Category: Blogging

President Lincoln got the election, so he moved into President Buchanan’s plans. The first territorial governor, governor Gilpen, issued notes. These are the predecessors to the United States notes called green-backs. If we take a look at the treasury, their website, we find this particular page regarding legal tender

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legaltender.shtml

Legal tender status. Now pay particular notice to the bottom of the page:

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

[Article published by Freedom League 1984:]

When 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 US 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 [actually, created upon a presumption — see David’s comment below] 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. 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 the 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 US 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. pg. 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 US 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 US 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. [In other words, you cannot really ‘buy’ anything with Federal Reserve Notes.]

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 [actually, HJR-192 applied only to corporate persons, not to people] convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, HJR-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 HJR-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 US 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 and 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 HJR-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 US 421, 448 (1884): whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103), 521 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 maintain 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 US 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 US 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 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 UN, 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 [central bank credit] is funding the destruction of our country.

[Reprinted from ‘Freedom League’, Sept/Oct 1984]

By demanding non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes at the time of cashing any paycheck, you’re avoiding the taxable event:

Redeemed in lawful money Pursuant to 12 USC 411
:True Name: dba LEGAL NAME

You’re avoiding the activity — or the verb — of endorsement. [Actually, I believe it is a restrictive endorsement because it ‘restricts’ how the bank may negotiate the instrument.]

Negotiable instruments can be exchanged for other and presumably higher forms of currency. So a nonnegotiable Federal Reserve Note is a way of saying that you’re getting United States Notes instead. This is domestic emergency currency, instead of foreign emergency currency (Federal Reserve Notes). The problem with this non-endorsement as far as the bank is concerned, is that the bearer of the check is not pledging any credit; any private credit behind the check.

[The Story of Money — Federal Reserve Bank of New York]

The only bond behind the check is the presumed goods or services, and the full amount has to come out of the bank account of the drafter — whoever drafted the check. This means that the bank cannot do any fractional lending; for every $10 that’s put into the vault, they can’t lend out $90 more. And so this is what it means in the article by it diminishes the private credit. You’re actually redeeming the private credit from the Federal Reserve and putting it into public money form — non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes. They still look like Federal Reserve Notes…

************************************************************************

So there you have it; Income tax is a tax for using PRIVATE ‘MONEY”, i.e. CREDIT extended to Congress by Federal Reserve. And what do you think will happen when you start using CREDIT that Congress got from the FedRes, and is liable for? Do you think that Congress will be paying interest on that debt, when YOU are USING IT? NOPE, they pass that obligation on to YOU, since you’re the last user of that credit. And that’s why they established the Internal Revenue Service; to COLLECT the interest/fee for use of PRIVATE FedRes credit from YOU, since you’re the one using it!

Don’t wanna be liable for that? Then STOP USING that FRN DEBT instead of real money! And the 12 USC 411 demand, is the MAIN step everyone needs to take in order to return to the REAL law of the Republic, where the people are sovereign, rather than being gov’t subjects and paying private bankers for the use of their credit.

Oh, and I hope everyone realizes that the more FRN debt notes are in circulation, the HIGHER the national debt. And the higher the national debt, the FEWER FREEDOMS there are in a nation. So you can whine, shout or protest all you want, but as long as the ND keeps on increasing, your freedoms are going to keep disappearing. So it’s YOUR CHOICE, you can either wait until you’re a total slave before doing anything, or you can START NOW, by making DEMANDS for LAWFUL MONEY.

And the latest demand for lawful money that we now use as endorsement on paychecks is:

“Special Deposit — Demand is made for lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC 411.”

By: Jaro Henry Smith; dba JARO HENRY SMITH

The governmental services corporations operating under whatever name— say, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.—have what is called a “deemed trust interest” in the people and the assets of the land and sea they service. This is a weak trust interest, similar to a mechanics lien on a house. It only comes into play when and if the actual trust operators fail to function—and that is what has happened.

The governmental services corporation operated by FDR went bankrupt and falsely claimed that the federal “states” and “citizenry thereof” were voluntary sureties standing good for the debts of the United States of America, Inc.   (Conference of Governors meeting March 6, 1933.) They did this in such a way as to confuse people about which “states” and which “citizens” they were talking about (federal “states” and federal “citizens” only) which has led to all sorts of false claims against you and your organic States of the Union.

Next, the United Nations Corporation stepped in and organized the International Monetary Fund, Inc., which organized the UNITED STATES, INC. – a French commercial corporation, to take over the governmental services contracts of the old United States of America, Inc.

