Printable View
There could be some truth that if the occupation of law doesn't drive you to drink it certainly will drive you to the unemployment line.
http://www.edrivera.com/
Quote:
I crossed the Bar when I started telling the truth about law and government in California. Telling the truth about law and government got me disbarred. Learning the truth about the law and government can get you free.
The United States congress legislates for territories. The United States of America congress legislates for the several States.Quote:
The proof the Articles of Confederation still support the original government, the Confederacy called the United States of America, is found in the first Clause of the first Section of the first Article of the Constitution. The letter of the law, which tells us both the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Constitution of the United States continue to be viable Organic Laws of the United States of America, is the letter “a.”
Article I Section 1 Clause 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The letter “a” before “Congress” and “Senate” tells us there is more than one Congress and more than one Senate.
Actually I go to the Articles to find the word "perpetual". This word is nowhere to be found in the constitution. A great international war was fought in the 1860's over this single word. Was Lincoln acting for the United States (not a perpetual entity) or the Articles when he grew irritated over the south leaving the union?
I read one of the articles from his page you linked. It is confusing, but he is basically asserting that Washington swapped the official version of the Constitution for another version of the constitution. Now my head is spinning.Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
Some highlights from his "Letter to Captives"
Quote:
Dear Captive of Government,
You are a fellow Captive of government. We are all captives of government, because we have forgotten what truth makes us free. Government truth is qualified as to people, place and purpose. God’s truth is universal. It is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith that obedience to God’s laws will make us free. God makes His laws easily known by writing them on every human heart. The Congress of the United States has become the Tower of Babel of written law.
Quote:
A vacant Office of President makes it impossible for there to be a Constitution for the United States of America. Millions of voters cast their ballots for a President of the United States knowing that they aren’t really going to elect a President of the United States. What would happen if they learned the truth? The truth is the person elected President by the Electoral College should take an oath to hold the Office of President and to support the Constitution as it is written.
Everyone wrongly thinks the President Elect takes an oath to support the Constitution, which was written and ratified just before Washington was elected to the Office of President. The truth is no President has ever taken an oath to support the Constitution or tell the American people the truth. The oath of Office of President of the United States was first whispered by George Washington to an audience straining to hear the truth, was supposed to be a promise to support. Washington whispered the oath to limit the number of witnesses to what he had done. Remember, the President Elect produced no written record of the oath he had just taken and audio recordings would not be possible until there were few if any Americans to question the oath being taken.
http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2Quote:
These truths and the others that will be revealed can only be known by you, if you read the Constitution literally. For example, the Office of President is not the Office of President of the United States or any other Office.
When these Offices are kept separate, you the Captive of government can be freed. Freedom comes from knowing how government in America was slowly taken over by George Washington representing the military establishment. These truths are hidden in the different names given to the Presidential Offices held by the same person.
This is crazy. So then what this author is saying is that the Constitution, as you know it, has never been adopted by any single president, because Washington did not qualify to take the "Office of President", due to the fact that he was not a 14 year resident.
Quote:
Article VII tells us, also, that the Constitution counts time from July 4, 1776. The fourteen Years residency requirement of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 can’t be met until July 4, 1790. George Washington was conveniently elected before he could qualify for the Office of President.
George Washington was not qualified to the Office of President, when he was elected on February 4, 1789, so on April 30, 1789 he took the oath of Office of President of the United States, an Office without any requirements because it was at will employment.
Every President Elect including Barack Hussein Obama has followed the lead of George Washington by refusing to take the oath of Office of President. No binding oath means no bothersome Constitution to keep the government in check.
The consequence of not taking the oath “to support this Constitution” and taking the oath to be an employee of Congress for the purpose of taking on the administration of territory and other property belonging to the United States of America is the eventual disintegration of government and the economy. Those who know the value of firearms in the preservation of the truth should consider becoming students just to preserve the right to own and use firearms without restrictions.
This piece is in regards to the 2A, found here:
http://www.edrivera.com/?cat=155
I highlighted the word "This" because it is a recurring theme in his writings. The "Office of President" is not equal to the "Office of President of the United States". In similar fashion, the term "This Constitution" is not equal to "The Constitution of the United States".
Dudes, my head is spinning.
