The following is the hidden truth that the controlled-media and the accused lien debtors to the defendants do not want publicized. This piece will continue to be updated with more quotes from the law, codes and other suppressed factual information in an effort to be thorough, so please check this webpage often for the updated information. If any errors are noticed, you are requested to contact FIGJA as soon as possible with the correct information. This piece is a joint effort by all concerned to see the truth is made known. -Elder

In March 1989, LeRoy Michael: Schweitzer was the subject of a traffic stop by a police officer in Belgrade, Montana. The officer demanded to see LeRoy’s drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, even though the officer admits that, prior to the traffic stop, he had been informed by a superior officer LeRoy did not possess a current Montana drivers license LeRoy contends that throughout course of the criminal and civil litigation which resulted from that traffic stop, he was injured or aggrieved by the wrongful act or default of several public officials in their official capacity. When, in CV-90-07-BU-PGH, People ex rel, Schweitzer vs. Gallatin County, LeRoy served various Gallatin County officials with Subpoena Duces Tecum requesting among other documents, a certified copy of each officials oath of office and surety bond each person served moved to quash the subpoenas, not one public official would produce a certified copy of their bond, although their Oaths were produced. This refusal by Gallatin County officials to produce documents which, by statute, they are required to produce upon request, was the basis for the liens against those officials which were subsequently filed LeRoy (and appropriately served upon the parties). Dissatisfied with the lack of response from the officials. LeRoy began searching for a venue in which to address his concerns of official misconduct. as well as for a way to enforce the statutes requiring bonds. He filed pleadings which were pertinent to the issues he believed should be adjudicated. These documents were for the most part ignored, and if a response was filed, the response stated the documents were frivolous, bogus, harassing in nature, etc., therefore, LeRoy was not entitled to any relief.

In fact, Judge Paul Hatfield dismissed CV-90-07-BU for “lack of speedy prosecution” even though LeRoy was actively pursuing prosecution. LeRoy then filed a Uniform Commercial Code FS- I, naming Paul Hatfield as debtor in the amount of $77,000,000.00 and a UCC FS-4 “Private Security Agreement/True Bill”. LeRoy notified Judge Hatfield of the UCC action, both by mail and by publication. Judge Hatfield failed to respond, resulting in a default judgment, thereby perfecting the lien. This lien could then be deposited in any bank as an account receivable and drawn on in any manner the creditor saw fit.

Although he attempted to address his grievances in the district courts of the State of Montana, the Supreme Court of Montana, and the district court of the United States, his documents were termed "frivolous" and the courts refused to file any documents submitted by LeRoy. In effect, LeRoy has been barred from every court in this country, from Garfield County to the United States Supreme Court.

LeRoy convened a common law court so that the average person would have a forum in which to have complaints against public officials heard. The rules of the court were published, as required, and all officers of "our one supreme Court have filed an oath and bond \with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder in Jordan, Montana. The intensive research he conducted indicated that his court is lawful and supreme and assumed the complaints would be addressed in a manner which would be satisfactory to all.

LeRoy’s experience in CV-90-07-BU also led to research of the Uniform Commercial Code in an attempt to find a manner in which to address his grievances. LeRoy was aware of the statutes requiring surety bonds to be flied by any public officer or employee arid he was trying to find a way to enforce his common law judgments. aka, foreign judgments, on those bonds. He learned that the UCC does set forth procedure by which he could perfect a security interest (lien on a public officials' surety bond as a result of a judgment misconduct in office) and that security interest could be “perfected” through a series of steps, including proper notice to debtor and filing the documents. Once perfected, the security agreement (and accompanying documents) was considered credit and that credit could be deposited in a financial institution. Once deposited, that credit may be drawn upon and could, in fact, be used in whatever manner the creditor saw fit. His experience with public officials and his research resulted in the filing of UCC/FS-l Financing Statement; UCCJFS-4 Security Agreement and UCCJFS-3 Statements of Continuation, Partial Release, Assignment, etc. regarding the following individuals:

Jim Patelos, A. Chony Maxwell, Bill Slaughter, Charles Lovell, Jack Shanstrom, Thomas Molter, Gordon L. Smith, Frank Davis, Pat Williams, Ron Marlenee, Conrad Burns, Max Baucus, and Paul Hatfield with liens totaling $77 million.

LeRoy filed these liens in an attempt to bring public officials "in line" to perform their duties as they swore to do. If the officials had responded to his grievances in any way. LeRoy would have very likely released the liens. However, although sufficient notice was given, actually service by mail and notice by publication, none of the officials responded. Therefore LeRoy began to follow the steps outlined in the Uniform Commercial Code to perfect the liens. Once perfected, Mr. LeRoy deposited the UCC lien against Paul Hatfield into Norwest Bank Butte. According to the UCC, banks have very specific duties in regards to transactions such as this one, and if they fail to perform those duties, the bank then becomes liable for the amount of the transaction.

