Title 4 Flag Says You’re Schwag?

An unfortunate character trait of some political dissidents is when they assume that their interpretation of what the government says is flawlessly correct. When presented with evidence showing a different interpretation (usually, the government’s own ruling on the matter in question), these same dissidents throw a hissy fit and then declare that anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be an undercover government agent. These dissidents, who also incorrectly portray themselves as “common law advocates,” should just stop spewing misinformation like it’s going out of style.



Just like the Freemen-on-the-Land, sovereign citizens must believe in the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth in order for their toolbox of shenanigans to seem credible. Besides the fact that even the label “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron, the author proselytizes about the alleged fraud the government conducts against the body politic:


“What most people don’t realize is that the birth certificates are considered by the governments to be title to the body of the individual whose name is on it, a contract with implied status: State property. The SS# is an account set up to manage money borrowed using the birth certificate as collateral, the implication is that you are liable for the repayment of the debt. Another way to look at it is as if the Birth Certificate is the equivalent to a business license (an artificial person) which can make no claim for human rights. Why does your baby need a certificate of registration and a debt management account?”


Oh, crap, not this shit about the birth certificate being a financial security again. Alright, at the risk of sounding like a broken record player, I’ll ask these same types of questions yet again…where is the source citation from the government’s own literature that an individual citizen’s birth certificate is prima facie evidence of also being a monetarily valuable financial security? Where is the proof that a Social Security number is evidence of a debt management program using the birth certificate as collateral? I’d be more happy to take a look at any source citations from, say, the United States Code, United States Supreme Court decisions, or Congressional statutes since they are reliable sources from the government’s own side; if you can’t justify these “explanations” without referring to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is enforced by the state governments anyway, then I am left to assume that you don’t even understand the basic principal of dual federalism.

Despite their refusal to bear the burden of proof for the claims they make, it is pretty typical for sovereign citizens to roll over you like a steamroller by continuing on with their “explanation” of how things allegedly work. Methods such as Acceptance for Value (A4V) could only work if the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth was actually true:


“The fictional UNITED STATES Corporation still exists on paper as a commercial enterprise with immense debt to foreign bankers. As a matter of fact U.S. Inc. has been a corporation floundering in and out of bankruptcy since 1871 when congress went bankrupt from the civil war. The United States were incorporated to borrow money from English bankers who proposed the offer to control American lawmakers.”


Sovereign citizens need to subjectively believe in a “corporate government” because that’s the only way they could even try and somehow invoke the UCC. Without the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth, the applicability of the UCC would automatically be rendered null and void. But simple cogent reasoning like that doesn’t stop them:


“The UNITED STATES corporation now uses your birth certificate, filed as a registered security with the United States Department of Commerce as collateral to secure credit from the world bank; England’s private bank, this making you liable for the national debt. Each ‘strawman‘ birth certificate is considered to be a fictitious person, a second-class citizen, a corporation “Vessel of the United States” that was voluntarily applied for by the parents and created by the Birth Registrar of the State, another corporation ‘Vessel of the United States,’ for the purpose of securing the national debt.”


Here is the origin of the “STRAWMAN” theory; it is little more than an application of the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth to the birth certificate itself. Put another way, the “STRAWMAN” myth establishes the fallacious reasoning that led to the rise of the A4V method. An even simpler way for me to explain this train of fallacies is with the following chain:


“corporate UNITED STATES” myth → “STRAWMAN” hypothesis → A4V experiment


As you can no doubt tell, A4V was doomed before anybody even bothered to try it because it ultimately relied on a hypothesis, which itself was flawed because it relied upon Patriot mythology. Imitating Robert Menard, Veronica Chapman, and Mary Croft, J.M. reiterates the same old tired “ALL CAPITAL LETTERS” argument:


“Where the name appears in all caps, FIRST MIDDLE LAST, as on the Birth Certificate or driver’s license, it can be considered an artificial person and public like WAL-MART.”


For the umpteenth time, I will repeat my concerns here…where is the evidence that when your legal name is written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, this shows that an artificial person is attached to you, and because of this, you are therefore suffering from capitis diminutio? The only way I can see how this could even be slightly possible is if the “STRAWMAN” hypothesis were true; even if it were, that still does not satisfactorily demonstrate the harm to oneself as evidenced by capitis diminutio. J.M. even goes so far as to recommend you to write the following above where your sign your name on a traffic ticket:



First-Middle: Last


Here, J.M. takes idiocy to a whole new level. This is magical thinking at perhaps its finest, for it assumes that just by writing some extra words on a legal document, that alone can protect you from the government (this is exacerbated by the fact that this is simply not the case).

I did want to touch on the meaning behind the title of J.M.’s book. As he says:


“Let me guarantee you it is not the civilian peacetime flag of the American Union of States, clearly defined in the United States Code at Title 4, section 1, chapter 1. Why? Because they are deviant flags. This is explained as criminal and fraudulent advertisement in TITLE 4 U.S.C.A. CHAPTER 1 SECTION 3. Unfortunately, all government offices display gold-fringed military flags or 3×5 army flags because they are all vessels of the UNITED STATES Corporation. You can’t even buy a Title 4 Flag at WAL-MART, only the 3×5 proportion military flags.”


Let’s test that “guarantee,” shall we? Title 4, United States Code, § 1 says:


“The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.”


Keeping in mind that this was written back in 1947 before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union, the flag being described here is essentially Old Glory. Here is a picture of what 4 USC §1 shows:


Title 4 Flag


And here is what J.M. shows on page 32 of his book:


J.M. Godsent's Flag


Where the hell did J.M. get the idea for his so-called “American ‘Sons of Liberty’ Common-Law Flag?” Title 4 explicitly says horizontal stripes (not vertical) and white stars on a blue field (not blue stars on a white field), which is the antithesis of what is shown on J.M.’s “common law flag.” It’s almost as if he interpreted 4 USC §1 to mean what I could only describe as a photo negative flag as somehow being the “true” flag of America.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, J.M. likes to play fast and loose whenever he quotes Scripture in order to make some arcane political diatribe that isn’t even relevant to what he was trying to argue in the first place. For instance, he prefers to chop entire verses in half, just as he did with Revelation 1:3 and Revelation 13:5, both of which actually say, respectively:


“Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”

“And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.”


Quoting Revelation 1:3 is rather interesting, for it deals with what the Bible says about the end of the world, which is hard to tell exactly what that is, for the Bible says that the end will come “soon” (meaning within a couple thousand years or so), that it will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors, and that the end of the world will come within the lifetime of Jesus’ apostles. Revelation 13:5 reads like something out a psychedelic trip, so I don’t think it’s even worth getting into in any real depth.

