IN A "NUTSHELL"

Of necessity, my wife and I went to the grocery store and purchased a gallon of milk, loaf of
bread, and a carton of eggs. We were stopped by two CITY OF HARRISON police officers
driving two separate cruisers. They discovered that my driver license had been suspended
(without notice to me) for some unknown reason. I found out later it was due to a mistake in the
management of STATE OF MISSOURI records; the fault was with them, not me; but, that is
NOT the reason for this dialogue.

I was handcuffed behind my back, thrown in a "cruiser" and taken for processing at CITY OF
HARRISON, ARKANSAS, police department. I had no money and could not post their "bail."
They took me to BOONE COUNTY JAIL under the direction of BOONE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT where they proceeded to "process" me into their records. I was subjected to their
"typical" torture for being a Bad Boy. I stated at least thirteen times (total) that they had no
jurisdiction over me. Two "lady" cops did the processing. I could write a book about what
happened in those 5 hours. They demanded I sign their papers for the "processing," which I did.
They threatened to "shower me out," whatever that is, when I signed and wrote "U.C.C. 1-308"
under my name.

My point is, what the Law dictates does not matter in the slightest. I was TOTALLY within the
parameters of Law; they were totally outside the parameters of Law; but, it doesn't matter when
the "Rent-A-Cops" have badges and guns and don't have to obey the law, much less, even know
the law. I AM NOT ANTI-GOVERNMENT; I AM PRO-GOVERNMENT.

The fact that: 18 USC 31(6) and (10) clearly shows that they had no jurisdiction over me made
no difference; the fact that there is no Real Money in circulation for anyone in the Common
Sector made no difference. Yet, they still demanded "it" ($) of me. O.K., I'll post pertinent info
here to clarify that:
"The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be construed to
mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152. Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5
Phila. 366. 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551 (1879); Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn.
242 (1835), and, [Please make a mental note that “law” and “money” are interlocked
and directly connected. You cannot have one without the other.]

""Money" does not include treasury notes". Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536
[Federal Reserve Notes (what you have in your wallet) are "Treasury Notes"], and,

"In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an indictment for
embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling greenbacks or national
currency notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And,

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and constitute a part
of the circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be considered as money; but, in
the strict sense of the term, they are not included therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C.
 58,60. And,

""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing any
money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to
include bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes
they are treated as such." Johnson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325. And,

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute
making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment charging that the
defendant played at a game of faro for money--cannot be sustained by proof that bank
notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was
bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And,

"The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another
any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and violence, and
with intent to steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v. State, 1 Ohio St.
422,426. [Why do you suppose the IRS has classified them as "Worthless Securities?"]
And,

"Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars." U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk. And,

"Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness [not Credit] and promise
of payment." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al, 223
N.Y.S. 481. And,

A fact noted above must be reiterated here, first, that “law” and “money” (gold and silver) are
“interlocked and directly connected”, and, after finding that Federal Reserve Notes are
“worthless securities” (words from the IRS), can be “stolen”, as in “robbery”, and being
worthless, are a “Fiction Of Law”.

"The answer is the law, wherein the litigant shall substantiate the Debt Collector is
attempting to dispute the nothing as if it were the factual default of a statutory obligation,
wherein fees, may be defined as interest. The Fee is the statutory creature moving
within the fictional falsity as if it is presumed to be standing as the amortized
obligation“. Ryan v Motor Credit Company, 130 J.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621

This is the fiction of law, wherein the fictional falsities are perfected by devious means.
Read Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.

Fiction. Something is presumed to be true, which is false.

"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent
that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon,
constitutes "fraud," and entitles party deceived to avoid contracts or recover damages.”
Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Birnamwood Oil Co., 92 F.2d 817.
So, we've discovered that there is NO TRUE MONEY in circulation and there is ONLY LEGAL
FICTIONAL LAW [I abide in the Law]; yet, they demand "money," which I do not possess In
the Fiction. Yes, I have one silver dollar and that silver dollar trumps every piece of Private
Script they operate within form of their "money of account, money of exchange, or money of
ledger." Now, "...to comply is impossible, made so by the failure of the state in its constitutional
duty, U.S. Const. 1:10: 1, the remedy resting in the hands of the state." Rio Grande v. Darke, 167
P. 241. So:

Will this "court" do as has been done before, as in: Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56 (1948), in
affirming the Court said: "Although we know that Maggio cannot comply with the order, we
must keep a straight face and pretend that he can, and must thus affirm orders which first direct
Maggio to do an impossibility, and then punish him for refusal to perform it."

This kind of "justice" is a total disgrace. So, we have no "justice", no "money", no "judges", no
"juries", and no "hope" without a "Thomas Jefferson" 20 year revolution. [End of "Nutshell." I
hope I've given you enough to encourage you to study the rest of my documents and get an
education. Thank you. Douglas-Mac: Duff]

Please see EXHIBIT "There Is No Money"

P.S. My Standing is Christian, Arkansan, Missourian, and American Native, and with such
Standing, make no Oath, beyond affirmation to tell the complete Truth to the best of my
knowledge to any Living Man as Representative for any Legal Entity, governmental or other
legal fiction; without placing any limit upon my commercial liability, whatsoever; and I, in no
way, yield license to any agent/agency to assert any type of jurisdiction over me, even when
making reference to past court cases; with any listing of case sites, federal or state statutes and
codes, or executive orders, for reader’s reference only and should not be construed as
submission by me to any jurisdiction other than that of the Kingdom of Heaven; using such
quotes as a "compass rather than a crutch" as intent does not yield jurisdiction by referring and
using words of the wisdom expressed by the judges of antiquity to admonish, edify, and fortify
my Character of Person and the Intent of Living Man, further stating Intent for clarification, to be
entered into all record, my will, as per; Gordon v. Idaho, 778 F2d 1397, in which the Federal 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an individual no longer has to take an oath or affirmation in
court, if his reason for not taking it is based on the fact that the Bible [which they so kindly
provide for you to swear on] says that you shouldn't swear oaths, unless all parties can display
and prove they are living men, or women, with ability to obtain parity with me. The doctrine
of equal standing in law makes it clear that only parties of equal standing can communicate in
law. The Maxim is: Disparata non debent jungi - Dissimilar things ought not to be joined . I am
NOT a corporation or Legal Fiction.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of
the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein