General navigational links:
Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334
Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude
Email lawyerdude: firstname.lastname@example.org
Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:
The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html
List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
Roger Elvick page by Lawyerdude.
Lawyerdude says: I first read Elvick’s stuff in the year 2000. It was the usual white ring binder. Later I spent some time
chatting with Roger Elvick on the telephone back in the year 2001 and maybe in some other years. I lost his telephone number in
a computer crash. Elvick is a farmer. He pissed away the family farm on bad deals. He once had a fleet of wheat harvesting
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 - quote-
unquote -- 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.
Aediencu 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?
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
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
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.
Website Editor's note : VERY IMPORTANT!! (2-2-01)
"Redemption" is a process and philosophy developed by Roger Elvick over the last 10 years or so. As he was learning this
process, he made mistakes, which landed him and several others in jail over different periods of time. This does not mean he is a
criminal or was ever intending to break the law, as some people assume. He is a farmer, who was dealing with various forms of
negotiable and non-negotiable instruments through his occupation, and he was also privy to knowledge of the Federal Reserve
system in this country, and how it operates. In his search for truth, he uncovered the most important knowledge being kept from
us, in relation to our present situation of economic bondage. This information and the importance of it could only be inspired by
one source, and Roger's dedication to that source (God), and an inner quest for truth.
Roger, himself, does not teach this process to anyone directly. Several people, who are dedicated to learning from him, have
conversations with him on the phone, and information is then transcribed from these conversations. Also, Roger is not in the
business of selling information or "programs", so there are no packages of information from Roger Elvick. Someone who
understands (or thinks they do) Roger's philosophy has published the "Interpretive Writings" available below. This is a very good
analysis, but not complete or totally accurate. It is, though, the closest thing to a "study guide" available, so far. The very best way
to learn this material is to study the "transcripts of the conversations". I, myself, have had several conversations with Roger,
which have been recorded and will be available in transcript form here, soon. Without going through the problems yourself, you
have to generalize, and Roger does not like to generalize, so alot of people cannot get the right information, because they have
no real problem to deal with at the time. Well, I have had my share of problems recently, and fortunately, I was conversing with
Roger during the whole episode while I was in court. That information is available now. (Added 6-28-01) 1. Click Here!!
When Roger spoke to the first people about this material, they "ran with it", without making sure they knew all the facts first.
These folks were (wishes to remain anonymous), Rice McLeod, and Greg Williams (Qui Tam), I believe. This along with other
Info. was first published in the "American's Bulletin" and instantly, it swept the country. The problem was, that Roger only taught
step A and B, but did not finish teaching anyone the rest of the steps. Immediately, people went out and started writing up "sight
drafts" which several people have been indicted for already. Obviously, these people didn't know what they were doing, because
they did not do what Roger does. These "Sight Drafts" were drawn on the Treasury on a mythical "Treasury Direct Account". This
was taught by some of these initial people, but later, after people started getting into trouble, they were teaching NOT to do it, and
that it was a bad idea.
Currently, there are only a couple of people teaching "true redemption" according to Roger Elvick. These people DO NOT include
Ron Lutz or Right Way Law. I have to say this here, but it is the truth. Also, Howard Griswold is NOT teaching "Redemption", and
neither is the book "Cracking the Code" which was offered on this website a while back, and neither is Qui Tam. And neither is
"the aware group" and their $900.00 package. Alot of people are learning about this information from the "American's Bulletin",
but they have to remember, that Robert Kelly is doing his best job to make "all the information available", without trying to be
partial to one person's methods or another's. Since Roger himself is not teaching this, there wouldn't be anything to publish if the
other material was not floating around. Here are some of the most common misconceptions :
1. There is a Treasury Direct Account created by the Birth Certificate or SS# that has $1 Million dollars in it, that is being held
against your strawman. (False) That was a complete mis-understanding by several people.