Now, to be fair, J.M. does quote some Bible verses in their entirety, but in those cases, I question the content itself, especially with regard to its relevancy to the law. Besides the patent absurdity of Revelation 13:16, J.M. is making an assumption here, particularly in light of the fact that Verichip can’t be implanted in the forehead, although microchips can be implanted in the web of either hand between the thumb and the index finger. I’m not quite sure why J.M. also quotes Revelation 14:11, for, besides the cruelty, injustice, and bigotry strongly implied in this verse as well as the one preceding it, there is very much the issue of interpretation at play here, especially with regards to what the Bible says about burning people to death. Although Luke 11:52 reminds me of what Dick the butcher said in William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, I can’t help but think that Jesus of Nazareth was acting a bit skewed when he uttered his slur, since he was in the middle of blaming all the deaths of the prophets (from Abel to Zacharias) on his generation. Perhaps Luke 11:52 served as inspiration to J.M. when he wrote:


“Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licenses its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fiction claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the only person who can claim his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifiable knowledge of the law.”


Nevertheless, I am still greatly puzzled by what J.M. was trying to convey here about sovereign citizenship by using these questionable Bible passages.

Unfortunately, Scripture isn’t the only piece of literature that J.M. likes to play fast and loose with, not by a long shot. Here is what J.M. claimed US v. Minker said:


“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens because of their respect for what appears to be laws are cunningly COERCED into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”


Here is what United States v. Minker Falcone actually said:


“But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena’s validity by litigation.”


See what I mean? The guy has trouble even directly quoting the common law when he meant, I think, to simply just paraphrase it, yet we’re supposed to believe that he is a common law advocate. He also tried to provide a source citation for the UCC several times, but they weren’t precise enough, such as when he attempted to cite UCC 1-103.6; on another occasion, he tried to cite UCC 1-308.7. According to the Texas Business and Commerce Code, Section 1.308:


(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.


There is no “UCC 1-308.7,” at least, not here in Texas. The additional part he has of “the making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of wavier or estoppels” isn’t even mentioned in the Texas Business and Commerce Code that I can find. Remember, the UCC is enforced by the 50 state governments, not the federal government, but ah, he screws up citing even at that level of government. J.M. cites a quote as being from 28 USC § 3002(15)(3), despite the fact that there is no such thing, although I think what he meant to write was 28 USC § 3002(15)(C). After incorrectly citing what he was trying to use as his justification for the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth, J.M. goes on to claim that 18 USC § 241, 18 USC § 242, 18 USC § 247, 42 USC § 21, and 42 USC § 1983 somehow magically protect you from the government, but, of course, he neglects to inform his readers as to why that is the case. Not only did he redundantly quote 42 USC § 21 twice, but in his next breath he recommends filming government agents as an evidence gathering method to be used as the basis for a civil lawsuit. To add insult to injury, J.M.’s “Truthful Language Claim” 12 step procedure only works if the claims made by him earlier were actually true. If everything from his terrible citations of the UCC to his misunderstanding of what a Title 4 flag actually is, is wrong, then you’re in for a world of hurt at worst, and the mental ward at best (never mind the whole bloody fingerprint thing, which he literally explains away as a method of associating the DNA with the life the document claims to represent).

I’m starting to think that sovereign citizens are nothing more than reformists, because reformists stubbornly adhere to their failed methods, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Arguably, sovereign citizens have done some good work over the years by inventing some effective counter-interrogation techniques during a police encounter, as well as raising awareness about the natural liberty to travel, but beyond those two very specific topics, the rest of the baggage that the sovereign citizens carry with them (including their very name, as I’ve already explained at length) is, quite honestly, too much to bear. They should not call themselves “common law advocates” because they never actually refer to the common law, preferring instead to incessantly cite the UCC (which is, technically, statutory law). By contrast, state citizens are truly common law advocates because they actually bother to study the case law. I never want to hear again that worn out excuse by the “sovereigns” and “Freemen” alike that because I think their interpretations are completely wrong, that “I need to go do my own research” (especially considering the fact that I question their credibility precisely because I “did my own research”).

As more of an aside, it has been postulated to me in private conversations that the sovereign citizens are wannabe anarchists. At first, I discounted this, since I had assumed from most of their rhetoric that they were simply minarchists, but then I came across what J.M.’s views about government were:


“Government is an idea, a fiction, and can only do business as a fiction, with a fiction. This is why they try to shackle you with the fiction birth certificate name and Gregorian date of birth from the moment you breathe.”


So, it would appear that my skepticism turned out to be unfounded in this case. Oh, well, you can’t blame me too much for giving the sovereign citizens the benefit of the doubt, can you?

J.M. Sovereign: Godsent’s Title 4 Flag Says You’re Schwag! The Sovereign Citizen’s Handbook is a worse than useless crock of shit, quite frankly. After having slogged through at least four books written by pro-UCC, anti-common law “common law advocates,” I’m seriously left to wonder whether controlled opposition might very well be at play here. Revealingly, J.M. says the following in his conclusion:


“I cannot for think for you. I can only encourage you to take your life into your own hands. Declare your sovereign American civilian status and help your community be networked with the rest of the real America by distributing this book and requesting seminars in your area. There are a lot of good American people out there who will help you and you’ve got to find then! God speed to you! Send us your results so others can learn from your efforts.”


It’s not a matter of not being able to think for myself, you little shit…it’s a matter of you having absolutely no concept of what due diligence means! He, like the other “sovereigns” and “Freemen,” just projectile vomit whatever some alleged guru spews out, despite the fact that their so-called methods just simply don’t work. Much like voting, protesting, and writing a letter to the editor, reformism, no matter what form it takes, manipulates your desire for greater personal liberty into a twisted sadomasochistic carousel of misinformation and even disinformation, which ends up doing nothing more notable than going ’round and ’round the Ferris Wheel within the proverbial carnival of the Internet without any foreseeable way off, just the same old ’round and ’round…

Officer “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “officer” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):



A term of vague and variant import, the meaning of which varies necessarily with the context and the circumstances surrounding the use of the term [42 Am J1st Pub Of § 2]. A commissioned officer of the Armed Forces [36 Am Jst Mil § 51]. A policeman. One holding or inseparably connected with an office [Metcalf v. Mitchell, 269 US 514, 70 L Ed 384, 46 S Ct 172]. A person who holds an office, either public or private [42 Am J1st Pic Of § 2].

