Worst Case Scenario

[jetgraphics]

In case you are not paying attention, the former United States of America, instituted upon the principles delimited in the Declaration of Independence was transformed, in 1935, into the United Socialist States of America... via consent (FICA is 100% voluntary).

And now, the framework is being laid to transform the USSA into the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, with a supreme central government, collectivist, and totalitarian - by consent of the democracy.

What can you do to stop it?

Nothing.

You cannot vote, nor elect, nor influence the situation beyond changing the speed at which the change occurs.

The probable events that will trigger the transition are based on CRISIS. With that excuse, the government will mobilize its apparatus, and compel us - for our own good - to obey or suffer the consequences.

And you cannot stop them because you already gave CONSENT to them, and thus waived your endowment, your birthright, your precious gift from your Creator.

As long as that consent is evident, nothing you do can change anything.
Until that consent is withdrawn, nothing you do will matter.

It's spelled out in the Declaration of Independence:
Job #1 : secure rights, and
Job #2 : govern those who consent.

Once consent is given, job #1 is waived.

===============
Examples of lost rights:

"Right to healthcare" was abolished when government mandated that only licensed parties and businesses may sell health care services and materials.

"Right to own private property" was abolished when government can take property without paying just compensation.

"Right to travel" was abolished when government prosecutes unlicensed parties who travel upon public roads without permission slips and registration.

"Right to life" was abolished by compulsory militia duty.

"Right to work" was abolished via FICA. All labor is a revenue taxable privilege.

Welcome to the fledgling People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
Do not rattle your chains - it annoys us, the benevolent Collective.

[jetgraphics]

Life would be so much simpler if the propaganda was true, and we had nothing to worry about. But reality is far more dire. There are forces at work to scuttle the United Socialist States of America (1935) and reorganize as the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America (by 2012, I estimate).

Since 1933, there has been no lawful money in circulation. Federal Reserve notes (aka "dollar bills"), defined in Title 12 USC sec. 411, are plainly not dollars. Only enumerated 'contributors' (via FICA) are obligated to accept the notes as tender in lieu of lawful money. By law, FRNs are not only worthless, they are MINUS value. They were repudiated in 1933.

The national debt, in excess of 12 trillion dollars is not payable with "dollar bills". The debt computes to a sum of gold bullion that staggers the mind - 600 billion ounces. Estimated world wide supply is only 5.5 billion ounces. Fort Knox depository has merely 147.3 million ounces. (Where is the gold money lent by the FED to the U.S. government to substantiate the public debt?)

Moving on.
The debasement of the medium of exchange, by trading lawful money (coin) for debt - credit (notes) has resulted in the fractional coin bullion exceeding the face value. The amount of metal in a penny or nickel has a higher FRN value. Or one could say that the paper dollar is but 1/1000 of the value of the real dollar of 1913. Which then means that the fractional coin has not really "soared" in value - but that the paper note is hyperinflationary excrement.

Thanks to the alliance of usurers and collectivists, we have the best government money can bribe... which is astounding, since the current monies drop in trade value, as do wages. But cost of living raises for the government drones, bureaucrats and officers, is enough to placate them - at our expense.

Long standing problems, such as the subsidy of petroleum fueled automobiles, buses, trucks, versus taxing to death alternate forms of urban mass transit lead one to wonder what manner of fools occupy the public offices of the land - or the voters who elect them.

But I should not be surprised. Since 1935, Americans have embraced bribery as public policy, via Socialist Insecurity. Using the government to compel labor for the benefit of another is nothing less than slavery and thievery. However, since participation in Socialist Insecurity is 100% voluntary - it slides past the ban on INVOLUNTARY servitude. (What? You didn't know that there is NO LAW compelling participation, nor punishing those who do not participate?)

Did I forget to mention that each enumerated "human resource" is a surety on that unpayable debt? You and everything you own is pledged as collateral on the abominable debt. (See Fed Res site, wherein they blithely state that the "dollar bill" is backed by all the people and their property in the USA!)

So we stand upon the threshold with a "share the wealth" pirate at the helm of the Ship of State, whose course is set to collide with the rocks.

Do you think it would be better to get off the ship, or entice more aboard?
Don't wait too long in making up your mind.

[Bigjon]

You're still using a bogus value for gold based on a time when gold was money. You can't equate paper to gold, they are never on the same footing.

[jetgraphics]

You're still using a bogus value for gold based on a time when gold was money. You can't equate paper to gold, they are never on the same footing.

I agree - you can't equate paper to gold, they are never on the same footing.
BUT....
What the law says is that the public debt is denominated in DOLLARS. . . not dollar bills. Dollar bills, aka Federal Reserve notes, are defined in Title 12 USC Sec. 411.

In contrast, dollars are defined in the Coinage Act of 1792, et seq.

Notes are promises to pay - in the future. In the case of Federal Reserve notes, they were repudiated in 1933.

If you wish to dispute the law's definitions and substitute your own, feel free to. But it won't change the facts at law.

[jedemdasseine]

Look up the definition of a dollar in Black's Law Dictionary.

Then look up the definition of a cent.

Hilarious.

[jedemdasseine]

Are Sacagawea dollar coins legally dollars?
:o

[jetgraphics]

Are Sacagawea dollar coins legally dollars?

Not according to the Coinage Act.
And after 1965, fractional coin ceased to comply with the constitution, and became counterfeits.
Of course, Congress reduced the punishment for counterfeiting - just in case.


"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."
"Eagles—each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
--- Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, April 2, 1792

According to Title 31 of the U.S. code, a silver dollar complies with the original Coinage Act.

Title 31 USC Sec. 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(e)(1) ...weight 31.103 grams;
(e)(4) have inscriptions ... 1 Oz. Fine Silver ... One Dollar

[jedemdasseine]

Are Sacagawea dollar coins legally dollars?

Not according to the Coinage Act.
And after 1965, fractional coin ceased to comply with the constitution, and became counterfeits.
Of course, Congress reduced the punishment for counterfeiting - just in case.