2. Accept the Birth Certificate for Value and Chargeback to the Secretary of the Treasury. (This was not necessary, and is no
longer being utilized, to the best of my knowledge)
3. We must file a 1040 ES either once or quarterly, to "bankrupt" the strawman (debtor). (False) Barton Butz did some research
into this, and now we are learning that quite possibly Barton and the IRS were talking about two different things entirely, or this is
simply, "not necessary". Either way, currently, it is not being done. 4. Redemption can be mixed with other procedures if
"Acceptance" doesn't seem to work. (False) Acceptance is working, they will hide it though. When you mix processes, you are
showing them you really don't know what you are doing, because Roger's process is EXACTLY 180 Degrees off from what
common law activists were previously doing. (The attitude is that "Everything is done for our benefit. If they are not acting for your
benefit, they are in violation of their fiduciary duty. They are the Trustees in Bankruptcy").
....And a number of other random misconceptions..too numerous to mention here by list. But, importantly, Roger has stated that
"there are alot of people here who are going to have to qualify their own positions. So we want to be careful about this, because
this is the difference between general appearance and special appearance..... You can't just rely on a generalized idea.
Eventually you are going to have to take a position called applying your principles". - And basically what he is saying (I believe) is
that, you can't just rely on other people's information, you have to know some things and apply your beliefs, and they can't just be
based on things you hear, that aren't proven, in some way, to you, personally.
After having been through all of this myself, and having utilized the "redemption information", I can only tell you this : "It is very
powerful". -- I have learned many things along the way. If someone were to ask me though, "Does it work?", the answer would
have to be something like this, "Nothing is guaranteed, and every situation is different. "Will it work?" really should be phrased
"will I make it work?" -- Because of this -- When something as powerful as this, does truly work, it would be very easy for
everyone to learn this like a 'loophole' to avoid responsibility. To counter this, the system MUST make it LOOK LIKE it isn't
working, regardless of what the truth is. Otherwise, when proven to work, you would see the floodgates come bursting open with
people trying to leave Babylon. Who could blame them? At the same time, who could blame the "system" for trying to keep it's
slaves on the plantation. (Don't wonder near the 'outside' zone, you are likely to get 'ideas' and realize that only a piece of paper
is keeping you locked up). Learning and studying this information is the only thing that will teach you whether this is "real" or not.
And you will decide for yourself. Then, nobody can convince you otherwise. On one phone conversation with Roger, he said "Just
because this stuff works for me, doesn't mean it's automatically going to work for the next person". What he meant by that is :
Everyone's different, and if you are going to go out and do things and get into trouble and think this will work to get you out, then
think again.... That would be a "loophole". Only when you truly understand this information, (by making the love of Freedom, and
not the love of Money, your #1 focus), then everything will fall into place, and you can go out and apply the "principles" in the
world as a true "principal" of the account. This is how Roger lives day to day, and it is all done without the use of Federal Reserve
Notes, or debt instruments of any kind.
If I can offer a word of caution to anyone thinking about using "Redemption" in court, it is this : DO NOT try to start learning this or
using this process because you have gotten into trouble. Instead, start learning it NOW, so you know what to do in case any
problems come along in the future. If you are confronted with an immediate problem, there is NO TIME to learn this material.
Average Expected time span for learning this should be 1 1/2 to 2 years minimum, more like 3 or 4 years. THIS IS NOT A
QUICK-FIX for your problems, because if you have not internalized it, the system will eat you up through a technique called
"Bluffing". And sometimes bluffing can consist of several weeks in jail, or threats of life sentences, or who knows what they'll
come up with, but the fact is that they have to "balance their books and accounting records" and that is where "Accepted for
Value" comes in". They have a "Tax Liability" on their hands, and they are now the criminals. (If you want to make this your life, I
would recommend a couple of classes on the following : Basic Accounting, Business Law, Commercial Law, and Real Estate.
These are not necessary, but this is not the sort of stuff you just "play with". You are either a Sovereign or you aren't, and it
wouldn't hurt to know your "stuff".)
