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.

This entry was posted in Literature Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to What Does Accepted for Value Mean?

  1. String bean says:

    What does the USA use as collateral for loans. As you probably know they owe 126 trillion dollars of ‘ fake ‘ debt. Interest per day is in the billions of dollars.

  2. wlinden says:

    After trying to read that “explanation” of “claims” of the birth certificate, the only sensible reply is Alice’s:
    “If anyone can tell me what it means, I’ll give him sixpence. *I* don’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it.”

  3. dotnetspec says:

    Reblogged this on LibertyBank and commented:
    I don’t agree with this poster’s conclusions, but I add this in the interests of balance and, at least, he addresses some of the issues, if only on the surface. He appears to be very quick and willing to accept the FBI and Secret Service perspectives (which from what I already know are misleading – no-one is attempting to obtain ‘rights and privileges’ through this process). Odd for such a ‘rebel’.

    • Kyle Rearden says:

      What conclusions do you disagree with, specifically?

      Please keep in mind that the AV4 method is rooted in the STRAWMAN hypothesis, which itself is debunked by United States v. Frech, United States v. Washington, and the Federal Style Manual; I’ve mentioned these sources in more detail within my comprehensive overview of the sovereign citizen ideology, “Only on Paper” (I would also suggest you read Chris Cantwell’s article, “Sovereign Citizens Be Like…” for a similar, albeit differently expressed, position on this issue).

      Also, I never remember claiming to be a “rebel,” but I do remember adhering to libertarian principles. If anyone were to be the rebels, it would be those who have inhabited the United States federal government for many decades now, because they have rebelled against the United States Constitution, and therefore, constitute an enemy rebel government. For more detail on this, I suggest you read “A Primer on State Citizenship.”

      • dotnetspec says:

        Specifically I disagreed with the conclusions:

        – A4Vs foundational claims were [not] even slightly true – you may be right, but I wouldn’t base the conclusion on the vested interest (establishment) sources you quote. I think of it more as a public/private trust hypothesis for which ‘strawman’ is just a convenient label. The judges appear to just dismiss it as ‘rubbish’ [Meads v Meads] without going into the substantive aspects of the underlying theory.

        – ‘What Does A4V Mean is ‘deliberately incomprehensible dribble’ – appears to be well written on an otherwise difficult topic to me. I’m new to negotiable instruments and commerce as it relates to law so I’d be happy for anyone to enlighten me on how this document has been designed to deceive me regarding bonds, promissory notes, A4V, subrogation etc.

        – ‘Groupthink sales pitch these con artists use to scam you’ – check Bill Thornton 1215.org. Terrible con artist, he gives it all away for free!

        – ‘gets you eventually punished by secret police’ – must be wrong then …

        I can see why State Citizenship might be attractive [if its an option, not for most if outside U.S.] as you point out in your Only on Paper article. You mention ‘scientific method and documenting results objectively’ but if a judge jails you for contempt for e.g. Asserting your natural rights have you ‘failed’ according to this method. Anyone who has ever been jailed for a cause is a ‘failure’ by that standard, so I don’t necessarily agree with the approach.

        I’m surprised you endorsed Chris Cantwell. I urge anyone reading this to explore his site. He appears to me to be promoting exactly the kind of ideas ‘they’ want to justify a general crackdown. If he represents the alternative I’d rather look deeper into how ‘sporadic success’ can be improved upon.

        Thanks for your post, it’s not easy to find anyone who will even address these topics generally.

  4. dotnetspec says:

    A4V is founded on the commercial reality that, in the public, we dont ‘pay’ for anything, we exchange debt instruments. Governments secure a huge advantage by keeping the implications of this hidden from the general population. They operate a one way street whereby they can pledge us (our entire lives energy) to repay their debts to international bankers without offering anything in return (perhaps the occasional ‘social service’ e.g. Reclaiming Unclaimed Property). When we try to reclaim a small part of that which already belongs to us via A4V, which is just the normal, lawful, operation of commercial law we are told it is fraudulent. To the socially conditioned public, ignorant of history and commerce, it would, indeed, appear that way. However, the public are not told that if this activity is fraudulent then so must be the governments own commercial activities. Pursuing A4V helps to highlight this and the hypocracy of governments and their faithful servants, the judges, who respond to attempts to assert rights via lawful process with extortion, kidnapping and violence.

    Thanks for your many interesting articles and links. It looks like we’re on the same page with regards to many issues e.g. Sovereign Citizen is indeed an oxymoron.

    • Kyle Rearden says:

      Hey, if you ever do any database searches to see if there is unclaimed property in your name, and you chose to reclaim it, would you consider blogging about it (with photos backing it up, like I did)? It’d be nice for me to not be the only fella, besides Stephen White, who proved the legal remedy of reclaiming unclaimed property.

  5. dotnetspec says:

    Sure, if I do, I will.
    Re: the original discussion on A4V. I believe this video helps to shed some light on one of its foundational claims I.e. the statutory courts presuming the capacity of the ‘defendant’ as defined by the strawman I.e. the strawman is a ‘natural person’, not a corporation, but this capacity still allows the court to treat him/her like a corporation instead of as a human being:
    This video relates to Canada so obviously jurisdictional differences would need to be researched, but I suspect the same principal in operation everywhere.

  6. dotnetspec says:

    I found the following pdf outlining law enforcement’s view of commercial redemption, a4v etc. much of which you may agree with (?):


    Clearly it sees people who don’t recognize ‘legitimate authority’ and file paperwork as a result as ‘terrorists’ (that blurring indicates a degree of desperation in wanting to close this debate down). It perpetuates the ‘sovereign citizen’ oxymoron fallacy and appears to reject the notion that the entire system operates in debt. However, it is useful for delineating some of the issues and assumptions in the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s