"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."
"Eagles—each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
--- Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, April 2, 1792

According to Title 31 of the U.S. code, a silver dollar complies with the original Coinage Act.

Title 31 USC Sec. 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(e)(1) ...weight 31.103 grams;
(e)(4) have inscriptions ... 1 Oz. Fine Silver ... One Dollar


Yes, but hasn't the original Coinage Act been amended, expurgated, updated, or otherwise been rendered obsolete several times over?

I'd elaborate, but Hypertiger just covered this topic:



From the Constitution...

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to...

...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

William McKinley was the presidential candidate backed by the City of London/Rothchild to get the USA off of silver on on to Gold since the city of London controlled the Global gold supply.

The Gold republicans...He was opposed by William Jennings Bryan who represented the silver democrats fighting against the city of London/Rothchild global Gold standard scheme.

William Jennings Bryan lost and the the congress passed the Gold standard act in 1900...which changed a the US Dollar from a fixed measure of silver into a fixed measure of Gold.

The 1792 coinage act defined the a Dollar as....

"DOLLARS or UNITS – each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver."

The 1900 Gold standard act changed that to...

"Be it enacted . ., That the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain such parity."

A small group of people calling themselves "We the people" gave a thing they invented and called congress the power to...

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

the current congress approved US Dollar is defined as...

"Mass 8.100 g (0.260 troy oz)
Diameter 26.5 mm (1.043 in)
Thickness 2.00 mm (0.079 in)
Composition Copper with manganese brass clad (copper 88.5%, zinc 6%, manganese 3.5%, nickel 2%)"

Again A small group of people calling themselves "We the people" gave a thing they invented and called congress the power to do all of the above and it's legal...just ask the Supreme court...they invented that too.

[Bigjon]

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 1467

1467
dole-land.Hist. Jointly owned land in which each owner or user has an assigned portion with
distinct landmarks. • The share may be allotted annually on a rotating basis or permanently. —
Also termed dole-meadow; dole-moor.
DOLE-MEADOW
dole-meadow. See DOLE-LAND.
DOLE-MOOR
dole-moor. See DOLE-LAND.
DOLE<TT> TEST
Dole test. A four-part test used to determine the constitutionality of a condition attached by
Congress under its Spending Clause power to the receipt of federal money. • The spending must
be in pursuit of the general welfare, and the condition must be unambiguous, related to some
federal interest, and not barred by any other provision of the Constitution. South Dakota v. Dole,
483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (1987).
DOLI CAPAX
doli capax (doh-lIkay-paks), adj.[Latin “capable of wrong”] Roman law. Capable of
committing a crime or tort; esp., old enough to determine right from wrong. — Also termed capax
doli. Cf. DOLI INCAPAX.
“In criminal cases, an infant of the age of fourteen years may be capitally punished for any
capital offence: but under the age of seven he cannot. The period between seven and fourteen is
subject to much incertainty: for the infant shall, generally speaking, be judged prima facie
innocent; yet if he was doli capax, and could discern between good and evil at the time of the
offence committed, he may be convicted and undergo judgment and execution of death, though he
hath not attained to years of puberty or discretion.” 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the
Laws of England 452–53 (1765).
DOLI INCAPAX
doli incapax (doh-lI in-kay-paks), adj.[Latin “incapable of wrong”] Roman law. Incapable of
committing a crime or tort. — Also termed incapax doli. Cf. DOLI CAPAX.
DOLLAR-COST AVERAGING
dollar-cost averaging,n. The investment practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of a
type of security at regular intervals.
DOLO
dolo (doh-loh), n.[Spanish] Spanish law. Fraud or deceit; bad or mischievous design.
DOLO CIRCUMVENTUS
dolo circumventus (doh-loh s<<schwa>>r-k<<schwa>>m-ven-t<<schwa>>s). [Latin] Hist.

[Bigjon]

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 670
670
objectionable content. 3. In the armed forces, someone who reads letters and other
communications and deletes material considered a security threat. — cen-sorial,adj. —
censorship,n.
censor (sen-s<<schwa>>r), vb. To officially inspect (esp. a book or film) and delete material
considered offensive.
CENSORIAL JURISPRUDENCE
censorial jurisprudence.See LAW REFORM.
CENSUMETHIDUS
censumethidus (sen-s<<schwa>>-meth-<<schwa>>-d<<schwa>>s). [Law Latin] See
MORTMAIN. — Also spelled censumorthidus.
CENSURE
censure (sen-sh<<schwa>>r), n. An official reprimand or condemnation; harsh criticism <the
judge's careless statements subjected her to the judicial council's censure>. — censorious,adj.
censure,vb. To reprimand; to criticize harshly <the Senate censured the senator for his
inflammatory remarks>.
CENSUS
census. The official counting of people to compile social and economic data for the political
subdivision to which the people belong. Pl. censuses.[Cases: Census 1. C.J.S. Census §§ 5, 8.]
federal census.A census of a state or territory, or a portion of either, taken by the Census
Bureau of the United States. • The Constitution (art. I, § 2) requires only a simple count of persons
for purposes of apportioning con-gressional representation among the states. Under Congress's
direction, however, the census has evolved to include a wide variety of information that is useful
to businesses, historians, and others not affiliated with the federal government. [Cases: Census 1.
C.J.S. Census §§ 5, 8.]
CENSUS BUREAU
Census Bureau.See BUREAU OF THE CENSUS.
CENTENA
centena (sen-tee-n<<schwa>>). [fr. Latin centum “hundred”] Hist. A district containing 100
freemen, established among the Germans, Franks, Goths, and Lombards. • The centena
corresponds to the Saxon hundred.
CENTENARIUS
centenarius (sen-t<<schwa>>-nair-ee-<<schwa>>s). [fr. Latin centum “hundred-man”] Hist.
A petty judge or undersheriff of a hundred. See HUNDRED.
CENTER FOR MINORITY VETERANS

[jetgraphics]

Yes, but hasn't the original Coinage Act been amended, expurgated, updated, or otherwise been rendered obsolete several times over?