The entirety of it boils down to this :
1. They are trying to get you to testify, you are trying to get them to witness.
2. They are trying to get you to admit there is "money", you are trying to get them to admit there isn't.
AND, one thing I would like to add here for all the critics of Roger and the "Redemption" process :
Everything that has been criticized so far, in the media light, like Militia Watchdog, Larry Becrafty and various other groups is
flawed because of this one simple fact; They have been criticizing other people's interpretations of Roger's information, having no
direct info. from Roger, himself. All of the fallacies that have been exposed were actually other people's writings and
interpretations of Roger's philosophy. None of the "exposed fallacies" have been from information gleamed from the
"Transcripts", only from sources like the ones mentioned above, and others.
Here are some items for consideration :
The system is set up to mimic the electrical, or energetic system flow of our bodies. Electricity or energy is the "key" here. In our
society, we use money (or so we call it) for all transactions. This money is often called "currency". Currency is electrical flow. The
court is always after your money, or currency, hence most of it ends up going to the courts. The courts are set up to regulate this
currency flow. That's why they call them "circuit courts". Now, when you interrupt currency flow, what happens? You are charged!
So the system charges you with 12 counts of such and such, but in reality it is "financial", and electrical, and now they have set
up 12 "accounts" for you in your name, that you are charged with owing on. BUT, since we don't know this, we don't ever "pay"
the account and it remains open in escrow, and your body is then held as the collateral against the debt, and it is said "You are
paying your "debt" to society." How many times have you heard the expression "released on his own recognizance"? This literally
means "to recognize the debt" according to the law dictionaries. When you are freed from prison there is a "release", and when
you are let out of the army it is called a "discharge".
And finally, the definition for the word "charge" from Black's Law 4th reads as follows : v. "To impose a burden, duty, obligation,
or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim; to demand; to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of law. To impose a tax,
duty, or trust. - In Commercial transactions, to bill or invoice." & n. "An incumbrance, lien, or claim; a burden or load; an obligation
or duty; a liability; an accusation" -- then a little further down, it says "Conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy within a
cell or storage battery". -- (This would be our body) - And for the word "charges" -- "The expenses which have been incurred, or
disbursements made, in connection with a contract, suit or business transaction. (So there you have it...for those with eyes to
see, and ears to hear....)
(Just added 2-15-01) - If you want to tell the difference between someone who understands "redemption" and someone who
doesn't, then all you have to do is ask them...."Do you want to be charged?" (with a criminal offense) If they say "yes", then they
probably understand what they are doing, and if they don't want to be charged, then they obviously don't understand "redemption"
at all, and they are still into "dishonor", not "acceptance".
According to Roger, you want to be charged, because then they have to give you the "property". What they usually do, is the
attorney steals the charge, and is holding it "in bar", and not paying the taxes on it, or making the "tax return". When you do your
acceptance, the attorney becomes the delinquent on the tax, and liable for the charges.
(Just added 4-11-01)
There have been a few cases recently which indicate that the criminals within the system have resorted to new tactics to steer
people away from this info., and from applying it in court. A few cases recently resulted in criminal trials, where, after sentencing,
the person was put in jail, but only briefly. One person spent a whole day in and they released him on a "technicality". He was
supposed to do "time", but not 24 hours, more like a few months, but they let him go. Why? Because of the accounting. They
have to, or else, they are in big trouble! - What I am saying here, is that they are testing people more and more to see where they
are within all of this. Whether they are using it to get out of something, or whether they truly understand what they are doing. That
is what it all boils down to, so don't do anything without knowing what you are doing. -- Before, when we applied this process, they
backed off right away. But when they realize that everyone and their grandmother is going to be doing this soon, they have to
make it look like it isn't working. And that is exactly what they are doing right now, and putting people to the test. This used to be
called something like "trial by fire". More recently, it was known as the "inquisition", but now it has become romanticized by calling
it "courtroom drama".
Lately, alot of people have been writing in asking questions such as "If there isn't anyone out there teaching this correctly, and
everything I have been learning is somewhat incorrect, then what is correct and what is incorrect? How do I know the difference?