An officer is distinguishable from a person who holds a place of trust or profit. Such places are not offices, and yet they occupy the sam general level in dignity and importance. Members of the legislature are not officers. Their places are places of trust and profit, but they are not offices of trust and profit [Doyle v. Aldermen of Raleigh, 89 NC 133].

See corporate officers; municipal officer; public officer.



  1. He who is lawfully invested with an office.

  2. Officers may be classed into, Executive, as the president of the United States of America, the several governors of the different states. Their duties are pointed out in the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, but they are required mainly to cause the laws to be executed and and obeyed.

  3. The legislature; such as members of congress; and of the several state legislatures. These officers are confined in their duties by the constitution, generally to make laws, though sometimes in cases of impeachment, one of the houses of the legislature exercises judicial functions, somewhat similar to those of a grand jury by presenting to the other articles of impeachment; and the other house acts as a court in trying such impeachments. The legislatures have, besides the power to inquire into the conduct of their members, judge of their elections, and the like.

  4. Judicial officers; whose duties are to decide controversies between individuals, and accusations made in the name of the public against persons charged with a violation of the law.

  5. Ministerial officers, or those whose duty it is to execute the mandates, lawfully issued, of their superiors.

  6. Military officers, who have commands in the army; and

  7. Navy officers, who are in command in the navy.

  8. Officers are required to exercise the functions which belong to their respective offices. The neglect to do so, may, in some cases, subject the offender to an indictment [1 Yeates, R. 519]; and in others, he will be liable to the party injured [1 Yeates, R. 506].

  9. Officers are also divided into public officers and those who are not public. Some officers may bear both characters; for example, a clergyman is a public officer when he acts in the performance of such a public duty as the marriage of two individuals [4 Conn. 209]; and he is merely a private person when he acts in his more ordinary calling of teaching his congregation [see 4 Conn. 134; 1 Apple. 155].



The incumbent of an office; one who is lawfully invested with an office. One who is charged by a superior power (and particularly by government) with the power and duty of exercising certain functions.

  • Civil officer: any officer of the United States who holds his appointment under the national government, whether his duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy [1 Story, Const. § 792; State v. Clarke, 21 Nev. 333, 31 Pac. 545, 18 L. R. A. 313, 37 Am. St. Rev. 517; State v. O’Driscoll, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 527; Com’rs v. Goldsborough, 90 Md. 193, 44 Atl. 1055].

  • Officer de facto: as distinguished from an officer de jure, this is the designation of one who is in the actual possession and administration of the office, under some colorable or apparent authority, although his title to the same, whether by election or appointment, is in reality invalid or at least formally questioned [see Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 78; State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449, 9 Am. Rep. 409; Trenton v. McDaniel, 52 N. C. 107; Barlow v. Stanford, 82 Ill. 298; Brown v. Lunt, 27 Me. 423; Gregg Tp. Jamison, 55 Pa. 468; Pierce v. Edington, 38 Ark. 150; Plymouth v. Painter, 17 Conn. 585, 44 Am. Dec. 574; Prescott v. Hayes, 42 N. H. 56; Jewell v. Gilbert, 64 N. H. 12, 5 Atl. 80, 10 Am. St. Rep. 357; Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Grat. (Va.) 31; Ex parte Strang, 21 Ohio St. 610].

  • Officers of justice: a general name applicable to all persons connected with the administration of the judicial department of government, but commonly used only of the class of officers whose duty is to serve the process of the courts, such as sheriffs, constables, bailiffs, marshals, sequestrations, etc.

  • Public officer: an officer of a public corporation; that is, one holding office under the government of a municipality, state, or nation. In English law, an officer appointed by a joint-stock banking company, under the statutes regulating such companies, to prosecute and defend suits in its behalf.




A person commissioned or authorized to perform any public duty. Officers are civil, military, or ecclesiastical. There are great officers of state, and subordinate officers. Military and naval officers of the same grade usually take rank according to the dates of their commissions. Non-commissioned officers are nominated by their captains, and appointed by the commanding officers of regiments.

OF’FICER, v.t.

To furnish with officers; to appoint officers over.

  • Count Pulaski raised a legionary corps, which he officered principally with foreigners.

Double Standards

As a libertarian, I hold the ethical position that all taxation is theft; if you think I am exaggerating (especially because you think that some taxation is constitutional, and by implication is also morally acceptable, because of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 and/or the 16th Amendment of the federal Constitution), then I would encourage you to read A Law Unto Itself, which is about the history of the IRS (today’s meme is provided courtesy of LibertarianPrepper.com).



On Guerrilla Gardening

Too many activities have been declared mala prohibita by the government. Everything from selling raw milk to jaywalking has been arbitrarily dictated as being illegal. If it is indeed true that we all might as well be committing Three Felonies a Day, may it be time to accept the fact that the several American governments have essentially outlawed freedom, and thus we should act accordingly in order to re-secure our Liberties?



Guerrilla gardening is simply defined by the author as “the illicit cultivation of someone else’s land.” It is the practice of growing flowers or vegetables on what is usually public land. While it could be considered a cousin of culture jamming, it is uniquely different from it by virtue of the fact there is a direct utilitarian benefit from it, besides the fact that it doesn’t enjoy even the shred of legality that most culture jamming does.

As you can no doubt tell from the name, this unique form of civil disobedience necessarily carries several allusions to guerrilla warfare. Reynolds says:


“For a start, guerrilla gardening is not just about breaking convention but about breaking rules. Our enemy is not just normality, but something much worse. Just like the original Spanish guerrilleros, guerrilla gardeners are reclaiming land from enemy forces, and although our battle is seldom with imperial invaders, as theirs was, it sometimes feels as if we are up against a lot of little Napoleons.”


I’ve never heard of power-tripping local statists as “little Napoleons,” but I think that aptly describes the Austin City Council, who themselves violated Article 1, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution. Reynolds continues:


“Do not, either be tempted (as some people have) to describe an activity as guerrilla gardening in places where permission has been granted. Defining it as anything other than the illicit cultivation of someone else’s land belittles the bravery and imagination of genuine guerrilla gardeners. The most shameless appropriation of the term I have seen was the Mayor of London’s brief gassing of Trafalgar Square with Yorkshire turf in May 2007 (a rather pointless, expensive and ecologically dubious gesture about ‘greening’ the city), which was called ‘guerrilla gardening’ simply because the small lawn was installed at night.”