Have you read the laws?
I don't mean to sound flippant, but reporting what "someone" else says about it, is not enlightening.

Let me rephrase - based on the U.S. Constitution, no STATE can make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in PAYMENT of debt. Other things may discharge debt, but only gold or silver coin can pay debt.

The U.S. government has certainly changed what it will accept as tender. But it hasn't changed what the STATES can deal in, for the purposes of paying debt.

If you read the Coinage Act of 1873 (aka "The Crime of 1873"), it appears to demonetize silver. But it only applied to the FEDERAL government. In fact, when the Panama canal was built, the U.S. government paid American workers with gold dollars, and foreign workers with silver dollars.

And in the States, people routinely used silver dollars and silver fractional coin.

"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto."
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305

In 1933, the U.S. government declared bankruptcy, being no longer able to redeem their notes (pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec. 411) with lawful money. And FDR issued an executive order confiscating all privately held gold coin. Since that year, NO LAWFUL MONEY has circulated.

Which meant that no one has "paid" their debts with lawful money in generations.

And what clause of the U.S. Constitution deals with people who cannot pay their debts?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

Since "everyone" is presumed bankrupt, using worthless notes to discharge debt, transactions are no longer "rights" but "privileges".
Which explains the retail sales tax...

In my own experience, I've filed lawsuits with an affidavit of indigence, wherein I declare that I do not own nor possess XXX dollars, where dollars are defined by the Coinage Act of 1792, et seq, and they were approved by a sitting judge. I've also asked presiding judges to rule that a Federal Reserve note is a dollar - but they demurred.

Under the rules of the common law (and admiralty / maritime), to establish allodial title to private property, three facts must be in evidence:
1. Right to own,
2. Alienate title with lawful money, and
3. No superior claim exists.

Pursuant to the 7th amendment, one preserves the right to the RULES of the common law if the value in question is over 20 dollars (i.e, 21 silver dollars is the minimum set point).

Coincidentally, liars - I mean lawyers - routinely author "title deeds" wherein it states "For $1 in hand...." and then has the owner file that into the public record. Why would an attorney bar his client from the right to the common law rules?

Hmmmmmmm.

If you connect the dots, you might come to the conclusion that generations past, the U.S.A. was vanquished and re-organized by a foreign power to prosecute the bankruptcy against the people... or you might not... I leave it up to you. I wouldn't want to suggest that the State of Emergency, declared in 1933, and renewed by each sitting president, party affiliation notwithstanding, means that the U.S. Constitution is no longer in force and effect.... only bypassed - by consent.

[jetgraphics]

...the current congress approved US Dollar is defined as...

"Mass 8.100 g (0.260 troy oz)
Diameter 26.5 mm (1.043 in)
Thickness 2.00 mm (0.079 in)
Composition Copper with manganese brass clad (copper 88.5%, zinc 6%, manganese 3.5%, nickel 2%)"

I just realized that the "new dollar" coin (under the State of Emergency) is a big penny...
ROFLMAO.

We have the best socialist government bribery can buy...

[kregener]

The Constitution exists to reign in the Federal government, It does not guarantee any individual right to 'We the People'. The Bill of Rights (the first 10) are the rights of the people.

So, according to The Bill of Rights, which were put in place to GUARANTEE the God-given rights of 'We the People' to liberty and freedom from ANY oppressive government, let us examine just how seriously our...'representatives'...have taken their Oath of Office:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Setting aside that government involved in education is unconstitutional to begin with, God forcibly taken out of schools is a CLEAR prohibition on the "free exercise" of religion. Installing the religion of evolution is a CLEAR establishment of same. 'Free Speech Zones' and the McCain-Feingold bill are violations as well. Censoring the We The People website from posting materials relating to the Great Income Tax Ponzi Scheme is also a violation of free speech and redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Do we really need to tackle an explanation of this one? EVERY gun 'law' ever passed by Congress at the federal level, or any law of same in any state is in DIRECT violation of this amendment! The language of the day (when this was written) has a clear and unmistakable meaning that has been twisted to fit an agenda. The Militia was each able-bodied man. Regulated then meant 'equipped', not controlled by the government.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

WHEW! Safe for now! Unless you have had soldiers quartered in your home against your wishes?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The USA PATRIOT Act wiped this one from existence, but even before that onerous piece of toilet paper was written and enacted, RICO Statutes violated this one BIG TIME. Roadside checkpoints, airport anal probes, papers on demand, no-knock raids, and warrants issued solely upon the 'testimony' of criminals seeking to lessen their own culpability, etc., etc., etc. Police can stop you anywhere, at any time, and demand “your papers please”, your failure to cooperate and bow and scrap before your masters with a badge and a gun directly correlates to the amount of physical abuse you will receive from them.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This one is tenuous. More people should evoke their 5th Amendment rights when dealing with the Police State, but sadly, most people do not know enough about our Constitution to do so. Unfortunately, you CAN be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law', it happens all the time. Excessive 'bail' (see Amendment VIII), Tasered for asking questions and demanding your rights, IRS confiscations...two separate cases of 'double jeopardy’ come to mind: O.J. Simpson and the cops who pummeled Rodney King. They successfully defended themselves against the charges, only to be convicted on specious charges coming from ‘Civil Rights violations’ relating to the SAME INCIDENCES later. OJ's was a private Civil Suit, the cops was Federal.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

'Speedy'? Today? Not likely. It often takes MONTHS to get to trial on any issue, and these trials often take MONTHS to reach jury deliberation. They also often move the trial to another venue stating 'bias' and 'public opinion' as their reason for doing so. As a case drags on and on, the defendant often finds he or she is out of funds for proper defensive representation, leaving them relying on case-heavy “public defenders”, who most often are nowhere near as proficient and capable as a paid attorney. Bankruptcy is all too common when fighting Behemoth, who has unlimited taxpayer-extorted dollars to throw at any conviction they wish to secure. Dragging a case out as long as possible only increases the chance or conviction, or at least a ‘plea bargain’ of some sort. Innocent people ‘cop a plea’ all the time to avoid being bankrupted by the government. Coupled with a complete lack of knowledge among the citizenry of a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification, and the Justice System is always stacked against you. Judges lord it over ‘their’ courtrooms like self-styled tyrants, even though the most powerful body in the courtroom IS THE JURY. I have to believe, should any juror actually attempt to evoke Jury Nullification during trial, that the ogre on the bench would slap them with 'contempt of court'.