Operating this scheme, the UNITED STATES, INC. was able to charge off all its expenses against the United States of America, Inc. during its bankruptcy reorganization, and the cost of all this got passed through to the presumed “sureties”—us.   But then, the unthinkable happened. The Pope woke up and forced the United States of America, Inc. to end its decades long “reorganization” and settle the bankruptcy. Suddenly, the UNITED STATES, INC. could no longer just pass through any and every expense to the American people and their States.

The UNITED STATES, INC. has no contract with our states. Its only contract was with the bankrupt United States of America, Inc., so they are both out of luck and out of pocket—-and seeking a means to re-establish another cozy bankruptcy fraud, war, or other means to fill their coffers. They are also looking for the alternative route— ways to reduce their expenses by killing off and reducing the number of their creditors.

We need to be aware of this circumstance if we wish to rightly interpret what is going on in the stock markets and headlines of the world. We also need to be aware in terms of the propaganda that we are being fed. The UNITED STATES, INC. needs another war for profit, so it is busy pumping up a new “enemy” called ISIS, which it funded and continues to fund. All this is being done as a justification for spending our moneyand spilling our blood (not to mention the other poor suckers) so that the UNITED STATES, INC. has an expense it can charge against us.

The UNITED STATES makes money when it provides “services” to us, so it has been busily contriving all manner of services it can provide —including services we don’t want or need.

The Border Problem is a money maker for the UNITED STATES. It provides services to all those Mexican immigrants, and then charges us for the cost of this. They naturally charge us a lot more than it actually costs them, so they make out like bandits. They also claim each new immigrant as another “American” slave, and issue bonds based on the value of their labor. Can you say, “Double points!”

Same thing with wars and other conflicts— remember the Department of Defense’s $400 hammers and $1500 gold-plated toilet seats?   The UNITED STATES makes money providing us with “defense services”. So long as nobody is minding the store, they can charge however much they like for providing these “services”. And they do.

This is the conflict of interest at the heart of the current misery. The State governments are supposed to ride herd on their service contracts with the feds, but over time, the “federal” government— the private, for-profit, foreign corporate government— has contrived to co-opt the State governments and to redefine them as “franchises” of their own corporation. This is how we have wound up with the “State of Georgia” and the “STATE OF GEORGIA”.

Do we seriously expect the local franchise of Burger King to question the actions of Burger King, International?

Instead, the “State” governments receive money as a kick-back from the “federal” government in the form of “federal revenue sharing”.

This is why government spending is out of control and will be out of control until we put our feet down and stop it—-until we seize back our misappropriated credit, and assert our position as the Priority Creditors of the UNITED STATES, INC. and the STATES it operates as franchises—and start applying the kind of pressure they understand: financial pressure.

To calm down the Border problem, groups of us have established commercial liens providing for very hefty and escalating fines to be applied against the perpetuators and their immediate bosses, the IMF and the UN.   Suddenly, it is not profitable to be welcoming all those Mexicans. So what happens? The flood slows to a trickle.

To calm down the War Fever, groups of us have established commercial liens providing for very hefty and escalating fines to be applied against them for every American life lost and for every bit of property damage. Suddenly, war is no longer so profitable.

We must all stop thinking of this “thing” in Washington, DC as “our” government. It is not and it never has been. It is a criminally self-interested, foreign, for-profit, mostly foreign-owned corporation hired to provide nineteen governmental services, and it is seriously run amok.

As a corporation there is nothing sacrosanct about the “federal government”. It has exactly the same standing and status as any other commercial corporation on earth. We need to deal with it the same way we would deal with Ford Motor Company or General Electric or Monsanto.

Would you “petition” the corporate officers of these companies and ask them to play nice? That’s what you are doing with all these senseless petitions to Congress. If they wanted to play nice and were willing to play nice, they would already be doing so. There would be no need for petitions seeking redress for grievances.

So why bother?

Would you work your rump off and spend billions of dollars on political candidates and political parties trying to elect new mid-level corporate officers, aka, members of Congress, knowing that the direction of the corporation is utterly controlled by foreign shareholders?

The UNITED STATES, INC. is owned and operated by the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) and the IMF is owned and operated by the UNITED NATIONS, CORPORATION. Our real beef, therefore, is with the IMF and the UN.

If we have a beef with the way the UNITED STATES, INC. is being run— and we do—-then the obvious things to be done are the same as with any other corporation. You put the bite on them and their owners and operators via bad publicity, commercial liens, law suits in appropriate venues, and boycotts.