In other words, in order for a gardening activity to be truly a guerrilla one, it must also be throughly illegal. If that’s applicable to the rather benign act of gardening, wouldn’t you also think the same would apply to guerrilla operations in defense of our Liberty? Regarding the history of guerrilla gardening, Reynolds had this to say:


“The earliest widely publicized act of guerrilla gardening took place on an English hill in 1649. It was a turbulent time for the whole country. King Charles I had just been beheaded, the Council of State was in charge, and radicals were energetically pamphleting suggestions for the shape of their new society. Among those wanting changes was an impoverished textile merchant called Gerrard Winstanley, who was born in Wigan but by this time was living in Surrey. Calling for England’s unjust land rights to be corrected, he rallied a group of men and women who became known as the Diggers.”


Reynolds goes on to say that Winstanley pushed so hard on this because the English people were starving, so obviously the focus was on growing edibles, such as vegetables (kinda reminds you of the “crime” of killing the “king’s deer” to feed your family, doesn’t it?).

Some libertarians might get all in a hissy fit over guerrilla gardening, since they are likely to claim that not only does it violate individual property rights, but that it also somehow worsens the tragedy of the commons. First, most guerrilla gardening takes place on public land, so the worst any of them could say about that is that the guerrillas are fruitlessly attempting to homestead government “administered” property. Second, whatever private property the guerrillas are cultivating plants on are abandoned anyway, much like the abandoned property dumpster divers seek to reclaim for themselves. Reynolds comments that:


“Most guerrilla gardeners are up against two main enemies. These are not people or organizations but conditions of the landscape: scarcity or neglect, problems that come from how we all use the land. They are in some ways contradictory – if land is scarce you would not expect it to be neglected, and likewise in an area where land is being neglected you would expect there to be plenty to spare. But the world is not logical. People are not distributed according to what they need from the landscape, and rules and regulations prevent those who want land from making use of neglected space. Guerrilla gardeners ignore the rules and regulations, resolve the contradiction and have a lot of fun doing it. By cultivating someone else’s land without their permission, a guerrilla gardener directly confronts the problem through the landscape rather than the person – a strategy which is more often than not helps to avoid conflict.”


Generally speaking, yes, private property owners take better care of their property than the government takes care of public property, but that doesn’t always mean those owners aren’t statists or otherwise negligent:


“Private owners also neglect and abandon their land, particularly if they live far away from it. As some see it, they need nothing from the space and owe nothing to the community in which it sits – their land is simply an economic asset that they have decided is not worth investing in or selling yet; to the owner the land might as well be precious metal in a bank. But the difference is that the land is not packed away like gold bullion and hidden in a vault, but is a visible blight to everyone. Fortunately the lack of Fort Knox-level security means that the guerrilla gardener can strike.”


A corporatist treats “his” property similarly to how a government employee might neglect to cut the grass, the only difference being that a corporatist might do a better job if there was an incentive present for him to rip off his hapless customers had he just planted a few azaleas. Reynolds describes how John Chapman (aka, Johnny Appleseed) was able to cultivate as many guerrilla gardens as he did without violating anybody’s rights:


“Chapman avoided confrontation with the local inhabitants by befriending them, speaking their languages and teaching them how to cultivate trees and mix herbal medicines. He cut informal clearings in the abundant landscape and seeded apple trees all around the outskirts of nascent settler towns such as Warren and Franklin in Pennsylvania and Mariette and Mansfield in Ohio. He favoured discreet riverside spots, as it was in these fertile and accessible lands that the settlers were most likely to come and put down roots. In every inviting patch he planted some seeds, fencing the area to keep away peckish cattle and deer. His guerrilla orchards soon produced seedlings that he sold on to the local inhabitants.”


See, anarcho-capitalists? It’s not a mortal sin to grow plants on someone else’s land, especially if you are improving the quality of the land. While it is certainly preferable to ask permission from the owners, that’s not always possible or even desirable in some situations, but as long as the guerrilla gardener does not violate the Non-Coercion Principle, he therefore does not cause a common law tort with a genuine victim, so you can stick your overly self-righteous attitude right back into your pretentious black turtlenecks.

Not only does guerrilla gardening serve as a precursor to monkey-wrenching, but it also possesses agorist characteristics. As Reynolds describes:


“Personally, for most guerrilla gardening I favour the casual approach. When I am on regular maintenance missions to weed, collect litter and do a little planting I do not dress very differently from how I would normally. This means I can fit it in on my way to and from doing something else. If you are likely to be gardening, assemble your outfit with the practical common sense of a regular domestic-gardener: wear something warm, breathable, and comfortable. A hooded top would be eminently practical, except that in Britain, as the uniform of delinquent youths known as ‘hoodies’, it may provoke fear and aggression. You will want to stretch with your tools and kneel down in the dirt, so go for baggy and washable. Loose combat trousers (though please note my earlier comment about camouflage patterns) are well suited. Deep pockets are useful for shoving in a spare trowel, gloves, and other gardening odds and ends. Layers that can be removed and rolled into a bag are handy for when you get hot.”


He goes on to say that wearing those orange reflective vests with the yellow reflective strips can serve as effective camouflage during the dig, although Reynolds does admit there were a few times he had a couple brushes with government agents who, interestingly enough, after a brief chat, decided to leave him alone to dig without resorting to snitching on him to the cops. Reynolds goes on to say that:


“Choice of vehicle is critical. You might expect a capacious estate car or truck to be most practical, but both have their drawbacks. When driving a rusty old green Volkswagen Golf I was pulled over by London’s Metropolitan Police as a suspected terrorist and searched under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. My sacks of wood chippings piled up on the back seat were assumed by the twitchy officers to be a giant fertilizer bomb. The car was screaming out ‘terrorist cliché.’ A van, while disguising the innocuous contents from police view, has also been trouble for me. I hired a large white Ford Transit to carry waste to a municipal dump, but the beefy staff (who had been friendly when I had gone there by car) turned mercenary and demanded a fee for what they no considered ‘commercial’ dumping – all because my vehicle had no side windows.”