Amendment VII

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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We seldom see jury trials in minor cases, even though it is our right. And every time anyone loses a case, Federal Behemoth or private citizen, it is 'reexamined' by another court...on appeal. This process can be repeated until a defendant is bankrupt.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Is $500,000 excessive? $1 million? Happens all the time. Lets face it, most people could not afford $25,000 bail, let alone the amounts we see coming out of our judicial system today. How about 2 years for possession of marijuana? Unusual? 10 years for tax ‘evasion’? Cruel? 5 years for EACH count against you? Right. Count stacking is a cruel and unusual tool to get even innocent people to ‘plea bargain’ to 'lesser charges' just to stop the madness.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

LMAO! This one is so simple and idiot could grasp it! The Constitution was not designed to 'give' us rights, it is supposed to KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CHECK. Our rights come from God and are breathed into each sovereign person at birth, the Constitution was specifically designed to throttle the government from abusing its simple and proper authority, the Amendments were to guarantee our rights against a government run amok.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We see what happened when some states tried to exercise their rights. Lincoln forced the Civil War, 600,000+ of our own…dead, newspapers censured, newsmen jailed, presses smashed, conscription of immigrants as cannon fodder, judges disbarred, cities burned, and trampling of almost all of the rights listed above. The states cannot override the Constitution, and the Federal government cannot trample on States rights. Yeah...right. California or Massachusetts enacts an insane gun ban at the state level in DIRECT violation of our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights, and Fed Corp does nothing to ‘secure’ said right. Uncle Sugar enacts another gun ban at the federal level and the respective states do nothing to ‘secure’ said right. We are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. A Republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of ARMED citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law...The Constitution. A democracy is just mobocracy…mob rule, and the mob will always just ask for more largess from the Public Treasury. History bears this out. Democracy eventually creeps toward Socialism, and tyranny is always the end result.

[jetgraphics]

LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.

Lawful money and current monies (under the State of Emergency) may differ. Check with your congress critter for the latest spin on their counterfeit operation.

[jetgraphics]

Regarding heartfelt feelings about the "protections" of the U.S. Constitution...

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on
the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a
compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they
may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the
right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. Could not the States, in
their sovereign capacities, or Congress (if it has the power) as their agent,
forgive such a breach of the Constitution, on the part of a State, as that of
imposing a tax on imports, or accept reparation for it? In case this were done,
what would become of the claims of the private person, for damages for such
breach? To let such claims be set up against the forgiven party, would be to do
away with forgiveness. No, if there existed such claimants, they would have to
appeal, each to his own sovereign for redress. It was that sovereign's business
to get enough from the offending sovereign, to cover all private losses of his
own citizens - and if he did not get enough to do that, those citizens must look
to him, alone, for indemnity."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,
520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

I realize that some of the readership are being exposed to "uncomfortable" stuff, and may find themselves in a dither.

Remember, America has the world's greatest propaganda ministry (See Goebbels' diary). And we have been carefully indoctrinated, from childhood, to be ignorant of basic language and logic.

Consider the Declaration of Independence:
Job #1 - secure rights,
Job #2 - govern those who consent.

Now, if you think about it, a government created to help secure your right to life cannot simultaneously have the power to snuff it out... unless (a) after conviction for a crime, or (b) by your consent.

The militia (1777) were obligated to train, fight, and die, if necessary, on command.
That is certainly a violation of one's right to life and liberty.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

That means "compulsory" civic duties are based on consent, lest they be involuntary servitude.

The "consent" is founded in one's claim to citizenship. Apparently citizens waive job #1 in exchange for government privileges and immunities.

FWIW - I've yet to find one law that trespasses upon the rights of the American national, free inhabitant, domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the U.S.A., where he exercises natural and personal liberty.

But those p.d.b. U.S. citizens / residents, residing at residences, enumerated socialists, and bankrupted peons - they're s.o.l.

[jedemdasseine]

jetgraphics, I'm not disputing anything you're positing, but I feel like Sisyphus whenever I go down the path of Constitutionality. I admire your persistence.

[jedemdasseine]

But really, what do you think of those post-Coinage Act laws that redefine a dollar?

Isn't gold fixed at $42 and change?


Taking a step back, it seems this debate reflects the division between the laws of man versus the Law of God.

[jetgraphics]

[1] But really, what do you think of those post-Coinage Act laws that redefine a dollar?
[2] Isn't gold fixed at $42 and change?
[3] Taking a step back, it seems this debate reflects the division between the laws of man versus the Law of God.

1. Please present the law that redefines the unit dollar, in the USA (not US).
2. IIRC, $42 is the bullion price, but the one ounce coin (post 1933) is $50. FWIW - one of my coin dealers, back in 1990s, told me that they had to file a report on customers who bought the $50 one ounce gold coins, but didn't have to report the sale of $20 one ounce gold coin (pre-bankruptcy). I dunno why.
3. I wouldn't be so hasty as to attribute gold / silver money to "God's Law". For one thing - scarce precious metal coin is a lousy medium of exchange. The reason is simple - money is a tool to facilitate trade and act as an accounting system. A money token that is scarce means that trade is hampered. I prefer a money token system that retains proportionality with the marketplace of goods and services. A private promissory note, denominated in goods or services, is a reasonable medium of exchange.
Frankly, I think we were infected with "money madness" and led to chase after the abstraction instead of reality.