That’s why commercial liens against the UNITED STATES, INC. need to be filed simultaneously against the IMF and UN. They are responsible for what the UNITED STATES, INC. is doing or failing to do, so the mismanagement of the operation comes home to them and they are then motivated to make sure that the contracts owed by the UNITED STATES, INC. are honored and the limitations of those contracts observed.

Otherwise the IMF and UN are quite content to let the UNITED STATES, INC. run roughshod over everyone and everything in sight, and there is no real consequence for them. They stand in the shadows and reap the profit and don’t even get bad publicity for their misdeeds. Drag them out into the open and lay claim to their assets.

And if any of them persist in promoting criminality of any kind, yank their charters like so many radishes in the spring.

We do have effective means of dealing with the perpetrators, but we must recognize who and what the perpetrators of this System are: the shareholders of the UNITED STATES, INC., the IMF, and the UN Corporation, all acting in collusion with the shareholders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., the FEDERAL RESERVE, and the UN Corporation.

All roads now lead to the UN CORPORATION, so make the claims short and sweet and addressed to the UN Secretary General.

The members of Congress are rubber stamps and window dressing, there to entertain and reassure the public. Any real power the Congress had was given away during the Roosevelt Administration to the Office of the President. As mid-level managers, members of Congress now spend most of their days trying to figure out how they can more effectively lick the boots of their foreign masters, still bring home enough bacon to satisfy the folks back home, and better feather their own nests.

Instead of wasting time and money and heartfelt effort on any aspect of the current political system or supporting candidates that at the end of the day have neither the power nor the will to truly represent anyone but themselves and their own group of cronies, use your resources to address the root of the problem: the UN, the IMF, the UNITED STATES, INC. and their “federal” STATES.

Expose them. Expose what they have done and are doing here. Expose their motives and deal with those motives effectively. Realize that they are in the business of selling you “governmental services” and that you are in charge of what you buy or don’t buy —including “Obummercare”. Don’t let anyone “represent” you or your estate in these matters. The cretins in Congress are not there to represent you. They are there to represent the UNITED STATES, INC. They will always vote and act to enrich the corporation at your expense.

Many will remember that back in the 1970’s magazine publishers offered “free” subscriptions—get three months of blah-blah magazine absolutely free! No obligation! But what they didn’t tell people was that they would also receive a one month “free subscription” to six other magazines and if the victim didn’t immediately respond and cancel all these subscriptions, they would be charged for all of them at full price— subject to automatic renewal, too.

Such a deal we’ve got for you. Soon, if you don’t stand up for yourselves and cancel your “subscriptions” you will literally owe your soul to the Company Store, and be obligated to buy everything from bootlaces to coffins from the UNITED STATES, INC.

The first and most important action step is to divorce from their political process. Get your own mind firmly wrapped around the fact that the entire American political tableau is meaningless. Democrat? Republican? It doesn’t matter who gets elected to fill those Congressional seats, because the seats themselves are bought, paid for, and controlled by a foreign corporation.

Once you truly understand this, it will be easy to rescind “your” Voter Registration and announce that you will henceforth operate only as an Elector. It will be easy to write a letter to “your” Congressional Delegation— telling them that they don’t represent you nor your organic State of the Union. It will be easy to do the same thing at the STATE level and express your ire that these people who claim to “represent” you have allowed “federal revenue sharing”—-kick backs based on the misappropriation of your credit—to undermine our nation and instead promote the establishment of federal “STATES” to usurp the rightful government you are owed and undermine the checks and balances needed to protect the interests of the people.

Once you know who “they” are, what they are and what they aren’t, it is a lot easier to deal with them effectively and efficiently. So this is First Base. Shrug off the chains these corporations have offered to place on you, take back your inherent standing, and present yourself— act “without representation” and “without the United States”.

The legal system in the United States is becoming so corrupt, this is exactly as Edward Gibbon wrote about the collapse of the rule of law in Rome.

Each distinction of every kind soon became criminal.  Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse”  (Book 1, Chapter 4).

The legal system in the United States now seriously needs reform for nobody’s property, human rights, or civil rights remain safe when judges are government appointees for life.

New York is, of course, out of control where judges are free to simply alter transcripts changing the words of witnesses after the fact. In an important case, US v Ziccetello, the judge alterations unwittingly favored the defendant. The government intent on keeping its 99% conviction rate, argued that the judge changed the transcripts.