This is correct. I've heard the 14 year issue before, however the real issue is that there are two constitutions and subequently there are/could be two nations albeit with similar but not identical names.
As has been pointed out here before, these creations of mans mind may not apply to territory but to an image of territory or a plane hovering above territory. the USofA looks like it is occupying a large portion of the north american continent but is it really?
These days the story is often presented by saying there was a constitutional government in existance up to a point. Lets say 1933 when Rosenvelt declared the USofA to be bankrupt. Then all of a sudden you have this thing called the US of A. And it also has a Government.
It was so slight a move no one noticed it. Perhaps they did back then cause people were smarter.
The thing is, the organisation which calls itself a government is actually a private corporation tradingh with a similar name.
So what happened to the old government, for the United States? Did it become the property of the creditors who called in the national debt? Was it simply abandoned and everyone was moved over to the new government.
I think it could be either. I'm not 100% sure. There are people out ther who are taking up official posts in original United States on the basis that it has been abandoned.
Most commonwealth countries are operating this way. Australia has a federal government which was registered as a corporation in 1933. Perhaps it's 1935. It's listed in Edgar on the SEC web site. Perhaps you will find Canada there as well.
This is my opinion based on what I believe I know or comprehend. It could be way off or it could be right. When a constitution is created and agreed, this creates a constructive trust. A trust can be explicit, implied, constructive....probably some others. A trust has a Trustee, a Beneficiary and a Fiduciary. Trustee and Fiduciary could be the same AFAIK but a Beneficiary can't be a Trustee.
I believe properly constituted governments are Trustee's of the constructive or implied trust arising from a constitution. They require no corporate registration or vasal to operate. I believe these original trusts have been abandoned and the funds within the trusts have been either pilfered or transfered into the hands of corporate actors masquarading as Trustees
This is my view of things as I see them. This brings the discussion around to deciding which one of these entities you want to exist in. Do you want to be part of the 14th amendment population, subject citizens to the corporatation of the United States of America or do you want to be a part of one of the several states.
Then of course there is the question, does the consitution apply to you at all? Are you a party to it? Were you there? Do you have to sign the thing to be affected by it?
What can you do? You can declare your position. You can declare to be no part of any of it. This has been discussed here as well.
Awoke, you are in Canada, yes? You are very fortunate because your statutes make no bones about somethings politic and with regards to God given rights. I think it's nearly time to introduce you to Claim of Right.
From his Letter to Captives:
Eustace Mullins talked about how the courts in the US use Admiralty law in his book The Rape of Justice. But he didn't say much about the origins of Admiralty law, or why it is used in US courts. This has a better explanation, but still not enough for me. One thing that has fallen in place for me is in the recent NDAA, the President claims the power to 'indefinitely detain' people. That is a concept that is based on 'military' law--not constitutional law.Quote:
I have proven that the basis of the American criminal justice system is based on a military model. For many years, it has been suggested and firmly believed by many that the United States government courts were admiralty courts and the country was being ruled by admiralty law. There is no denying that the United States Government appears to use military law in its courts and judicial procedure. Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution clearly states that the Judicial Power of the United States of America extends to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. However, as the Constitution has not been “Adopted,” by the President of the United States of America, the Constitution is not the source of admiralty or maritime judicial power.
The indefinite detention provision in the NDAA points to some form of deception that is being used by the government as to how the laws are being interpreted by the government.
We also have 'secret laws'. Ones which the public is kept unaware of how the government interprets laws, such as the Patriot Act. I recently ran into this article:
http://rt.com/usa/news/senators-patr...nment-law-749/
Something is really quite rotten when a government has 'secret laws'. And the legislators aren't privy to how their laws are being enforced. Never in my wildest dreams had I thought that I would be looking at something like Russia Today as a more credible source of news than what I could watch on TV.
Hatha
Hatha,
Good observations re the origins of the law. Law Merchant Law was the system of commercial arbitration developed by merchants and executed in their Staples. Staple is an interesting historical word but only for curiosity's sake. A Staple is kind of like the gentlemens lounge/club for merchants dealing in a particular type of product. So textiles traders had a staple, spices, narcotics, etc all had staples.