[jedemdasseine]

[1] But really, what do you think of those post-Coinage Act laws that redefine a dollar?
[2] Isn't gold fixed at $42 and change?
[3] Taking a step back, it seems this debate reflects the division between the laws of man versus the Law of God.

1. Please present the law that redefines the unit dollar, in the USA (not US).
2. IIRC, $42 is the bullion price, but the one ounce coin (post 1933) is $50. FWIW - one of my coin dealers, back in 1990s, told me that they had to file a report on customers who bought the $50 one ounce gold coins, but didn't have to report the sale of $20 one ounce gold coin (pre-bankruptcy). I dunno why.
3. I wouldn't be so hasty as to attribute gold / silver money to "God's Law". For one thing - scarce precious metal coin is a lousy medium of exchange. The reason is simple - money is a tool to facilitate trade and act as an accounting system. A money token that is scarce means that trade is hampered. I prefer a money token system that retains proportionality with the marketplace of goods and services. A private promissory note, denominated in goods or services, is a reasonable medium of exchange.
Frankly, I think we were infected with "money madness" and led to chase after the abstraction instead of reality.


We're clearly not on the same page.

I have zero interest in what the law says on this issue. To me, it doesn't matter, as people will interpret any law any way that suits them.

So the coinage act says a dollar is such and such....so what? We've passed the Rubicon monetarily, and I see no hope in laws.

The laws of the US are like a Gordian Knot I have no desire to untie. I respect those who try, however. So don't take any of this personally. I've learned a great deal from your posts over the years.

Also, I do not attribute gold and silver to "God's Law." I never meant to imply such.

[jetgraphics]

[1] But really, what do you think of those post-Coinage Act laws that redefine a dollar?
[2] Isn't gold fixed at $42 and change?
[3] Taking a step back, it seems this debate reflects the division between the laws of man versus the Law of God.

1. Please present the law that redefines the unit dollar, in the USA (not US).
2. IIRC, $42 is the bullion price, but the one ounce coin (post 1933) is $50. FWIW - one of my coin dealers, back in 1990s, told me that they had to file a report on customers who bought the $50 one ounce gold coins, but didn't have to report the sale of $20 one ounce gold coin (pre-bankruptcy). I dunno why.
3. I wouldn't be so hasty as to attribute gold / silver money to "God's Law". For one thing - scarce precious metal coin is a lousy medium of exchange. The reason is simple - money is a tool to facilitate trade and act as an accounting system. A money token that is scarce means that trade is hampered. I prefer a money token system that retains proportionality with the marketplace of goods and services. A private promissory note, denominated in goods or services, is a reasonable medium of exchange.
Frankly, I think we were infected with "money madness" and led to chase after the abstraction instead of reality.


We're clearly not on the same page.

I have zero interest in what the law says on this issue. To me, it doesn't matter, as people will interpret any law any way that suits them.

So the coinage act says a dollar is such and such....so what? We've passed the Rubicon monetarily, and I see no hope in laws.

The laws of the US are like a Gordian Knot I have no desire to untie. I respect those who try, however. So don't take any of this personally. I've learned a great deal from your posts over the years.

Also, I do not attribute gold and silver to "God's Law." I never meant to imply such.

When I first entered into the long journey of discovery about law, in 1989, I had only the folklore and indoctrination fed to me by the mass media. Only after reading the law, myself, did I realize that we all have been victims of a grand deception.

Your attitude that the law does not matter is EXACTLY what "they" want. Because whether you wish to admit it or not, their power over you and yours is delineated in the law. And it is 100% by your consent.

If your knowledge of the justice system is only by the mass media (movies, TV, etc), you must spend a week or two, attending a criminal case in your local county court house. Only then will you realize what blithering idiots are running the show... and that you have submitted to their authority.

Better yet, after your eye opening, do a little detective work - inquire about their oaths of office. What many researchers have found - the vast majority of "public officials" fail to file their oaths to the Constitution. Without an inscribed oath, you can't hold them liable for breach of oath. (Fingers crossed doesn't count.)

Once you are awake, your conversational topics will annoy friends, relatives and spouses. No doubt, you will become ostracized and shunned. You have become a one eyed man in the land of the blind.
But -OH- what sights you will behold.

P.S. - the "money issue" is very important. Many New Patriots have used the $21 US (silver) bill of sale to extricate themselves from the bankrupt socialist system. The law is the law. Knowledge is power. Ignorance is not bliss.

In Georgia's Constitution, Art 1, Sec 1, Para 26, there's a blanket exemption of 1600 dollars from all judicial process. The government is restrained from imposing pauperization upon the people, by reserving at least 1600 dollars from all legal and judicial processes. (That's dollars - not dollar bills!) The government cannot exercise any power to make you into pauper, dependent upon public charity in order to survive.

If you bought your land for $21, your house for $21, your automobile for $21... get the idea?
You're judgment proof until it exceeds $1600.

[jedemdasseine]

[1] But really, what do you think of those post-Coinage Act laws that redefine a dollar?
[2] Isn't gold fixed at $42 and change?
[3] Taking a step back, it seems this debate reflects the division between the laws of man versus the Law of God.

1. Please present the law that redefines the unit dollar, in the USA (not US).
2. IIRC, $42 is the bullion price, but the one ounce coin (post 1933) is $50. FWIW - one of my coin dealers, back in 1990s, told me that they had to file a report on customers who bought the $50 one ounce gold coins, but didn't have to report the sale of $20 one ounce gold coin (pre-bankruptcy). I dunno why.
3. I wouldn't be so hasty as to attribute gold / silver money to "God's Law". For one thing - scarce precious metal coin is a lousy medium of exchange. The reason is simple - money is a tool to facilitate trade and act as an accounting system. A money token that is scarce means that trade is hampered. I prefer a money token system that retains proportionality with the marketplace of goods and services. A private promissory note, denominated in goods or services, is a reasonable medium of exchange.
Frankly, I think we were infected with "money madness" and led to chase after the abstraction instead of reality.