On page 97 of the opinion, the Court of Appeals admitted it was a “unique” practice and then said it lacked the power to tell judges to obey the law since it is a 5 year felony to alter such court documents. If the Appeals Court lacks power, then who possesses such power.

Judge Richard Owen is a real notorious pro-government former prosecutor playing the role of judge. He has handled most of the high-profile SEC cases. Amazingly, everyone seemed to get him.  He took the lawyers away from Steven H. Schiffer in a SEC case and then tormented him so he committed suicide all alone. Then he would joke about it that he was never overruled because Schiffer didn’t know how to handle himself.

Now, in California, some prosecutors have resigned because Eric Holder’s boys were fabricating evidence in order to confiscate property in the tens of millions of dollars.

One former prosecutor stated: “It’s called the Department of Justice. It’s not called the Department of Revenue.” He stated that in his entire career, “I’ve never seen anything like this. Never.” The entire court has had to step aside because all judges are tainted. Just amazing.

We are screwed as a nation without a legal system that is reliable. How can we have a ruling against the NSA or anything sensitive when judges are not really judges? You just cannot appoint career prosecutors as judges and no one should be there for life.

September 9, 2014

Starting today through October 5, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring a massive billboard in the heart of Times Square that will show video of 7 World Trade Center’s destruction to millions of viewers and refer them to the campaign website, ReThink911.org.

Towering above the intersection of West 42nd Street and 8th Avenue, the two-sided 90 ft. x 45 ft. billboard will display the 15-second ad once every two minutes for four weeks, reaching an estimated 105,000 adults each day, and approximately 3 million during the four-week campaign.

The goal of the ReThink911 campaign is to spark public dialogue around the little-known destruction of WTC 7, which polls in recent years have found nearly half of all Americans and one-third of all New Yorkers do not even know occurred.

However, when people see the collapse, most immediately suspect that it was a controlled demolition because of the unmistakable smooth, symmetrical downward motion. A YouGov poll sponsored by the ReThink911 campaign last year found that 46% of Americans, when shown video of WTC 7’s collapse, are sure or suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to only 28% who are sure or suspect it was caused by fires, while 27% are unsure.

“The poll shows quite clearly what we already knew,” observes Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “Most people who see WTC 7’s collapse have trouble believing that fires brought it down. It simply doesn’t look like a natural building collapse, and that’s because all the columns have been removed at once to allow it to come down symmetrically in free-fall. When every American sees this footage, there will be a widespread outcry for a new investigation, and a new investigation will find that the evidence of controlled demolition is overwhelming.”

According to James Madison, “repugnance,” in the form of disobedience that is, is essential for stopping the federal government. So if your response to federal overreach is voting bums out, complaining about it on facebook, going to protests and suing them in court, they’ll always win until you step up your game and add some “repugnance” to your tactics.

Want to stop unconstitutional or just plain bad federal acts? James Madison said your repugnance is needed to get it done.

But he didn’t mean just show contempt. In 1788, repugnant meant something far different than how it’s used today.

The #1 dictionary of the time defined it as “disobedient; not obsequious” (compliant)

Let that sink in.

If you want to stop the federal government, you have to disobey them

In other words, your response to federal overreach needs to be more than voting bums out, complaining about it on facebook, going to protests and lawsuits.

So if that’s all you’re doing, realize that it’s never going to work unless you also start following the advice of the guy known as the “Father of the Constitution.” He obviously knew much more about enforcing the Constitution than anyone today.

Liberty takes risk – and it takes hard work. The founding generation risked it all when they separated from the British empire. While we don’t need to match that rare act of courage, we definitely need to step up our game and show some real repugnance, disobedience, that is.

Share this:

Like this:

British parliament and the ‘Crown’ will cease to exist when The Lisbon Treaty comes in to full effect on 1st November 2014, power will no longer reside in Westminster, but  in Brussels.

The right of the British Parliament to legislate over us in 43 areas, will be removed and be made subject to approval by qualified majority voting, or QMV,

There are 43 areas that will be affected where parliament will be unable to carry out policy changes, amendments, or repealing etc.

Each member state will lose the right of veto (constitutional right to reject a decision or proposal made by a lawmaking body, exercise a veto against a decision or proposal).

The Lisbon Treaty

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement which amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU) and signed on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009.

The signing of The  Lisbon Treaty is treason and  can be proven with the Bill of Rights 1689 and still in force, it, by definition, cannot be removed, changed or signed away by anyone, least of all Parliament.

And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God. – Bill of Rights [1688]

In other words, we may not be ruled in any way, shape or form by any foreign entity.