-- Usually, the answer I give is this : "Apply the principles". - Which means, read the transcripts over and over AND the
interpretive writings until most of your questions go away naturally by "applying the principles". - Then, you still may have
questions left over, naturally. - So I have made up a page and asked a friend to respond to some "general questions" frequently
asked - Click Here! to goto that page.
Added - 12-10-01 -
I wanted to express a few things to the many people attempting to learn "Redemption" at this time. These are a few of my rare
thoughts I will share on this matter with the public. For all those who study these principles.
The main thing you want to remember is that "we are not opposed to the government" or what they do. Everything they do must
be for our benefit, or else we need to request they do as we wish. In order for them to "do as we wish", we need to have a clear
understanding of what they can and cannot do, and what they are required to do according to THEIR OWN RULES. This is
perhaps the most important thing to remember at all times. Redemption is about "Acceptance" and not "dishonor". Acceptance
means accepting everything, but accepting it for value. Especially now, in these times of war, like Bush said, "You are either with
us, or you are in support of the terrorists, and you too will be considered a terrorist" or something to that effect. It is important to
remember that if you want change from within OUR government, which belongs to us, we the people..., then we better wake up
from our positions as debtors, and return to our rightful positions as masters and creditors of this nation. Then, and only then, can
we "effect" government and produce the outcome we desire. A "debtor" has no rights to effect the financial flow of their
corporation. The creditors direct the actions and financial decisions of the corporation.
Next.... The reason, I believe, that "Redemption" is being fought by those in power is due to several reasons. Mostly, the
MIS-understanding of what this is really all about and how it works, combined with a serious refusal to admit when one is wrong
about something or has learned something wrong and has been applying it their whole life to the detriment of themselves and
society. The "Private" (flesh and blood) will ALWAYS be SUPREME over the artificial corporation (UNITED STATES,
DISNEYLAND, or any other ALL CAPS CORPORATION. But we have many people in power who have hidden behind the
"corporate veil", and have been abusing their power over the private individual. It has become a "way of life" so much so, that to
think or question for a moment even....that the private individual retains his status regardless....seems absurd to most in society.
Yet, those same people question how the government can take all their rights away while they can't so much as complain. More
and more, especially these days, since Sept. 11, people are asking themselves, "How can the government take this much power
for themselves and do all these things?" and the answer lies in this statement : "The government can do whatever it wants to in
the capacity of the CORPORATION, but it does not affect the private individual who knows how to retain his or her own privacy".
-- This is something very difficult for the power structure to come to terms with, and who can blame them? After all these years of
manipulating society to think we are all slaves, a few people have woken up to the fraud that has been perpetrated, and now they
are scrambling to keep their ranks of ignorant. It is very similar to the Taliban wanting to keep hold of their soldiers when most of
them are defecting over to the Northen Alliance. The reason : They see the new ORDER coming and they want to get in line
instead of being left behind or left out. They see the benefits of change instead of holding onto the "old mentality". Ths was the
inevidible consequence in Afghanistan as much as it is the inevidible consequence of "Redemption". "Redemption" once fully
understood by a good portion of people will sweep the country and change everything as we know it today. I have full confidence
in this. I know of several people who are utilizing these principles sucessfully in their life without much problem. The reason is
because they understand what they are doing, and nobody gets "injured" or "damaged" in an way. This is the way of the "Jedi",
who fully understands the talk they talk and the walk they walk.
This is the very first and most important document to read in relation to "Redemption". -
On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges against the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the
Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to,
CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. - Click Here!!
This is an elementary introduction to banking, interest and theft. Essential reading for beginners and the un-informed.
I Want the Earth Plus 5% - Click Here!
A Comprehensive Glossary of Redemption Related Terms - Absolutely Essential Study Material!! - NEW!! - 4-11-01
Roger Elvick Transcripts - (This stuff is the most important)
#1 (From Seminar - Discussing Elvick, Methods used, and Methodology) Jan 17, 1999
#2 (Roger, Jean, and Dave) - From Feb. 2, 1999
#3 (Roger, Jean and Dave) - March 5, 1999
#4 (Roger, Jean and Dave) - Unknown Date
#5 Wally Pederson, Greg Allen, and a Banker -
#6 (Ron and Roger) - 11-26-99
#7 (Elexis and Roger) - 11-26-99
#8 (Ron & Roger) - 8-08-99
#10 (Elexis & Roger) - 3-12-2000
#11 (Elexis & Roger) - 3-14-2000
These are some "Notes" someone took when they met with Roger around the beginning of 2001. Click Here! (NEW!)