On June 14, 1993, Norwest Bank-Anaconda-Butte was presented with a documentary draft and a deposit slip in the amount of S77.000,000.00. Norwest Bank refused to accept the deposit, thereby 'dishonoring' the instrument. However, they also refused to return the documents and deposit slip. This was the basis for the complaint of CRIMINAL CONVERSION Filed by LeRoy, referring to cause number: CV-90-07-BU.

The complaint was presented to James E. Seykora, Assistant United States Attorney in Billings, Montana; however Mr. Seykora refused to prosecute. These events resulted in UCC filings against Norwest Bank, (naming the Comptroller of the Currency, as administrator of banks, as co-debtor) and James E. Seykora. Although given proper notice, all parties, including the Comptroller of the Currency, failed to respond; thereby, a default judgment was entered and the lien was perfected by filing the UCC documents with the Office of Recorder of Deeds, Washington, DC.

The "lien draft/comptroller warrants" were bills of exchange authorizing payment from Norwest Bank account #8520799406, where the defendants herein had deposited, conservatively, millions of dollars of perfected security interests. The lien draft/comptroller warrants allowed LeRoy to assign portions of his security interests resulting from judgments to anyone he chose. Norwest's dishonor and subsequent refusal to return the original deposit instruments resulted in Norwest’s' liability for the amount of the deposits; thereby, Norwest Bank is correctly identified as the drawee on the initial instruments. LeRoy properly identified all relevant parties on the instruments, even including the file number of the security interest he was partially assigning on the warrants.

Following the dishonor by Norwest and the protest of said dishonor. LeRoy continued researching the UCC. Lie followed the proper procedure to protest the dishonor; however, Norwest refused to return the original documents. LeRoy then filed and perfected a claim against Norwest for conversion. Approximately 1 1/4 years later he decided to test his theories regarding the security interests and how he could properly utilize the credit conferred by the proper use of the security interest. He wrote a “certified money order" to the Postmaster in Brussett, Montana in the amount of $58.00 and, by Affidavit of tender offer, requested to purchase two rolls of 2 cent stamps UPON' DUE DILIGENCE AND PRESENTMENT TO THE OFFICER OP THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY FOR CLEARING OF THIS SPECIAL COLLECTIONS ITEM. The certified money order sent to the Postmaster dated October 11, 1994, consisted of various sections:

a) title identifying it as a certified money order;
b) date;
c) PAY TO;
d) spaces for the amount in numeric and written form;
e) a statement that the instrument was payable "on demand'; naming the place of redemption as Norwest Bank Anaconda-Butte, referring to the account number and lien number;
f) LeRoy’s signature, with correct address; and
g) Bankers Check certification

A short time later, he received an envelope containing stamps from the Claims and Inquiries Department of the US Postal Service. The acceptance and apparent negotiation of his financial instrument by the Postmaster confirmed to LeRoyt hat his research was correct and his actions were, in fact, lawful and legal.

LeRoy subsequently changed the name of the certified money orders to “lien draft/comptroller warrants"; however, the lien drafts contained much the same information. As he continued to research the law, he had learned that the United States Post Office is in reality organized under the Treasury Department and one of the original functions of the United States Post Office was to act as a “Postal Savings Bank." In that the Comptroller of Currency is organized under the Treasury Department, the Treasury Department is ultimately liable for the default judgment lodged against Norwest Bank and the Comptroller of the Currency. Therefore, these two agencies are properly listed as draftees on the Face of the lien draft/comptroller warrants Norwest was no longer listed as place of redemption. although the Norwest Bank account number and lien number remained and the Notary certification was omitted, as the instruments were no longer 'certified money orders'.

Although LeRoy wrote numeious lien draft/comptroller warrants, he did not write them for his benefit. He paid off IRS levies. bank loans to halt foreclosure actions, child support obligations, and a variety of other debts for Friends and people attending his seminars. The IRS apparently negotiated numerous “lien draft/comptroller warrants” before they were told the instruments were fraudulent. Judith Anklam submitted her payment in May of 1995 and the IRS issued a refund of overpayment in August of 1995. Roger Leffler and Drehne Pierce also received refunds from overpayments.

The Declaration of independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation in such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security....

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in he most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

LeRoy believes that he has not only the right, but the duty to address the misconduct of public officials; however, in that his grievances were against city, county, state and federal officials, it is not difficult to imagine why all his petitions for redress were answered with repeated injury.