We're clearly not on the same page.

I have zero interest in what the law says on this issue. To me, it doesn't matter, as people will interpret any law any way that suits them.

So the coinage act says a dollar is such and such....so what? We've passed the Rubicon monetarily, and I see no hope in laws.

The laws of the US are like a Gordian Knot I have no desire to untie. I respect those who try, however. So don't take any of this personally. I've learned a great deal from your posts over the years.

Also, I do not attribute gold and silver to "God's Law." I never meant to imply such.

When I first entered into the long journey of discovery about law, in 1989, I had only the folklore and indoctrination fed to me by the mass media. Only after reading the law, myself, did I realize that we all have been victims of a grand deception.

Your attitude that the law does not matter is EXACTLY what "they" want. Because whether you wish to admit it or not, their power over you and yours is delineated in the law. And it is 100% by your consent.

If your knowledge of the justice system is only by the mass media (movies, TV, etc), you must spend a week or two, attending a criminal case in your local county court house. Only then will you realize what blithering idiots are running the show... and that you have submitted to their authority.

Better yet, after your eye opening, do a little detective work - inquire about their oaths of office. What many researchers have found - the vast majority of "public officials" fail to file their oaths to the Constitution. Without an inscribed oath, you can't hold them liable for breach of oath. (Fingers crossed doesn't count.)

Once you are awake, your conversational topics will annoy friends, relatives and spouses. No doubt, you will become ostracized and shunned. You have become a one eyed man in the land of the blind.
But -OH- what sights you will behold.

Why do you assume I'm so ignorant on these topics? Because I've come to different conclusions? If you had any idea, my friend, of my background or my experience in these matters.....but alas, we're on the internet.

Perhaps some day I'll be as "awake" as you. ;)

[jedemdasseine]

Unless one believes that the Constitution of any other laws of man are infallible, why follow them?

[jetgraphics]

Why do you assume I'm so ignorant on these topics? Because I've come to different conclusions? If you had any idea, my friend, of my background or my experience in these matters.....but alas, we're on the internet.

Perhaps some day I'll be as "awake" as you. Wink

I apologize if I implied anything derogatory.
If you had come to a "different conclusion" based on some law, that is one thing. But you haven't made any such claim. I have to assume that one who does not avail themselves of the remedy and are still entrapped, must not know.

What I found - the remedy, in the law - is withdrawal of consent... from usury, national socialism, entitlements, citizenship, etc., etc.

[jetgraphics]

Unless one believes that the Constitution of any other laws of man are infallible, why follow them?

What you have posted explains much to me.

In the law, the real law, there are two classes - malum in se (evil in itself) and malum prohibitum (regulatory).
Only the latter are "followed".
Those who have withdrawn consent to be governed are no longer liable for the latter.
And the former, are only applicable after the fact. An injured party makes a criminal complaint, which authorizes the servant government to prosecute the accused.
Under national socialism, the bulk of laws are malum prohibitum. And one suffers punishment for violation despite no injured party.

[jedemdasseine]

Why do you assume I'm so ignorant on these topics? Because I've come to different conclusions? If you had any idea, my friend, of my background or my experience in these matters.....but alas, we're on the internet.

Perhaps some day I'll be as "awake" as you. Wink

I apologize if I implied anything derogatory.
If you had come to a "different conclusion" based on some law, that is one thing. But you haven't made any such claim. I have to assume that one who does not avail themselves of the remedy and are still entrapped, must not know.

What I found - the remedy, in the law - is withdrawal of consent... from usury, national socialism, entitlements, citizenship, etc., etc.



No worries. Just keep posting and I'll keep reading. It's incredibly interesting stuff.

[The Great Ag]

Once you are awake, your conversational topics will annoy friends, relatives and spouses. No doubt, you will become ostracized and shunned. You have become a one eyed man in the land of the blind.
But -OH- what sights you will behold.

In the law, the real law, there are two classes - malum in se (evil in itself) and malum prohibitum (regulatory).


I can concur with the "glowing" sentiment. My wife, as such, has no problem with my legal studies, although she questions me frequently on why I do certain things (she understands but is fearful of the gov't) and is definitely exhausted about the new information I tell her. Some family I do not even bother to discuss the law with - waste of time. It is amazing what one can do, when one understands the relationship to the law.

Hey, JG, I am writing only to expand upon what you have written and not to educate you - you already know the information. In reference to the terms "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" the key difference is "malum in se" are crimes (theft, murder, desruction of property. . .etc) and "malum prohibitum" laws everything is legal UNTIL prohibited by law. Typically these laws are considered as "administrative law" or "private/special law." As such, they do NOT affect everyone, mearly a specific subset of the population. This is what JG means when he writes he has yet to find a law that violates the rights of a inhabitant, domiciled in the USA with no SSN# or other gov't nexus. A freeman is just that - free.

By understanding one's relationship to the law, one can decide for onself whether or not the "adminstrative/private" law pertains. One can even demand the prosecution show how one is obligated to perform. If the prosecution cannot, then dismiss the case for lack of cause. Make the opposition prove their point, not just say, "Well Delaware code states. . .." Ofcourse it does, but what is the fundamental law the obligates me to perform. The prosecution must show how I am compelled to perform. Most prosecutors, from my experience, are NOT prepared for this type of cross examination.

The Great Ag

[UFM]

Unless one believes that the Constitution of any other laws of man are infallible, why follow them?



because you dont want to go to jail

[The Great Ag]

JG, you wrote:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Wherein the US Supreme court offered its opinion that citizens (subjects of the US gov't) have obligations to protect the state, even if that means surrending one's life to do so. Clearly the court's opinion is the preservation of the state supercedes the preservation of the individual. Sucks to be me, an individual!

I have not read those cases at all, so I cannot comment fully on them, but I am wondering if the Plaintiff or Defendant presented his/her case adequately. The reason I ask is I read two nights ago a very interesting case that came before the US Supreme Court in 1934 regarding contractual payment in gold coin. Sorry I do not have the case cite in front of me.