Timothy McVeigh jokes aside, it almost doesn’t matter whether your car has side windows or not, just going by Reynolds experiences alone. What it does mean is that, as a guerrilla gardener, you should be prepared to be at least pulled over for a police encounter. For a more monkey-wrenching application, here is what Reynolds describes:


“Guerrilla gardeners also grow crops that are more intoxicating than vegetables. In the global drug trade this activity is a cottage industry compared with mass-market drug agribusinesses, and there are advantages to the guerrilla’s boutique approach. A problem for drug barons who grow narcotics on their own land is that their incriminating crop is rooted to their land’s title deed, so they require a personal security force to keep prying enforcement agencies away – Peru’s coca growers rely on the 500-strong guerrilla army called the Shining Path for protection. But guerrilla gardeners need no guerrilla army because they are not cultivating their own land; as long as they are not caught in the act there is nothing to link them to the evidence. One anonymous guerrilla gardener discretely planted 3,400 marijuana (Cannabis sativa subsp. Indica) seedlings along the riverbanks of Carmel Valley, in the grounds of a huge Californian estate owned by the media baron Rupert Murdoch. They were eventually spotted, but the guerrilla gardener escaped before he could be arrested and the crops were destroyed.”


Even though I doubt Murdoch was arrested, it is conceivable that if his employees hadn’t discover it, and if, say, an “anonymous informant” had tipped off the Monterey Sheriff’s Department instead, I think there would have been a greater likelihood that Murdoch, the unrepentant statist war-monger, would have gotten what was coming to him, unlike the majority of the incarcerated population. In terms of agorism, Reynolds says:


“Although our activity is illegal, discreet and often carried out under the cover of darkness, we do not need to feel like spies in the night. We certainly do not need to deceive our loved ones with elaborate excuses for why we come home with mud all over our hands and knees. So, the first place to start your propaganda mission is at home. Gain the trust and perhaps even the enthusiasm of your next of kin, friends and family. This is essential. While your ultimate aim should be to recruit them to fight alongside you, there are other more pressing concerns that make it essential to tell them about your activity at the earliest stage. These are the people to whom you will turn should anything untoward happen in the field – an arrest, perhaps, or an accident. Do not wait until after something has gone horribly wrong to explain to them what you were doing. I do not mean to worry you – guerrilla gardening is relatively safe – but think of basic propaganda as common-sense safety. Imagine your family at your funeral, agonizing about why you were found dead on a roundabout with a fork and a tray of pansies. Propaganda need go no further than telling them what you are doing.”


Trust is the most important commodity for agorists, whether in or out of government prison. Discrete peer-to-peer trading is the best recruitment tool, for it demonstrates the utter lie of statism. These despotic jokers can’t even keep what they consider to be illicit narcotics out of their own prisons, so why should we expect drug prohibition to keep these same alleged narcotics off the streets? Similarly, guerrilla gardeners rely on the trust of their close friends and family in order to safely and effectively conduct their digs; for them, taking their loved ones on a dig is the best recruitment tool, for it too demonstrates the utter lie of statism.

Reynolds does address the pros and cons of guerrilla gardeners transitioning into just gardeners when they try to “legitimize” their gardens by asking the government for permission to do something they were already doing anyway. As he describes:


“The fight with authorities is never over, even when you think you have official permission. The guerrilla gardeners of New York thought their street-fighting days were well behind them by the mid-1990s. While a few gardens had been bulldozed over the years, most had been legitimized after the gardeners agreed to pay a nominal rent to the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. There were also supported by a publicly funded organization called Green Thumb. But the political landscape changed in 1997, when Mayor Giuliani set about auctioning off 300 of the gardens. What were once seemingly worthless patches of land had become ripe for development. Mass protests that extended far beyond the gardeners saved many old guerrilla gardens during this period, but the fight continues.”


Isn’t that just delightful? So, those guerrillas cultivated the land, homesteaded it, and then that statist boot-licker Rudolph Giuliani unilaterally began auctioning off 300 gardens? If there any example (besides the bankster bailouts, the Iraq War, and American police state terrorism) to convince those skeptical of our overall political situation as being blatantly tyrannical, I think this is prima facie evidence that the State does not give a shit about you or your family; in that case, then why bother offering allegiance to an entity that admits it does not bear an obligation to protect you or your property in exchange for that allegiance? Reynolds elaborates:


“When a journalist calls, answer their questions in as matter-of-fact a way as you can. It is important that you avoid the risk of playing up to media stereotypes. Generally, people who do something illegal, particularly if it is at night, are shifty and reluctant to talk about it – eccentric at best, obstructive at worst. On the other hand, people who spend lots of their time doing community work have a reputation for being a bit dull, which makes neither a good story nor appealing propaganda. The journalist may well have a preconceived idea that you are naïve eccentric fool and be looking to play this up. Your role is to convey that you are anything but this – just an enthusiastic average gardener who is keen to take responsibility for public space and who sees the illegality of the activity as a silly quirk of the world we live in.”


Of course, this assumes that you are willing to go public as a Freedom Outlaw of the agitator persuasion. Reynolds cautions:


“Victory is possible without legitimization. Do not feel that it is an inevitable step. An owner who has neglected a piece of land for years may continue to do so indefinitely. Your intervention may be totally acceptable to that landowner, but not something they wish to be seen sanctioning. So, even though a truce has not been signed, your battle could well be over. Accept that, remembering this: a guerrilla gardener who wishes to go straight risks losing everything. You are blowing your cover, you are confessing, you are pointing out your success compared with their failure, you are putting whoever is officially responsible in an embarrassing and defensive position. What you thought was neglect may turn to interference, and what you hoped was a supportive blind eye could become an obstructive beady eye.”


Yeah, it’s exactly for that reason that I think moles and ghosts are more desirable types of Freedom Outlaws because they avoid the limelight of the camera and the Carousel who will attempt to rip them apart, in addition to the corporate whore media. Reynolds describes what happened the one time he tried to “go straight” when he approached his local government in order to receive their seal of approval on what he had already been doing on his own initiative:


“The meeting immediately went off course. The horticultural expert pointed out issues he had with my planting, describing the one tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum) as ‘totally inappropriate for a flowerbed’, warning me with a shaking head that the lilac (Syringa vulgaris ‘Prince Wolkinsky’) was invasive and predicting the laurels (Laurus nobilis) would get very big if I did not look after them – oblivious to the fact that (unlike his department) I would indeed be looking after them. The labourer insisted that the butterfly bush was a damaging weed and posed a threat to walls and railway bridges, but was blind to its safe location and unable to explain why, if it was so dangerous, he had merely cut it back rather than digging it out. I lost patience with their nitpicking, the absence of an explanation for their neglect and their lack of appreciation for my voluntary contribution. I told them so, at which point the particularly twitchy senior contractor declared, ‘Hey, this guy is completely unreasonable. Let’s just chop the lot down.’ This petty outburst provoked some sense from his colleagues and we moved on to discuss responsibility.”