Article II, Section 4, Montana Constitution states:

Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin, or condition, or political or religious ideas.

Note: Other MCA laws and codes, as well as U.C.C. codes are being prepared formposting to show that the laws and codes of Montana and the U.C.C. were utilized by LeRoy in taking legal action for redress. -Elder

Contrary to our constitution and statutes, the courts of justice were closed to LeRoy and there appeared to be no remedy for the "Tong he felt had been done. Therefore, LeRoy constructed "our one Supreme court" in Garfield county. Rules of Court were drafted and published, all court officers took and subscribed an oath of office, and ALL officers of our one Supreme court" are bonded. The oaths and bonds of all officers of Justus Township were duly filed with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder; however, the courthouse in Jordan "'as recently destroyed in a fire and it is not possible to obtain certified copies.

Courts have long recognized the existence of common law: The common law has been a pail of our system of jurisprudence from the organization of Montana territory to the present day. State ex rel Ford v. Young, 54 M 401,403, 170 P.947, explained in 129 M 106, 113, 283 P.594. Amendment 7 to the Constitution of the United States: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rule of common law.

Stat. 1-1-108 , MCA, states:

Common Law: applicability of. In this-state there is no common law in any case where the law is declared by statute. But where not so declared, if the same is applicable and of a general nature and not in conflict with the statutes, the common law shall be the law and rule of decision.

Stat. 1-1-109, MCA, states:

Common law of England-When Rule of Decision: The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, or the constitution or law's of this state, or of the codes, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.

His research of the Magna Carta, Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Montana, as well as the perceived violations of his constitutional rights, led LeRoy to regard himself as a sovereign state, not part of the corporate United States nor of the corporate State of Montana--a foreign state, in fact.

Numerous Montana statutes require public officials to file a surety bond at the time they take their oath of office; in fact, failure to file a bond constitutes a forfeiture of office:

Stat. 2-9-504, MCA Conditions, forms and signatures.

1)The condition of every official bond must be that the principal shall well, truly, wad faithfully perform all official duties then required of him by law and also such additional duties as may be imposed on him by any law of the state subsequently enacted.

Clearly, each elected or appointed county officer/employee, elected or appointed city or town officer/employee, all state officers and employees, as well as certain federal officers/employees are required to file a surety bond when they take the oath of office to ensure that they will well, truly, and faithfully perform all official duties while in office, and to give certified copies thereof to any person demanding the same upon being paid the same fees as are allowable by law for certified copies of papers in other cases. However., when LeRoy requested certified copies of various officials' surety bonds, not one official complied with Montana statute. LeRoy subsequently learned that surety bonds are no longer routinely filed, by any public official.

Various agencies of the federal government utilize liens in order to satisfy a judgment, using the same procedures utilized by LeRoy. The Internal Revenue Service tax lien is one example.

LeRoy believed his rights had been violated by Judge Hatfield, among others, therefore he had a claim. He notified Judge Hatfield of his claim, however, Judge Hatfield failed to respond, resulting in default common law judgment, creating a common law judgment lien.

The Uniform Commercial Code "Financing Statement" (FS- I) contains all the information regarding the lien and is sent to the debtor for signature. OnIy after the debtor fails to respond in any fashion does the "secured party” sign the form for the debtor "by accommodation". The ES- I statements were then perfected by filing them with the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in Washington DC, as well as in Gallatin County, until such time as the Clerk and Recorder refused to accept them for filing.

Prior to about 1400 A.D. all disputes between merchants were settled on the spot by special courts set up by the merchants. The decisions of these courts became known as the law merchant. Later the common law courts of England took over the adjudication of all disputes including those between merchants, but these common law courts retained most of the customs developed by the merchants and incorporated the law merchant into the common law. Most, but by no means all, of the law merchant dealt with bills of exchange or credit instruments. The colonists brought these laws to America. After the Revolution each state developed the common law dealing with credit instruments in its own way so that by 1890 much confusion existed. In 1895 a commission was appointed by the American Bar Association and the American Bankers Association to draw up a Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law. The commission in 1896 proposed a Uniform Act. This act has since been adopted in all the states but modified and updated for inclusion in the Uniform Commercial Code.

The purpose of the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") is to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions, as well as to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions. The UCC regulates numerous types of commercial transactions, including security interests and sets forth the procedure used to perfect such transactions. LeRoy thoroughly researched the UCC as set forth in the Montana Code Annotated, as well as books such as the Bank Officer’s Handbook on Commercial Banking Law, even utilizing the format set forth at Stat. 30-9-402, MCA when drafting the Finance Statements.