In short, the Plaintiff purchased a $10,000 dollar gov't bond in 1918 which paid 4.25% annually. The bond stipulated that it could be redeemed anytime between 1933 and 1938 and paid in gold coin or gold certificate at time of redemption. For those who do not know, in 1933 CONgress repudiated ANY and ALL obligations to pay a debt with gold.

The Plaintiff, in 1934, went to redeem the bond and was offered 10,000FRN. The Plaintiff objected and sued the gov't stating he wanted either $10,000 in gold coin (as contractually stated) OR $10,000 in gold equivalent OR 16,321FRN, then the current price of gold in FRNs. The gov't, as Defendant, demurred stating the Plaintiff failed to state a cause where remedy would grant relief.

The gov'ts position that since the current CONgress had repudiated all the gold obligations, it could only be compelled to offer 10,000FRN, which it had, therefore fulfilling its obligation.

The Plaintiff argued, and the court concurred, the CONgress of 1918 had the power to enter into contracts on the faith and credit of the United States. If the current gov't could invalidate this contract, then the future ramifications could be huge. Who would buy gov't bonds, knowing the gov't could at any time repudiate the contract. The court decided the gov't contract stands. HOWEVER, the Plaintiff did NOT state he had been damaged in any way in his complaint, such as, loss of purchasing power. I believe the court stated, "nor any hint of damage."

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Defendant, the US gov't. From reading the case, it would seem, had the Plaintiff shown damages of some sort, the court MAY HAVE ruled differently.

My point, is perhaps, in Butler v Perry and Selective Draft Law cases, inalienable rights was not argued sufficiently. Rights belong to the belligerent and must be zealously guarded against any infringment. As you know, "inalienable rights" by definition cannot be waived, conveyed or in any other way given away.

Have you read the cases thoroughly to determine whether or not the defense was adequate? I will have to look into them myself.

THe Great Ag

[iOWNme]

This is a great thread.....Good posts by all.

I dont know how i missed this one.

I have come to my own conclusion: I do not know what the truth is, BUT I WANT OUT!




:)

[Book]

By understanding one's relationship to the law, one can decide for onself whether or not the "adminstrative/private" law pertains. One can even demand the prosecution show how one is obligated to perform. If the prosecution cannot, then dismiss the case for lack of cause.



Hey TGA...welcome to GSUS. You now regret being a Liberty Dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar) dealer? Last time we exchanged comments was at GIM in a long thread just after you got raided by the FBI:


FBI / Secret Service raid

The Liberty Dollar offices were raided by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Secret Service on November 14, 2007. Bernard von NotHaus, the owner of Liberty Services, sent an email to customers and supporters saying that the FBI took all the gold, silver, and platinum, and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars. The FBI also seized computers and files and froze the Liberty Dollar bank accounts.[17] Most of the precious metal seized was not owned by von NotHaus or Liberty Services, but was being warehoused by Liberty Services on behalf of its customers.[citation needed] Von NotHaus's email linked to a signup page for a class action lawsuit so that the victims might recover their assets. At the same time, all forms on his website relating to purchases of Liberty Dollars became nonfunctional.

|--0--|

[jetgraphics]

JG, you wrote:

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Wherein the US Supreme court offered its opinion that citizens (subjects of the US gov't) have obligations to protect the state, even if that means surrending one's life to do so. Clearly the court's opinion is the preservation of the state supercedes the preservation of the individual. Sucks to be me, an individual!

I have not read those cases at all, so I cannot comment fully on them, but I am wondering if the Plaintiff or Defendant presented his/her case adequately. The reason I ask is I read two nights ago a very interesting case that came before the US Supreme Court in 1934 regarding contractual payment in gold coin. Sorry I do not have the case cite in front of me.

In short, the Plaintiff purchased a $10,000 dollar gov't bond in 1918 which paid 4.25% annually. The bond stipulated that it could be redeemed anytime between 1933 and 1938 and paid in gold coin or gold certificate at time of redemption. For those who do not know, in 1933 CONgress repudiated ANY and ALL obligations to pay a debt with gold.

The Plaintiff, in 1934, went to redeem the bond and was offered 10,000FRN. The Plaintiff objected and sued the gov't stating he wanted either $10,000 in gold coin (as contractually stated) OR $10,000 in gold equivalent OR 16,321FRN, then the current price of gold in FRNs. The gov't, as Defendant, demurred stating the Plaintiff failed to state a cause where remedy would grant relief.

The gov'ts position that since the current CONgress had repudiated all the gold obligations, it could only be compelled to offer 10,000FRN, which it had, therefore fulfilling its obligation.

The Plaintiff argued, and the court concurred, the CONgress of 1918 had the power to enter into contracts on the faith and credit of the United States. If the current gov't could invalidate this contract, then the future ramifications could be huge. Who would buy gov't bonds, knowing the gov't could at any time repudiate the contract. The court decided the gov't contract stands. HOWEVER, the Plaintiff did NOT state he had been damaged in any way in his complaint, such as, loss of purchasing power. I believe the court stated, "nor any hint of damage."

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Defendant, the US gov't. From reading the case, it would seem, had the Plaintiff shown damages of some sort, the court MAY HAVE ruled differently.

My point, is perhaps, in Butler v Perry and Selective Draft Law cases, inalienable rights was not argued sufficiently. Rights belong to the belligerent and must be zealously guarded against any infringment. As you know, "inalienable rights" by definition cannot be waived, conveyed or in any other way given away.

Have you read the cases thoroughly to determine whether or not the defense was adequate? I will have to look into them myself.

THe Great Ag

The court upheld the long standing obligation of the CITIZEN (since 1777) to do his duty.
My point is that the court and law have never burdened non-citizen American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the USA.
I have found sufficient references that non-citizen, non-resident Americans are not identified in the myriad laws that impose "obligatory" voluntary servitude.