A perfect demonstration of statism as I’ve ever seen. Notice how the horticultural “expert” automatically assumed that Reynolds are careless but that the local government was, when in fact the complete opposite was true; in fact, Reynolds’ description of that entire meeting was more akin to a polite version of a Mafia negotiation, whereby one or both sides are attempting to determine how they will divide up the spoils.

Richard Reynolds’ On Guerrilla Gardening: A Handbook for Gardening Without Boundaries is an absolutely useful insight into how to resist the proverbial Nanny State. I also noticed that the skills learned while guerrilla gardening are easily translatable to the survivalist practice of burying supply caches. One of the many reasons I prefer direct action to reformism is because it takes any reliance you may have upon the State and gives the responsibility for your own liberation back to you. As Emma Goldman is often quoted as saying, “If voting ever changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” Yet, this is not the only reason to participate in direct action. I’ll leave you with this concluding thought from Reynolds himself:


“By breaking rules, guerrilla gardeners are challenging the conventions of society. Doing so in public space is a direct rejection of our political environment. As guerrilla gardeners most of us fight within a democratic society, a structure that is meant to be sufficiently free to hear opinions and accept them if the case is compelling. We are also participants in a capitalist system, where everything has a price and resources are traded. Most guerrilla gardeners evade the pigeonhole of political affiliation. Observers label us as being all over the political map – a mayor of New York has described guerrilla gardeners as communists, the Adam Smith Institute (a right-wing think tank) has expressed support for GuerrillaGardening.org, while journalists describe us as anarchists and culture jammers. Guerrilla gardeners themselves variously describe their approach as communist, egalitarian, situationist, libertarian, spiritual, therapeutic, and even fascist; I describe it as common-sense.”

Arms “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “arms” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):





See bearing arms; weapons; insignia.



See right to bear arms.



A right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; the right to bear arms as they borne by a well regulated militia in battle [Strickland v. State, 137 Ga 1, 72 SE 260]. Not a constitutional right to carry weapons on one’s person as a civilian [Hill v. State, 53 Ga 473, 480].



Anything used or designed to be used in destroying, defeating, or inuring an enemy; an instrument of offensive or defensive combat [56 Am J1st Weap § 2]. Something with which to fight [Harris v. Cameron, 81 Wis 239, 51 NW 437].

See dangerous weapon; deadly weapon.



Coats of arms; armorial bearings; emblems of rank. Pins, badges or ribbons worn by members of a club [6 Am 12d Assoc & C § 17].

In the days of chivalry and knight errantry, and at the present time, where distinctions are recognized by law, between wealth and other adventitious influences, and poverty or weakness, the adventurous and the great have adopted their insignia, suggested by valorous achievement, or other causes. These are called their arms or family escutcheon, and are usually engraved on their seals [Kirksey v. Bates (Ala) 7 Port 529].

As the term is used with reference to notarial seals, it means the armorial ensign of a state or political community, intended to distinguish it from others, and which is usually transferred to its national flag or banner. Yet, perhaps a public flag cannot always be considered as a true indication of the arms of the country to which it belongs; for most countries have two banners – one borne by vessels of war, and the other by those engaged in commerce [Kirksey v. Bates (Ala) 7 Port 529].


  1. Anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another [Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 A; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t.].

  2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, “that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In Kentucky, a statute “to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms,” has been declared to be unconstitutional [2 Litt. R. 90], while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional [3 Blackf. R. 229 Vide Story, Const. – 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125].

  3. Heraldry – Signs of arms, or drawings painted on shields, banners, and the like. The arms of the United States are described in the Resolution of Congress, of June 20, 1782 [Vide Seal of the United States].



Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another [Co. Litt. 161b, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18].

This term, as it is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or solider, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry solider are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siege-gun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword-canes, brass knuckles, and bowie-knives. These are not military arms [English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 179, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154].

Arms, or coat of arms, signifies insignia, i.e., ensigns of honor, such as were formerly assumed by soldiers of fortune, and painted on their shields to distinguish them; or nearly the same as armorial bearings (q. v.).



‘ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma].

  1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

  2. War; hostility

    • Arms and the man I sing.

      • To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

      • To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

      • To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

      • Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.

  1. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.

  2. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

  3. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks, and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.

  • Sire arms, are such as my be charged with power, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.

  • A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

  • In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot.

What Does Accepted for Value Mean?

Particularly ever since the advent of what the corporate whore media refers to as the “Great Recession,” people have become increasingly more desperate in trying to earn more Federal Reserve Notes so they can pay off all their living expenses. Many have become dependent upon the welfare state, as testified by the growing numbers of Americans on food stamps, which have increased from 43,000,000 – 47,000,000 people over the last 3 years. No wonder some of the con artists within the Carousel see an opportunity to exploit vulnerable individuals with fanciful tales of hidden money that, as the tall-tale goes, can be used to magically pay off all the debt collectors.


A4V (Accepted for Value Logo)


The Anti-Terrorist (AT) refers to the so-called “Acceptance for Value” (aka “A4V”) method in his most recent book, Standing Under Freedom, admitting that while he thought the theory was sound, pragmatically it has only worked with “sporadic success,” and, more importantly, that “the process is still not complete.” Right there, there is glaring sign that such a technique is, at best, highly experimental, if not downright counterproductive (much like voting or protesting). When you also consider that Robert Menard likewise admitted that his original explanation of the so-called Code 96 remittance option was totally bogus, it does greatly beg the question as how exactly competent the so-called “Freemen-on-the-Land” or “Commercial Redemption” advocates are regarding financial matters, regardless of whether they label such things as “bills of exchange” or “consumer purchases.”

Mentioned throughout this explanation of A4V is a pervasive assumption that the United States government is somehow a corporation. Adherents of this belief interpret 28 U.S.C. § 3002 to mean that the “United States” is legally defined as “a Federal corporation.” Jason Erb provides a different interpretation:


“If you look at the context of that definition, it becomes clear that it’s not saying that the United States is a federal corporation, but rather, it’s referring to federal corporations incorporated by the United States. At the beginning of the section, it says, ‘As used in this chapter.’ Therefore, the reference to the ‘United States‘ as ‘a federal corporation‘ is only applicable to Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176 of the United States Code. Even within that limited context, it’s not referring to the United States as a federal corporation. If that was the intent, it would have been defined as ‘the United States, a Federal corporation’.”


