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
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
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
Acceptance: An oath, whereby one agrees to take on a
duty or a right. One may only accept a right if entitled to it
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
Certificate: An oath, professing that a statement is
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
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
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
- Regarding the birth-certificate:
- 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.
- 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
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 way, they have you in their grasp.
- Your fate as a slave is inevitable, and you have no
- If you study hard enough you will one day be
delivered of all tyranny, if only you can find just
the right paperwork.
- 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.
- Q: Then isn't a certified-copy
of a certificate, just
someone's promise that somebody else promised that
something is true?
- 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
- Q: Is it possible for me to ever
get my original birth-certificate
A: While anything is technically
possible, the real answer is no. The explanation is in two
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Regarding the Straw-Man:
- 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
- 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.
- Regarding Claims:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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!
- Regarding Acceptance:
- 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.
- 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."
- Q: If I accept
a duty, does that mean I am obligated
to fulfill it?
A: Of course.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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
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
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
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.