I conclude that though the DoI defines two jobs: 1. secure rights, and 2. govern those who consent, it would appear that consent waives job #1.
Which means the "Citizen" knowingly waived his rights to life and liberty in exchange for political liberty.
They DID tell us that citizens were subjects, didn't they?
Oops.

[jetgraphics]

As stated in the many posts - we've been deliberately made functionally illiterate with respect to the law. For without comprehension of law, we are helpless before the courts.

A single sentence summary of law :
"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

If you have property rights, the law is on your side. If you have no property rights, all that remains is policy.

Since 1935, the vast majority of Americans surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property, in exchange for entitlements (pauperization) from the collective socialist State.

That is why things appear so upside down. The law on the books still protects private property, but there are few who have that legal standing to possess it.

The evil alliance of usurers and collectivists have conspired to conquer us without bloodshed. A dead slave is useless, is it not true? They desperately want us to beg for crumbs swept from their table. That's how they can magnanimously "govern" the people.

The irony is that anything the government gives, was first taken from us or our fellow Americans. And acceptance of that "charity" dooms us to the lowest status at law as status criminals.

Make no mistake, it is the policy of the United Socialist States of America to foment an economic and political collapse so as to sweep away the obstruction of the U.S. Constitution of 1789.
At this point in time, so few Americans comprehend the nature of the USCON and their voluntary absence from its protections, that the collectivists are almost guaranteed victory.

We are witnessing the death throes of the republican form of government, and the blessings of liberty that was the envy of the world.

[The Great Ag]

The court upheld the long standing obligation of the CITIZEN (since 1777) to do his duty.
My point is that the court and law have never burdened non-citizen American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the USA.
I have found sufficient references that non-citizen, non-resident Americans are not identified in the myriad laws that impose "obligatory" voluntary servitude.

I conclude that though the DoI defines two jobs: 1. secure rights, and 2. govern those who consent, it would appear that consent waives job #1.
Which means the "Citizen" knowingly waived his rights to life and liberty in exchange for political liberty.
They DID tell us that citizens were subjects, didn't they?
Oops.

I have been re-reading Vattel's The Law of Nations, specifically focussing on the conquests of war to gain a better understanding of the legal ramifications after the War between the States when the United States gov't acted under marshal law and changed the political structure of the gov't by adding a federal overlay.

Anyway, the sections covering war stated, it is the DUTY of all SUBJECTS to aid in the defense of the country and could be compelled to do so. And case law supports this idea.

BUT. . .defense of country is one thing. If some belligerent force is INVADING the beaches of Delaware, I will help in the best manner I can. When a citizen is CONSCRIPTED (in the US it is called voluntary duty) to fight overseas in another country, is that defense of country? For example, December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Shortly after, Germany declared war on the USA. The US CONgress ONLY declared war on Japan but NOT on Germany. Could a US citizen state, I will fight against Japan, as they have attacked us BUT I will not fight against Germany, as they have done nothing to physically provoke the USA? I wonder what the courts would say?

Germany did NOT have the ability to attack the USA. Sinking ships with cargo bound for its enemy is normal procedure during war.

Any ideas, anyone?

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

Hey TGA...welcome to GSUS. You now regret being a Liberty Dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar) dealer? Last time we exchanged comments was at GIM in a long thread just after you got raided by the FBI:
Ahh, Book:
My aging nemesis! Thanks for bringing back memories. Still wearing the kitty hat in your avatar, I see. No regrets at all. Any competing currency that has a chance to bring stability to the monetary system, I am all for it.

Matter of fact, I have developed, although not printed, an alternative local currency should their be a shortage of "legal tender" in the area. All of it perfectly legal.

The Liberty Dollar's biggest problem is the use of the term "dollar" and the "$". Had they used something different, I think the gov't would NOT had a case. It would not have stopped the feds from busting them.

Thanks for the welcome, Book.

[jetgraphics]

The court upheld the long standing obligation of the CITIZEN (since 1777) to do his duty.
My point is that the court and law have never burdened non-citizen American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the USA.
I have found sufficient references that non-citizen, non-resident Americans are not identified in the myriad laws that impose "obligatory" voluntary servitude.

I conclude that though the DoI defines two jobs: 1. secure rights, and 2. govern those who consent, it would appear that consent waives job #1.
Which means the "Citizen" knowingly waived his rights to life and liberty in exchange for political liberty.
They DID tell us that citizens were subjects, didn't they?
Oops.

I have been re-reading Vattel's The Law of Nations, specifically focussing on the conquests of war to gain a better understanding of the legal ramifications after the War between the States when the United States gov't acted under marshal law and changed the political structure of the gov't by adding a federal overlay.

Anyway, the sections covering war stated, it is the DUTY of all SUBJECTS to aid in the defense of the country and could be compelled to do so. And case law supports this idea.

BUT. . .defense of country is one thing. If some belligerent force is INVADING the beaches of Delaware, I will help in the best manner I can. When a citizen is CONSCRIPTED (in the US it is called voluntary duty) to fight overseas in another country, is that defense of country? For example, December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Shortly after, Germany declared war on the USA. The US CONgress ONLY declared war on Japan but NOT on Germany. Could a US citizen state, I will fight against Japan, as they have attacked us BUT I will not fight against Germany, as they have done nothing to physically provoke the USA? I wonder what the courts would say?

Germany did NOT have the ability to attack the USA. Sinking ships with cargo bound for its enemy is normal procedure during war.

Any ideas, anyone?

The Great Ag

Don't wander down the path to confusion.
War is either piracy or the defense against piracy.

In American law, the duty to serve in the military was instituted in 1777 - for CITIZENS.
There is no compulsory duty for sovereign American nationals.

Citizenship is 100% voluntary - or it would be involuntary servitude.
He who consents cannot complain.

Which begs the question: would the government ever grow in size, power, and revenue if only a small portion of Americans "volunteered" into citizenship?
Would it be capable of overstepping the explicit delegations of authority?
Would the legal profession garner such power and wealth?
OOPS...