Erb then goes on to use 28 U.S.C. § 3306 to demonstrate how absurd the assumption is that the United States were a corporation, especially then you consider the list of United States federal corporations. Now, to be fair, the only possible way I can see that it may be true that the United States is a corporation is if you examine the wording of what Ballantine’s and Bouvier’s law dictionaries define what the “United States” legally is, respectively:


“A body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment.”

“The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law.”


I would like to also say here that the vast majority of definitions from both law dictionaries say that the United States is a body politic, a Union of the several state governments, and simply the name of the country itself. Even if it were true that the United States were somehow a singular corporation, it still does not make sense logically, especially when you consider the process of incorporation; if the United States were simply a mega-corporation of sorts, then what is it that prevents anti-free market plutocratic oligopolies such as Wal-Mart or McDonald’s from incorporating their own corporations? May it be due to the fact that the United States is, at worst, not only a corporation, but more importantly, a government? It is because of these disparities and overall lack of evidence that I think of these claims, made by the so-called “Freemen” or “Redemption” advocates, as the United States corporation myth.

Having caused serious doubt as to the underlying assumptions of A4V, I will now examine its specific claims. Apparently, the birth certificate plays an indispensable role in the implementation of A4V:


“On the public side, the birth certificate represents value as security for a preexisting claim the United States has against a U.S. citizen. On the private side it is a security for a preexisting claim that the man has against the political State for using his description without paying for it. It is an antecedent claim that man can present as a counterclaim when the United States brings a claim against a person the man represents. The birth certificate secures the obligation the State, as an agent for the United States, has to the man, since no payment has ever been made to the man, and technically cannot be made. The inches and pounds description of the baby on the application for the birth certificate constituted a symbolic delivery of the baby into the United States. What happens in the United States… stays in the United States. The baby and the man cannot go into the United States, but the person named on the birth certificate can. The United States cannot go into the private states, but the man representing the person named on the birth certificate can. The baby grew into a man, and the rights the baby had to payment for use of his description carry on to the man. If the man does not do something with that certificated security (birth certificate), it is considered abandoned. Abandonment is waste, so the United States will use the birth certificate to prevent waste, until the man decides to use it.”


By the “public side” and “private side,” I am assuming that the unnamed author believes in the United States corporation myth. Beyond that, I fail to see what evidence he presents demonstrating what he claims is the fact that any birth certificate is also a financial security; where are the source citations proving this? Is there a statutory reference to a section from the United States Code, an executive interpretation provided by the Code of Federal Regulations, or a federal court case ruling on this matter? From what I can see, nothing is provided beyond the Uniform Commercial Code, which itself remains silent as to the assertion made whether such certificates are in fact securities. You would think that self-proclaimed common law advocates would bother to check, well, the common law. As you can probably no doubt recognize, there is also the assumption here that a so-called “strawman” was created by a subsidiary of the United States corporation when the birth certificate was drawn up; this forms the reason for why the so-called “sovereign citizens,” who just like the Freemen, assert that they are not persons, which they consider to automatically mean an artificial person, despite the fact that person also includes natural persons, which would necessarily include them as well.

In light of all this, it does beg the question as to where the money comes from that the A4V method allegedly taps into. Let’s see what our intrepid ghostwriter has for us:


“’Value’ is anything recognized as a pledge or the result of a pledge. The birth certificate is the result of the President’s oath. Without the one oath, the birth certificate would just be evidence of the obligation every United States owes to the people. On the public side, the birth certificate represents value, and is evidence of a pledge by a U.S. citizen to be a surety for the United States. On the public side, it is a security for the pledge of allegiance to the United States and its statutes, made by U.S. citizens. On the private side, it is a receipt, and is evidence of a promise made by the President to the people. On the private side, it is a security for the promise of distributions from the trust to the people as beneficiaries. It is a receipt for the use of the baby’s physical description that was symbolically delivered by an informant (Mom) to the United States. The setoff resulting from accepting an instrument of value is a distribution from the trust. Setoff = distribution.”


Again, where is the evidence that the President’s oath (as explicitly enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the federal Constitution) has anything at all to do with birth certificates that are issued by each of the 50 state governments? What is the name of the trust that the people are allegedly beneficiaries of? Most relevant to the A4V method, how does one access these existentially questionable trust funds? It is further claimed that:


“The value of the instrument can be charged to JOHN H DOE 123-45-6789 if it is a birth certificate. The value can be charged to a clerk of court for #____. It can be charged to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service for account #123-45-6789 if it is a tax bill. Electric bills have the bank routing numbers and amount of the voucher printed in magnetic ink right on the bottom of the bills. The utility companies are actually sending you the voucher to pay the bill with the statement every month. Even so, they might decide to turn off your service if you do not send them a ‘thank you’ check in addition in returning the voucher with your proper endorsement. IRS also sends the voucher on the final demand before lien or levy. A voucher can be a ‘written record of expenditure, disbursement, or completed transaction, or it can be a written authorization or certificate, especially one exchangeable for cash or representing a credit against future expenditures.’ It would need to be endorsed before submitting it as a credit. A blank endorsement puts the liability on the endorser. A qualified endorsement puts the liability on the issuer.”


Did this actually work though? Remember when AT said that the success of A4V was sporadic and that the technique itself was incomplete? Let’s now see what the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) had to say about A4V:


“The Department of the Treasury is also aware of several fraudulent schemes that involve what are claimed to be securities issued or backed by the Treasury Department or another part of the U.S. Government…another scheme is a variation of a common fraud generally known as ‘redemption’ or ‘acceptance for value’ that incorrectly asserts the United States government has trust accounts linked to each citizen. The theory is not supported in fact or law and has been soundly rejected by the federal courts. Perpetrators will annotate or stamp invoices with ‘Accept for Value’ or similar language, with various numbers purporting to be account numbers. Such annotations are without merit and establish no rights or privileges in any federal or state account or agency.”


OIG goes on to say that advocates of these claims hold seminars around the country, teaching people (often for a sizable fee) how to create ostensibly appearing legal documents as well as how to file them in order to, essentially, get something for nothing. As if that wasn’t bad enough, here is what the American secret police had to say about A4V:


“Proponents of this scheme claim that the U.S. government or the Treasury Department control bank accounts – often referred to as ‘U.S. Treasury Direct Accounts’ – for all U.S. citizens that can be accessed by submitting paperwork with state and federal authorities. Individuals promoting this scam frequently cite various discredited legal theories and may refer to the scheme as ‘Redemption,’ ‘Strawman,’ or ‘Acceptance for Value.’ Trainers and websites will often charge legal fees for ‘kits’ that teach individuals how to perpetrate this scheme. They will often imply that others have had great success in discharging debt and purchasing merchandise such as cars and homes. Failure to implement the scheme successfully are attributed to individuals not following instructions in a specific order or not filing paperwork at correct times.”