Here are some more "Notes" from this same time period. Click Here! (NEW!)
Roger has requested not to circulate these publicly. So, I have put together a compilation of the last 20 or so transcripts that I
have in my possession. I have extracted certain parts to emphasize "principles", to allow the student to better understand this
philosophy. Click Here!
Hello Everyone. I have provided some new study material for you folks out there who really need this info. If you want to stay on
top of this info. (keep in mind that although this is VERY important to study, it is old material. If you do not study it though, you will
be lost if you get the updated materials. To do this correctly, study persistantly. If you want to be up to date here it is.
There is a study group, which I am a part of that meets once every few months to update each other on whatever is new and to
get together and have lunch. This is where the most serious students meet It is in Culver City and Barbara is the person who puts
it together. She is a wonderful person and a great help, but please DON'T write to her for advice. She will just tell you to simply
"study the materials" first. Anyways, she spends ALL of her time trasncribing these conversations and she would like to be
compensated for her time. She asks a donation (on the honor basis) (web edi. "but you better pay her or else it's not nice"), of
$10 a month and she will put you on her mailing list. It is a VERY fair deal and she deserves it. I am doing what I can to help her
by posting this here. This way, anyone who wants to can keep up to date on the latest info. but if you don't study hard, you simply
won't "get it". Another thing that she is doing which I think is a great idea and whose time had come is this : For $225.00 she will
send you a CD rom with all the study materials dating back to the inception and up to Dec. 2002. There are something like 80
Transcripts with over 2000 pages of RAW STUDY MATERIAL. Folks this is as good as it gets and this opportunity is awesome. I
highly recommend this for those who want to be "on top" of things. Contact Barbara Busch at P.O. Box 881007, Los Angeles, Ca.
90009. Her e-mail address is email@example.com Like I said before...Don't even bother contacting her to help you with your
problems unless you are subscribing and studying and can talk the talk and you are walking the walk. Far too many people think
they can make a phone call, talk to someone who will help them, and all their problems will be solved. Wrong approach, think
again. Go back to the drawing board and sit down and take the time to STUDY. The transcripts are THE best source. So, here
are some "gems" for the tried and true.
NEW!!! Transcript from Oct. 2000 -
NEW!!! Transcript from March 1, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from April 23, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from May 1, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from May 17, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from June 18, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from July 27, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from Aug. 7, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from Aug. 7, 2001 -
NEW!!! Transcript from Sept. 6, 2001 -
New Articles Here! - Just Added 4-11-01
The 'Straw Man' - Corporate Entity - The 'ENS LEGIS'...as Explained from an International Perspective - Richard R. Riley
March / April : Ron Lutz Arrested - Still in Jail - Standard business transaction goes sour. - American's Bulletin Staff
IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board - Redemption Use Update by Barton Butz - Click here! - From American's Bulletin -
$15,000 Credit Card Debt "Zeroed" w/Accepted For Value - March-April - American's Bulletin - (Independently Verified)
Interpretive Writings Of My Understandings Of Redemption. (Ver.2)(Written Anon. Not by this Website's Editor.)
NEW!!!-- Interpretive Writings Of My Understandings Of Redemption. (Ver.3)(Written Anon. Not by this Website's Editor.)
Introductory Article from American's Bulletin Sept. 1999 (Warning : This Info. is outdated and innacurate as to the facts)
Title of Nobility - Howard Griswold - 1994 (Good Introduction to UCC & Commercial Law)
The Hierarchy of the Law & the Application of Commercial Law : The Private
Process for the Sovereign? - Author Unknown - American's Bulletin - Nov. 1999
(This article was written prior to REDEMPTION and applies primarily to Commercial Law)
"Who's" in Control - Getting in Control - Staying in Control -- By Jack Smith --
A Right Way L.a.w Update on Redemption
The Core of the Conflict - Redemption or Institutionalized Control and Servitude?