LeRoy’s process of maintaining his claim, obtaining a judgment, recording and perfecting his lien, and using the lien as credit complied with all the procedures of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Montana.

LeRoy acted in good faith at all times. Rather that hiding his activities as most people involved in illegal activities will do, he used his correct name and address on all documents. He openly conducted seminars to instruct people on the UCC and encouraged those attending seminars to videotape and/or record the classes. Upon learning that the warrants were being investigated by the FBI, LeRoy even contacted Norwest to request the name of the agent assigned. When contacted by law enforcement officials regarding the lien draft/comptroller warrants, LeRoy spoke openly and honestly regarding the financial instruments.

Stat. 30-9-102, MCA. (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 9-104 on excluded transactions, this Article applies

(a) to any transaction: (regardless of its form) which is intended to create a security interest in personal property or fixtures including goods, documents, instruments, general intangibles, chattel paper or accounts; and also
(3)The application of this Article to a security interest in a secured obligation is riot affected by the fact that the obligation is itself secured by a transaction or interest to which this Article does not apply.

In this case, the provisions of (1)(a) are satisfied when, following default, the secured party signs the FS- l on behalf of the debtor, by “accommodation signature”.

Stat. 30-1-207, MCA.

(I) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assent 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.

Stat. 30-9-301, MCA.

(1)Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of
(3) A "lien creditor" means a creditor who has acquired a lien or on the property involved by attachment, levy or the like and includes an assignee for benefit of creditors front the time of assignment...

All financing statements were duly flied with the office of the Recorder of Deeds in Washington, as well as the local county clerk and recorder, until the clerks refused to file the documents. The "Freemen" continued to file the documents with private recording companies in an attempt to continue in a lawful manner.

Stat. 30-9-304, MCA.

Perfection of Security Interest in Instruments, Documents, and Goods' Covered by Documents; Perfection by Permissive Filing; Temporary Perfection Without Filing or Transfer of Possession.
(I) A security interest iii chattel paper or negotiable documents may be perfected by filing. A security interest in money or instruments.

Stat. 30-9-311, MCA.

The debtor's right in collateral may be voluntarily or involuntarily transferred (by way of sale, creation of a security interest, attachment, levy, garnishment or other judicial process) notwithstanding a provision of the security agreement prohibiting any transfer or making the transfer constitute a default.

Stat. 30-9401, MCA.

(1) Except for financing statements filed pursuant to 30-9-409, the proper place to file in order to perfect a security interest is as follows:

(b) in all other cases, in the office of tire Secretary of State.
(2) A filing which is made in good faith in an improper place or not in all of the places required by this section is nevertheless effective with regard to any collateral as to which the filing complied with the requirements of this Article and is also effective with regard to collateral covered by the financing statement against any person who has knowledge of the contents of such financing statement.

The fact that LeRoy’s liens are valid as a matter of law is evidenced by the statement of Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs during hearings regarding proposed legislation, S1009. This legislation targeted the fictitious instruments used by the people involved in "prime bank" security fraud; however, the lien draft comptroller warrants were discussed as well. In proposing new legislation, Senator D'Amato said: “Over the past several years, innovative criminals have exploited a loophole in the Federal anti-counterfeiting laws...LeRoy Schweitzer, one of the founders of the Montana Freemen, successfully passed more that 885 million in phony notes and netted a profit of $670,000.” -The Financial Instruments Anti-Fraud Act, 1996; Hearings on S1009 before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 1, 2. Opening statement of Alfonse D'Amato, Chairman, July 17, 1996.

The reference to the existence of this "loophole" is a recognition that the instruments alleged to be fraudulent in Counts 1 through 24 are in fact valid financial instruments. The disregard for applying existing laws to groups such as the Freemen was evidenced in the testimony of Special Agent Michael Stenger of the Financial Crimes Division of the Secret Service when he testified before Senator D’Amato's committee. Agent Stenger said,"...as with other fictitious negotiable instrument schemes, all of these groups use official looking documents and correspondence citing bogus laws and the uniform commercial codes in order to confuse and intimidate individuals, financial institutions, private companies, and law enforcement. -The Financial Instruments Anti-Fraud Act. 1996; Hearings on S1009 before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs. 104th Congress 2nd Session. Opening statement of Michael C. Stenger, Special Agent in Charge, Financial Crimes Division, US Secret Service. July 17.1996.

Terming valid Iaws "bogus" when the law relates to the Freemen is the very inequality and abuse of power which led LeRoy to begin the process that led to exhaustive research conducted by LeRoy and the resultant liens and lien draft/comptroller warrants.