When a dispute arose from a deal between a merchant and another merchant or a contracted boat, these were arbitrated in the Staple. This is where Equity law has sprung from. I've mentioned usrfruct on several occasions. Issues surrounding usrfruct might be common place in a Law Merchant Law arbitration. But there would be other disputes as well. Often a merchant would back a voyage to far off lands in return for some booty. If the booty was not up to scratch, damaged, lost or consumed by usrfruct and not replenished etc then there would be a claim by the backer against the ships owner.
The whole of the modern commerce system stems from the ancient merchant trading customs and laws.
This is what bankruptcy is. There is a dispute over the quality, quantity, value or ownership of some seafaring booty. They scuttle the ship and send it onto the bank. They rupture it on the shore. It can no longe sail.... for 7 years. 7 years for cest e qui, 7 years for bankruptcy.
The great seafaring merchant men are renowned in history. Marco Polo, the spanish, Captain Cook, Chris Coluimbus, the porteguese. All of these people operated on a Letter of Marque.... there is another letters enabling piracy... can't recall it but someone here posted it a week or so ago.
History of the Liverpool Privateers.Quote:
t The British Government appears to have contributed to this remarkable for- bearance I y its tardiness in issuing Letters of Marque. " In last Tuesday's Gazette" says the paper of April nth, 1777, "the Lords of the Admiralty give notice that they are ready to issue commissions to private ships for cruising against the Americans."
As far as I can tell Admiralty and Law Merchant Law come from the same basic roots. One conducts commerce - Merchants and the other interdicts traffic using force. Literally nothing has changed in 400+ years. We have modern times and more modern pronounciation of words but the system is still the same. It is still people sailing the oceans... you, me as vassals and conducting commerce as merchants and then there is the admiralty which protects its ports and imposes a levy upon all traffic. This power extends to all ocean and inland waters connected to the ocean. Roads i.e. highways are considered inland waterways. Police(e) are part of the admiralty. Some police dress as marines (kakhi). Most dress in Navy blue.
So yes in short you are under military rule. You must be because the National Emergency has never been revoked.
I have a copy of the Merchant Law book. I don't have it with me. I think it was published 1918 or 1910? I'll dig it out later.
(Staples lead to attachment. Attachment means something particular at law. We staple documents. We attached things to other things.)
As to the United States of America I have heard it said that this corporate name was taken by the Virginia Company in the early 1700's. Never verified by me (I have never met a living soul from the early 1700's) so it is simply a possibility worth considering.
Spot on again palani. The Virginia Co and the East India Co. 2 of the best. East India is a whole other tangent. It's been the largest narcotics trafficking organisation in the world for many centuries. I don't know about the Virginia Co. It could well be the US trafficking arm. They had a thing to do with Tabacco didn't they?
The book is: The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; in three parts. John E. Hall Esq 1809
It describes a lot to do with secured interests and how to obtain them, requirements there of. When someone encounters the law and goes through process they will be subject to attachment (stapled), lien and secured interests on their person. You are both a vassal and property. Merchants in Admiralty will treat you as such according to the situation.
There is a 3rd way. That is as a secured party of interest in your own person. With the superior claim, read first in time first in line, they will need to negotiate with you for settlement rather than discuss with the judge how to divide up the booty, which is what they do with people who don't know who they are. You are creditor. You have power. Creditors always have power in Admiralty.
If I recall from my Jean Keating studies the Hall book reveals that admiralty (including maritime and commerce) is all about who has the best bond. Whoever's bond is the highest rated wins.
I tend to stay away from debtor and creditor concepts as these deal with money. Once you remove the money issue these notions morph into honor and dishonor. Before you can become comfortable dealing with society in all its possible combinations and permutations of relationships it is necessary to study these concepts so that you can reject them timely (or else dishonor follows).
Please, continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
I'm really enjoying this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
How does a living man or living woman supercede the authority of the legislative courts?
(I am understanding that every court is not an Article III court, and is therefore legislative. Over the last couple days, I am coming to an understanding that the parties who are going to go through the system together need to "create" the Article III court by submitting some forms of paperwork, notifying all involved parties that they are to be held to their Oaths of Office)
If there are two (or more) Constitutions, how do we back up our claim that our rights are unalienable?