Dan Meador vs. Larry BeCraft - From American's Bulletin - Oct. 1999
An Investigative Report on Understanding Your : "UCC Direct Treasury Contract Accounts" - Barton H. Buhtz - From the
American's Bulletin - March / April, 2000 - Click Here!!
Standing is "Winning" by Peoples Rights Ass. - From the American's Bulletin - March / April 2000 - Click Here!!
Posted Update on "Redemption" WIN! - By Terry Payne - The American's Bulletin - March / April, 2000 - Click Here!!
Traffic "Win" in Oregon - Click Here!! - From The American's Bulletin, May-June, 2000
Traffic "Win" in Colorado - Click Here!! - From American's Bulletin, May-June, 2000
And Redemption Related :
"Is Your Child Human Capital?" by Cindy Weatherly -- (NEW!)
& Executive Order 13037 (Relative to above) -- (NEW!)
Walmart and the Prison Industry - Howard Griswold
Just Found!! - 73rd Congress, Sess I CH 1. March 9, 1933 - VERY IMPORTANT!!
Attention -- For more Information
There are 2 sets of videos and 5 books currently available.
There is a set of 3 videos by (wishes to remain anonymous) and a set of 3 videos by Rice Mcleod.
There is a book by (wishes to remain anonymous), and a book by Rice Mcleod.
There is a book called Gilbert's Law Summeries, "Commercial Paper and Payment Law".
The Cost for video sets is $25 + $2.00 shipping and handling.
The (wishes to remain anonymous) books and Rice Mcleod books are $25.00 each + $3.00
shipping and handling.
The Gilbert's Law Summeries is $30.00 +$3.00 shipping and handling
Just Added (3-06-01) : There is also a 3 tape audio set by Wiley on Commercial Paper (Same author
as Gilbert's Law Summery Book) - The cost for these are $20.00 for the set.
I am putting a new package of info. together which includes a compilation of the best materials from
(wishes to remain anonymous), Rice's Book, and the Assorted Documents Package. It will include all of "Necessary Forms" and
recently added "Draft" learning material. This will be $50.00 +$3.00 S+H
If you do not have access to download the materials that are free on this site, you can order the Roger Transcripts for $25.00 (+
$3.00 S+H) and the Glossary of Terms for $15.00 (+ $3.00 S+H) and the Interpretive writings for $15.00 (+ $3.00 S+H) or
Order all three for $50.00 + $3.00 S+H
(Warning : People are getting into trouble using the ("Sight Drafts" the wrong way. I don't recommend you use them until or
unless you are thoroughly aware of what you are doing and the possible consequences of what may happen anyways. And even
then, I don't "recommend" that anyone use them. If you "need money" or you want to get "free money", then this is not for you
and you don't understand this information. Ordering the package WILL NOT make you a multi-millionaire or put ANY money in
your pocket. This has nothing to do with "getting rich" or anything like that. Using a "Draft" is exactly the same as the
"Acceptance", except that it is something which they understand to be an "instrument", unlike an "Acceptance". That is the only
difference. It is exactly the same, though. But, the bigger, more important difference is that when one is tendered in acceptance
of an offer, the vendor usually does not know what to do with it, and they attempt to deposit it like a check. It comes back and
they say "your check bounced", but they do not realize that it is not a "check", and therefore it cannot be treated like one. Then
they want you arrested because they think you attempted to defraud them. The problem is that people do not understand what
they are doing, here, without going into great detail.
Shipping and handling will be waived on orders for "All the materials"
Please send Postal Money Orders only. Leave the "Pay to" line blank.
Send to 484 Lake Park Ave. #81, Oakland, Ca. 94610
Please wait 4-6 weeks for delivery.
And don't forget to subscribe to the American's Bulletin, the BEST cutting edge Freedom newsletter