The FBI went on to say that public notaries are used by A4V advocates to give an appearance of legitimacy. I only mention this and what Treasury’s OIG had to say in order to demonstrate that even if the A4V proponents were theoretically correct, the government totally doesn’t respect it. Since A4V requires working within the government’s own rules, it would be vital for the government to respect it in order for it to actually work successfully. Considering the antipathy from the FBI and OIG, I sincerely doubt there’s any way A4V could be somehow refitted for another experimental round without running the very high risk of being profiled and targeted for persecution by the government, assuming of course A4V’s foundational claims were even slightly true, which they are not.

The American Connections’ What Does Accepted for Value Mean? is an exercise in futility. Why do the adherents of A4V assume that the applicability of the UCC is wider than it actually is? I think what is happening here is the all-too-common phenomenon of the Carousel making monsters where none exist, just for the sensationalistic thrill of it. Not only is this unnecessary, but it also detracts from the very real threats to our Liberty the government presents to us. Consider what Gary Hunt mentioned in Vortex regarding what he thinks is one of the objectives of government snoops and shills:


“For those with legal pursuit as a means of attacking the government, direct them on fanciful flights with erroneous objectives such as Admiralty Law, Maritime, Law, Uniform Commercial Code, United States government is a corporation, etc. (reference for the last three items: Divide & Conquer).”


Add in the fact that the American Bar Association enjoys a government-protected monopoly privilege on the practice of law, and you have a tenuous political situation whereby these ABA licensed attorneys are passing statutes through the legislature to render what is passed of as the law instead as an arbitrarily vague Kafkaesque mindfuck. Not only is this additionally demonstrated by Bill Thorton’s explanation of A4V as a supposed remedy for handling traffic tickets, but anywhere else I’ve tried to acquire a hopefully objective explanation of A4V, all I’ve gotten instead is a bunch of deliberately incomprehensible dribble that makes organized religion enjoyable by comparison. Maybe if truly achievable legal remedies were tried first, such as canceling your voter registration, then you can begin to trust your own judgement rather than relying on the groupthink sales pitch these con artists use to scam you, which also gets you eventually punished by the secret police.

Peace “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “peace” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):




The tranquility enjoyed by members of a community where good order reigns [12 Am J2d Breach P § 4]. That invisible sense of security which every person feels so necessary to his comfort, and for which all governments are instituted [Miles v. State, 30 Okla Crim 302, 236 P 57, 44 ALR 129]. The termination of a war, of hostilities between nations [56 Am J1st War §13].

See time of peace.



The tranquility enjoyed by a political society, internally, by the good order which reigns among its members, and externally, by the good understanding it has with all other nations. Applied to the internal regulations of a nation, peace imports, in a technical sense, not merely a state of repose and security, as opposed to one of violence and warfare, but likewise a state of public order and decorum [Ham. N. P. 139; 12 Mod. 566. Vide, generally, Bac. Ab. Prerogative, D 4; Hale, Hist. P. C. 160; 3 taunt. R. 14; 1 B. & A. 227; Peake, R. 89; 1 Esp. R. 294; Harr. Dig. Officer, V 4; 2 Benth. Ev. 319, note. Video Good behaviour; Surety of the peace].



As applied to the affairs of a state or nation peace may be either external or internal. In the former case, the term denotes the prevalence of amicable relations and mutual good will between the particular society and all foreign powers. In the latter case, it means the tranquility, security, and freedom from commotion or disturbance which is the sign of good order and harmony and obedience to the laws among all the members of the society. In a somewhat technical sense, peace denotes the quiet, security, good order, and decorum which is guarantied by the constitution of civil society and by the laws [People v. Rounds, 67 Mich. 482, 35 N. W. 77; Corvallis v. Carlile, 10 Or. 139, 45 Am. Rep. 134].

The concord or final agreement in a fine of lands [18 Edw. I. “Modus Levandi Finis.”

  • Articles of the peace: see ARTICLES

  • Bill of peace: see BILL

  • Breach of peace: see BREACH

  • Conservator of the peace: see CONSERVATOR

  • Justice of the peace: see that title

  • Peace of God and the church: in old English law, that rest and cessation which the king’s subjects had from trouble and suit of law between the terms and on Sundays and holidays [Cowell; Spelman].

  • Peace of the state: the protection, security, and immunity from violence which the state undertakes to secure and extend to all persons within its jurisdiction and entitled to the benefit of its laws. This part of the definition of murder, it being necessary that the victim should be “in the peace of the state,” which now practically includes all persons excepts armed public enemies [see MURDER, and see State v. Dunkley, 25 N. C. 121].

  • Peace officers: this term is variously defined by statute in the different states; but generally it includes sheriffs and their deputies, constables, marshals, members of the police force of cities, and other officers whose duty is to enforce and preserve the public peace [see People v. Clinton, 28 App. Div. 478, 51 N. Y. Supp. 115; Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 65 S. W. 92].

  • Public peace: the peace or tranquility of the community in general; the good order and repose of the people composing a state or municipality [see Neuendorff v. Duryea, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 280; State v. Benedict, 11 Vt. 236, 34 Am. Dec. 688].



PEACE, n. [L. pax, paco, to appease].

  1. In a general sense, a state of quiet or tranquility; freedom from disturbance or agitation; applicable to society, to individuals, or to the temper of the mind.

  2. Freedom from war with a foreign nation; public quiet.

  3. Freedom from internal commotion or civil war.

  4. Freedom from private quarrels, suits or disturbance.

  5. Freedom from agitation or disturbance by the passions, as from fear, terror, anger, anxiety or the like; quietness of mind; tranquility; calmness; quiet of conscience

  • Great peace have they that love the law, Ps. 119

  1. Heavenly rest; the happiness of heaven.

  2. Harmony; concord; a state of reconciliation between parties at variance.

  3. Public tranquility; that quiet, order and security which is guaranteed by the laws; as, to keep the peace; to break the peace.

  • This word is used to commanding silence or quiet; as, peace to this troubled soul.

  • Peace, the lovers are asleep

  • To be at peace, to be reconciled; to live in harmony.

  • To make peace, to reconcile, as parties at variance.

  • To hold the peace, to be silent; to suppress one’s thoughts; not to speak.