Something to remember. A claim un-rebutted stands as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
Grab a copy of your federal Crimes Act. Take a look in there for Claim of Right. A searchable online version will help. Have a read. It's worth reading the whole act but lets cut to the chase. I guess I better go refresh some brain matters.
Personally I believe that arguments pertaining to the Constitution are a distraction/red herring. One of the best things I ever read when I got into this game is that all of the people making arguments pertaining to consitutional rights should be arguing unaliable rights. What obligates the people to be subject to the 14th amendment, or any constitutional limitation of rights for that matter? Remember, circa declaration of independence- the purpose of government is to secure rights, not to limit or constrain them.
dys
As palani might tell you, being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable. I shouldn't speak for others though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
I think you're on to it. as to courts. I think different courts for different things. Remember a secured party of interest has power. I think the freeman is unalienable. He's been documented since the mid 1600's at least. The Magna Carta was written for him. I think ultimately thats the place to be. At liberty and self governing.
The ONLY things that are unalienable are the things you CANNOT alien. As far as I know these things that are unalienable have only one single attribute in common: you don't own them. You might try to sell something you don't own but society frowns on this type of activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
Being an owner has in its root the concept of "owe". An owner might buy on time.
Possibly that is the reason for the shift to the concept of "inalienable", dealing with things your SHOULDN'T alien rather with things that you CANNOT alien. The queen could sell the crown jewels in order to put a new roof on Buckingham Palace but she SHOULDN'T (according to popular opinion).
Agreed. God-Given, Creator endowed, unalienable rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by dys
Given this line of thinking, I would go a step further, and say that the laws that Jesus Christ said were written on our hearts pre-date the Declaration of Independance. Which opens up another can of worms, that Glass touches on...Quote:
Originally Posted by dys
I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of the Father and Creator. Jesus predates and supercedes even the Magna Carta. So what does that mean? Where does that leave me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
I just got a traffic ticket last week. Am I to go to court, and declare it to be void because it is not an Article III court? Am I to refuse to give them the Fiat they demand? Am I to continue driving to work if they remove my Drivers licence?
How can a living man function without being in commerce? As far as the questions above, if I don't pay the fiat, they will "take" my licence from me. Then I supposedly can't drive to my job, which in turn will mean I can't pay my mortgage, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
How would a living man make any of this apply?
I am not posing these questions to be difficult: These are real questions. I need some answers. I don't know where to find them.
Here is the biggest hang up:
Afaic, the law of God predates and overrules any man made laws, including the Constitution, the BNA act, the Articles of the Confederacy, the Magna Carta, etc.
So how can a living man claim himself to be sovereign, and then refer to ANY of those documents to "prove" he is sovereign? Given that Gods Law on our hearts trumps any other man made law, why would the living man need to refer to any of these documents at all?
I really appreciate you guys taking time to address these issues. I have a real desire to shake of the shackles.
Why argue? That is the path of dishonor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
Counteroffer instead. Of course the time to do this was along the side of the road.
You are still in the fiat world. As long as you stay there someone will have their hands out to take your fiat from you. If you don't have any fiat then there are two paths: impossibility or involuntary servitude. It is impossible to do something that is beyond your ability so there is no dishonor. If you try to do something to get fiat for someone else then you have engaged in involuntary servitude (unless you agree to do it).Quote:
How can a living man function without being in commerce? As far as the questions above, if I don't pay the fiat, they will "take" my licence from me. Then I supposedly can't drive to my job, which in turn will mean I can't pay my mortgage, etc.
How would a living man make any of this apply?
Could you please post a fictional dialogue that might have taken place between myself and the NWO pig if I had have counteroffered as you recommend?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
So how can a living man be sovereign and also own a home and vehicles, and purchase/aquire food for his family?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
coppiceman: "Let's see your license." [NOTICE] [GRANTS RIGHT TO INQUIRE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
you: "Can state any authority that requires me to have one when I am not engaged in commerce?" [COUNTEROFFER .. CANCELS HIS OFFER WITH HONOR] [YOU ARE INQUIRING INTO HIS AUTHORITY]
I don't believe sovereign is the proper route. Perhaps "self-determined" or autonomous might be a phrase closer to the status you are looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
I only use gold or silver as required for a responsible State. I find darned few people to do business with yet still have the same needs as anyone else. So I make corporations work for me rather than working for them. A corporation was created for the sole purpose of doing these funny money transactions. I don't contract with this corporation directly. I contract with the entity that created the corporation. Anything purchased by the corporation belongs to the corporation and I claim no ownership. I am a principal. They are an agent. Or maybe they are the principal and I am a service user.
