a condition on the agreement which means ‘I do not partake’, the unit is now non-assumpsit. These units are “unconscionable” at UCC 2-302.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

"Law phrase. Without abandonment of claim, right, privilege and without implied admission of liability."

http://thelawdictionary.org/without-prejudice/

So by adding "Without prejudice" before your signature, you're asserting your right NOT to be liable for anything that WAS NOT disclosed to you at the time of signing. I.e. that makes your signature CONDITIONAL, meaning that when they say you're liable to do this, or are subject to this statute, you can say "I reserved my rights NOT to agree to anything that was not disclosed, and at the time of signing you DID NOT say that signing makes me subject to your statute(s)".

Of course they can refuse your application if you sign that way. And guess what, THAT is a PROOF that rights reservation protects your rights! And in regard to any past forms that you signed unconditionally, you can AMEND those, by sending them a note that you're amending your application form(s) by adding the words "without prejudice" before your signature.

They might ignore that, but that should reserve your rights. They also might revoke the benefit that you applied for, since you no longer are liable to obey the rules that come with that benefit. So ULTIMATELY we have to start using lawful money such as US coins and pay with other things of value, because if they revoke our gov't benefits, we need to assert our rights under EQUITY, and you can't do that if you "pay" for everything with green paper.

BTW, these rules apply to negotiable instruments:

When there are disputes as to the terms of an instrument, the following rules govern

1. Handwriting prevails over typewriting and print

2. Typewriting prevails over print

3. Words prevail over numbers

4. Can be postdated, antedated, or undated

Here's an excellent book about using "without prejudice":

http://www.amazon.com/Without-Prejudice-UCC-1-207-Sovereign/dp/1414017359/ref=sr_1_2

And the attached doc below is also a great explanation of asserting your rights. I just don't agree with the author about the meaning of the phrase USA, as that was the very name of our Constitutional Republic, first used in the Declaration of Independence. He's also delusional with his rant against oaths, claiming that's some religious ceremony. It's not, oaths are BONDS and they are properly used. For example under common law, complaints are bonded by swearing under penalty of perjury. So if the guy lies, then he'll be facing criminal charges. If the swearing was not required then anyone could MAKE UP lies about you, and so make you waste time and money defending against his lies.

Here's a part of that doc:

"Let's go back to the Article I Legislative and Article II Executive Branches to discover the mischief of legalized piracy and conspiracy upon the innocent People of the land.  

This is how it works: We initiate the 'engraft' Interlocking Directorates by agency fiat of 'unconscionable' contract, license, and enrollments. The signing at UCC 3-104.1, which if "unconditional", at UCC 3-104.2 gives agency police power to access your property by executing negotiable "dishonored" instruments of "promise" per UCC 3-104.3. This applies to all “persons”, such as, all commercial entities, corporations, governments, and every other “thing” that legally falls into the description of “person”, but not the Freeborn People.

All "IMPLIED POWERS" are "vested" by the Negotiable Instrument Law and enforced by the Uniform Commercial Code at 3-104 (1) Signing, and (2) Unconditional, and (3) Promise.

Negotiable Instruments of the categories of W-2 forms, Marriage Licenses, Driver License, Dog License, Social Security License (#123-45-6789), etc., etc., presumed to be voluntary, knowingly, willingly and intentionally signed by the Citizen, initiate the "implied powers" of the Article I Legislative Branch to be "engrafted" upon Article II Executive to collect the tax with "implied" police power, but offers no delict to destroy diversity of Citizenship. The dolus bogus "contract" initiating Article II Executive police power, together with Article I Legislative "statutes" as the other "implied" power creates third party instruments "presumed" to obligate the parties signed upon any such "contracts"."

 EXHIBIT_020_-_NOTICE_Penumbra_Doctrine_Does_NOT_Apply.doc

BTW, as this is all about negotiable instruments under the UCC, then even if we don't reserve our rights, we can assert our UCC rights, i.e. demand that they 1) identify themselves (by name and DOB of the person/agency), and 2) produce proof of their authority, and of their Holder in Due Course status.

I.e. every time that an agent of some muni corporation demands payment or performance, it might be considered a PRESENTMENT under UCC 3-501.

STATE CITIZENS ARE SOVERIGN

STATE CITIZENS ARE SOVEREIGN

Here are a few court cites, mainly showing that people OF THE STATES (State Citizens) are sovereign, and that State Citizens are different from US citizens, as the States can NATURALIZE their own Citizens, who however are NOT federal US citizens.
And the reason why State Citizens are NOT also US (federal) citizens, is because State Citizens are members of the dejure Republic, while federal US citizens are members of corporate Democracy, and ONLY corporate US citizens are ELIGIBLE for gov't benefits. State Citizens AREN'T.
And who is eligible? State RESIDENTS. So OBVIOUSLY, if you're a State resident, you CAN'T be a State Citizen, who's the only one that's entitled to protection of the ORGANIC US and State Constitution.
“It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court.” Pipe Line v. Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22.
“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.

Here's the 'SMOKING GUN". People, you're trading your sovereignty for federal BENEFITS!
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]

“People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).
Problem is that US citizens are NOT people of a State.
The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
"The state can only tax and regulate something it creates". Ward v. Maryland 12 Wallace 418
"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

“The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,…..It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)
The King ceded his sovereignty to the American people, so they became sovereigns without subjects.
"The right of expatriation is a natural, inherent, and inalienable right and extends to the Indian as well as to the white race."United States, ex rel. Standing Bear, v. George Crook. 25 F.Cas. 695 (1879).
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
That was true until 1868 and the 14th Amendment which created a FEDERAL US citizenship. So since 1868 there are the original American/State Citizens, and FEDERAL (as in District of Columbia) 14th Am. US citizens, both of which exist in one nation, the USA.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442

BOGUS GLOBAL WARMING FOR ONE WORLD ORDER...

Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming
By Mark Chipperfield in Tuvalu and David Harrison in London Article from The Telegraph
6 August 2000


In the early 1990s, scientists forecast that the coral atoll of nine islands - which is only 12ft above sea level at its highest point - would vanish within decades because the sea was rising by up to 1.5in a year. However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in and experts at Tuvalu's Meteorological Service in Funafuti, the islands' administrative centre, said this meant they would survive for another 100 years.
They said similar sea level falls had been recorded in Nauru and the Solomon Islands, which were also considered to be under threat. The release of the data from Tuvalu, formerly part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, will renew scientific debate about climate change and its impact on ocean levels. The island's scientists admitted they were surprised and "a little embarrassed" by the change, which they blame on unusual weather conditions caused by El Nino in 1997.

Hilia Vavae, the Metereological Service's director, said: "This is certainly a bit of a shock for us because we have been experiencing the effect of rising oceans for a long time." Although their country has been saved from imminent engulfment, not all islanders are happy about the change in Tuvalu's fortunes. Residents who once worried about their homes being flooded are now complaining that the lower tides are disrupting their fishing expeditions, making it difficult to moor their boats and navigate low-lying reefs. 




All the hype about human caused climate change is disinformation to force you into the One World Order where you will be living in a smaller house or yurt, have fewer children, drive a smaller car and burn oil forever.


They want to keep us on this planet as energy slaves using false propaganda. Sea levels in Cook Inlet, Kodiak have been dropping 3-feet in 100 years--this according to NOAA's actual tide measurement stations. Below is another article on lower sea levels.

Oceans to fall over thousands of years not rise.

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO | Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:06pm EST

OSLO (Reuters) - Sea levels are set to fall over millions of years, making the current rise blamed on climate change a brief interruption of an ancient geological trend, scientists said on Thursday.

They said oceans were getting deeper and sea levels had fallen by about 170 meters (560 ft) since the Cretaceous period 80 million years ago when dinosaurs lived. Previously, the little-understood fall had been estimated at 40 to 250 meters.
"The ocean floor has got on average older and gone down and so the sea level has also fallen," said Bernhard Steinberger at the Geological Survey of Norway, one of five authors of a report in the journal Science.
"The trend will continue," he told Reuters.
A computer model based on improved understanding of shifts of continent-sized tectonic plates in the earth's crust projects more deepening of the ocean floor and a further sea level decline of 120 meters in 80 million years' time.
If sea levels were to fall that much now, Russia would be connected to Alaska by land over what is now the Bering Strait, Britain would be part of mainland Europe and Australia and Papua island would be the same landmass.
The study aids understanding of sea levels by showing that geology has played a big role alongside ice ages, which can suck vast amounts of water from the oceans ont.o land.
DOWN NOT UP
"If we humans still exist in 10, 20 or 50 million years, irrespective of how ice caps are waxing and waning, the long term ... is that sea level will drop, not rise," said lead author Dietmar Muller of the University of Sydney.
Over time, Muller told Science in a podcast interview there would be fewer mid-ocean ridges and a shift to more deep plains in the oceans as continents shifted. The Atlantic would widen and the Pacific shrink.
Still, the projected rate of fall works out at 0.015 centimeters a century -- irrelevant when the U.N. Climate Panel estimates that seas will rise by 18-59 cms by 2100 because of global warming stoked by human use of fossil fuels.
"Compared to what is expected due to climate change, the fall is negligible," said Steinberger. Cities from Miami to Shanghai are threatened by rising seas that could also swamp low-lying island nations in the Pacific.
Rising temperatures raise sea levels because water in the oceans expands as it warms, and many glaciers are melting into the seas.
Antarctica and Greenland now contain enough ice to raise sea levels by 50 meters if they all melted, the article said. If all ice on land were gone in 80 million years' time, the net drop in ocean levels would be 70 meters rather than the projected 120.
The study challenges past belief that sea levels might have been only 40 meters higher than today in the Cretaceous period by arguing that measurements from New Jersey in the United States had underestimated the fall.
It said that the New Jersey region had itself subsided by 105 to 180 meters in the period, skewing the readings.
-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on:
blogs.reuters.com/environment/
(Editing by Andrew Roche

Notice the hand-held remote control devices / cell phones. Are they taking pictures with their cell phone?Then you have the dumb human down below who is half their size worshiping them... The engine looks like a three cylinder radial vacuum engine that runs on Brown's gas. The turbofan behind it sucks in air and discharges it underneath the craft. Brown's gas is easy to make with electricity...
Is that spiral building a zuggerot in the background?


It is true that sea levels rose over 300 feet 12,500 years ago after the Anunnaki brought the Moon into orbit around earth. The impact tilted Earth 23.5 degrees to thaw the ice caps back so they have more area to mine gold. The giants created the smaller modern humans as slaves to mine gold because the underground tunnels didn't have to be so big. They could dig goldmine tunnels faster with smaller humans. 


Besides that, Earth had lost 98% of it atmosphere down from 750 PSI to 14 PSI at sea level. Tilting Earth 23.5 degrees allowed sunlight to pierce the oceans at a higher angel of incidence thereby increasing plankton growth to release more free oxygen. Read my book COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES to get the whole story... www.GuarDogBooks.com