OK, and if he refuses my counteroffer?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
So did you exchange PM's with a living man to aquire your house or vehicle?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
I'm really trying to understand all this.
Anything he says is another offer. Send him another counteroffer. "Can you show me your oath and bond or are you acting in the capacity of a de facto officer rather than a peace officer?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
I own no property other than $5 in gold and $21 in silver. Vehicles can be owned by corporations. So can real estate. In fact a corporation has several advantages over me. They can hire an attorney to protect their interests whereas I lose all natural rights when I accept representation. They can be insured whereas there is no common law concept of insurance and I am prohibited (by dealing only with gold or silver) from being irresponsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
It's a can of worms alright. Maybe thinking of it this way might help. We talked about how there are different planes where Governments exist from the OP. Think of yourself in the same way. You have a persona (person) but you also have the flesh and blood you. One is an act, the other is the real deal. One is a utility for the purposes of conducting commerce in public, the other is you in the private. The freeman. Can you choose when to be one or the other? Some people are 100% persona a.ka. sheeple. Others are 100% private. They are out there, you just don't hear so much about them. And then there are the people who move between the two. They might be 100% freemen but they are secured creditors to the persona. Actually everyone is a creditor but most people think they are debtors. Being a creditor gives you more control. It gives you better standing.
Mans laws are repugnant to Gods' laws.
I think in the US you can be sovereign but you need to move to the USofA, a state thereof.
I believe that in the commonwealth you can be a freeman. A freeman is usually a land holder. If no land then the popular term is freeman upon the land. Sovereign claims trouble me a bit. It is no longer a capital offence. I believe all people are sovereign but there are complications.
in commerce the contract is the law. A claim unrebutted becomes fact. If a claim in a contract negotiation is unrebutted it becomes a term of contract. The Govt writes these contracts. Counter offer. Write your own. Unrebutted it becomes a fact. Then you learn how to write to them in a way they can't rebutt.
The ideology of being free is great. The only way to be free is to exit the system. No contact points at all.
I want to mention the bible. To me it is a collection of law, of case studies, applications, complications. At it's core it''s a book of law. The book says "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers". It's debatable but for now.
So I get to thinking we mostly accept that FIAT currency is fake money right? If Ceaser renders unto us something which is fake, what are we obliged to render unto Ceaser? If he gives us a negotiable instrument why can't we revert in kind?
Ah Honour/Dishonour. This is at the root of everything. You need to be in honour. It sounds ominous but it's mostly process. I give it one line now but it's the most important part of all. It is in everything.
ok bit tired now. hope it makes some sense. I think it might seeing as you guys been talking about it while I've been peckin the keyboard.
So if I was in this position, and him and I keep offering counteroffers until he becomes frustrated, and arrests me and drags me to jail or the police station, am I to sue him for kidnapping or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
At some point, his NWO pig testosterone is going to get the better of him and he will lay hands on me. What then?
Do you have a vehicle at your disposal, that you can drive around in at your leisure?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
Did you form/create a corporation to use to aquire a vehicle?
Did you form/create a corporation to aquire your living space/residence/home?
Again, I'm just trying to understand all this.
Hard to say. I must say I am unable to forecast all the actions that a criminal might take. If you are just talking and not rubbing salt in an open wound I would say he has no reason to injure you. If he brings up necessity though be prepared for a battle to the death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
I have several corporate vehicles I use all the time. Corporations also have the ability to acquire property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
Fiat money is money of account rather than money of exchange. Nothing changes hands when you use a fiat dollar. Corporations are not required to carry a bag of equal measures with them. Fiat dollars are corporate dollars. Only corporations handle them or possess them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
Excellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
So then, based on that post, every person who uses fiat currency is a Corporation?
So then how can a living man use fiat dollars, and still not be a corporation?
I suppose you would have to be both, as the situation calls for it? Flipping back and forth between a self governing living man and a fiat swapping corporation? Fuck I wish I could get some straight, simple answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
here's a little somethin' for my brothers in Canada... eh
Here is Title 12 USC 411 for the US:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411Quote:
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
Here is this too:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115Quote:
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes— (1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation— (1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.
Anyway, make a demand for redemption in "lawful money" and record your demand.
Here's something specifically for Canada:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1...tcanadaboc.jpg
Here's an article:
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.htmlQuote:
Convincing Congress to Abolish the FedWhen Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.
Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984
However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.
In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.
A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.
Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.
It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]
here's another link to an article: http://freedom-school.com/money/nod.htm
Gonzo, that is an absolutely amazing article. Thanks for that. Wow! I totally understand the income tax scam now. I really appreciate that article. Seriously, thanks.
...but it is really talking about that USA, not Canada. I have found that Canadian law quotes are much harder to find than American ones.
Fiat money to a living breathing man is death by slow strangulation. Avoid them entirely. You may be forced to accept them but you commit fraud when you pass them on to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
This is not the case with corporations. They are already dead being legal fictions.
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
About the best I can do for you regarding Canada, of the top of my head, is to refer you the Bank of Canada Act... I posted a picture of a pertinent part. The picture points out that you can "endorse" (or non-endorse, if you make/record a demand for "lawful money") however you like, although they will try to push their "uniform system".
Here's something else that may shed some light on Canada:
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3...quirements.pdf
OK so I just read the other article you linked, and it seemingly contradicts the first one.
So in the first one, it makes it plain and clear that people are obligated to pay income tax because they are voluntarily (Unknowingly) using private credit, via exchanging FRNs.
However the other link (This one: http://freedom-school.com/money/nod.htm) expressly states that when you have a "Pay Cheque" given to you in return for your labour, you are receiving "Worthless Securities", and therefore are not obligated to pay income tax because you are not receiving income.
What am I missing?
Ok. The income is received (or not) when the check is deposited or CASHED.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
So I suppose a "paycheck" is a worthless security because you never know if your boss has the funds in his account to cover it.
Anyway, if you "endorse" a paycheck, then you claim to receive "Dollars" as stated on the face of the check, and are presumed to be voluntarily using private credit. If you non-endorse (by putting something like "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE. By: Given Name" or "REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY"), then you are making known your intent to separate yourself from the private credit system, and making a demand for lawful money.
The idea is to demand lawful money from the initial transaction.
This whole system was not designed to be clear to the common man... quite the contrary....
Thanks Gonzo.
One last question I have is the statment he stamps onto the cheques: "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE"
This is saying two damning things:
1) Will accept Credit on account (Private credit, that is IRS taxable)
2) Will accept FRNs of face value (Private credit, that is IRS taxable)
So how is that a Non-endorsement?
Is everyone who operates as a "freeman", "sovereign" either....
A. A homesteader living off grid with barterable skills?
B. Someone who has set up a corporation to function through?
C. Both?
"non-negotiable federal reserve notes" are not the same as FRNs, because they have ALREADY been negotiated into a higher form of currency (USNs) by the demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoke
and credit as it is normally thought of is not taxed... like a credit limit on a credit card.
It is a NON-ENDORSEMENT because you are making the check into a bill of exchange in which you receive NON-NEGOTIABLE FRN's of face value, and not "dollars" (which are regular old FRNs that are endorsed by your failure to make and record your demand for "lawful money").
make any sense?
if you "know who you are" and your relationship to "your" (not really) birth certificate and things of that nature, you can function at arm's length and keep yourself separated somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertytree
That being said, I'd still love to get off the grid and be a homesteader with barterable skills for many reasons.
I've always found this fascinating and a worthy goal. I seem though to hit major roadblocks trying to fully understand it all, wishing there was a book for dummies on the topic. I've read all the threads here and other places and am still as much in the dark as I ever was. Maybe I'm just too damn dumb to be truly free of their system? But I still dig what you guys have accomplished even though when the day comes I don't think they'll be worried what our status is and it's just a matter if we bow down or fight, leaving us all in the same boat.