Declaration of the Indigenous Peoples of the Isles of Britain

When the British parliament and crown cease to exist, it is the Supremacy of the indigenous peoples that comes into immediate and factual existence.

At this point,the people can either continue as Citizen under the EU or declare themselves as ‘a sovereign indigenous man under the jurisdiction of Natural Law’.

On 1st November at Stonehenge, a declaration for the indigenous peoples of the Isles of Britain will be read by Nomine Deus and anyone can turn up and support the declaration.

Hear Ye Hear Ye Hear Ye all people who now inhabit the formerly known in ancient times the Isles of Prydian, latterly known by force and deceit as the United Kingdom

All people of the land Hear Ye this proclamation and Declaration

We the people of the land hereby solemnly make notice and Declaration that we are the Indigenous peoples of this land.

Further we declare that we are no part of the society which declares itself to rule over us the indigenous people, for they have attained their position and wealth by diverse acts of subterfuge and theft of the resources which are ours by right to share amongst ourselves without favour or profit-making.

We the Indigenous peoples reclaim our ancient birthrights and customs from the treasonous elites who have hidden the same from us for generations, seeking to enrich themselves from our common resources at the expense and ensuing poverty of the peoples whom have become enslaved in the system set up for the elites sole benefit. (read full declaration)

Public Notice of the Crime of Fraud

TO:  Travis Allen,
Assemblyman, California District 72
17011 Beach Blvd, Suite #1120
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
(714) 843-4966 – (714) 843-6375 fax

Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 4

Crime: As one of the people, it is my duty and obligation to report to you the crime of fraud on the people of the united States of America.

Crime Victim:  The American people.

Criminal Perpetrator(s):  Unspecified members of Congress since 1862.

Background:  A series of investigations reveals a consistent pattern of criminal behavior has been committed by certain members of the Congress of the united States of America.

Scope of this document:  This notice deals with one such abuse. There are many others which will be dealt with separately.

Time Frame:  From approximately 1862 through the current time and date.

The authority by which you are compelled to act on behalf of the people of California:
1. America, is a nation of laws.  As Americans we respect the rule of law.
2. Each state of the federation is guaranteed a republic form of government.
3. As a representative of the people of the state of California, you too are obligated to faithfully guarantee this form of government to each of your constituents.
4. The Constitution demands you take an oath of office to guarantee your obedience to the law.
5. The oath of office is a contract between each public servant and their respective constituents.  Upon receiving the first payment for services from the public treasury, the contract is consummated regardless of the status of the oath of office.
6. Your oath of office obligates you to act on the part of your constituents to faithfully represent them and protect their interests.
7. Public service is a trust. As a public servant you also have fiduciary responsibilities to protect the interests of the public trust of which you are a trustee. Your performance, in this area, is governed by trust law.
8. There are absolutely no restrictions in your oath of office to prevent you or any other public servant from obeying your oath and fulfilling your sacred and solemn obligations and responsibility to support and defend the Constitution of the united States of America. There are absolutely no restrictions!   No jurisdictional limitations and no authoritarian hierarchal restrictions.

The crime defined:
1. In matters of lawful process, any lawful process fails on the first defect.
2. There are no statute of limitations on fraud
3. The 14th Amendment was fraudulently represented as properly and lawfully ratified.
4. All legislative orders, bills, processes since this event are null and void.
5. There has been no lawful federal government since about 1862.

Required Action:
1. By 31 August 2014 the following remedial actions are to be faithfully executed on behalf of the people.
2. Verify and publicly recognize the crime as reported.
3. Notify all California state representatives of this crime.
4. There is nothing to debate, discuss or negotiate in this matter.  The evidence speaks for itself.
5. Acting on behalf of all Californians, as the state assembly, notify the Congress of their criminal actions and breach of contract. Immediately suspend all payments to the federal government pending resolution.
6. Revoke the authority of the federal services corporation to act further on behalf of the people.
7. Suspend operations of all district, administrative and municipal courts until the breach of contract is resolved and they begin operating as a de jure agency.
8. Suspend all payments for services to all public servants not in compliance with the oath of office until Constitutional
issues are resolved and all Constitutional protections are properly restored.
9. All damage and injuries perpetrated on the victims of this initial fraud and all subsequent abuses must be corrected and
remedy applied in the form of complete restitution to the satisfaction of the victims.

arnie rosner, one of the people
8905 Rhine River Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708-5607
714-964-4056

Share this:

Like this:

freedomoutpost

As the Department of Homeland Security and The Department of Health and Human Services scrambled to find food, medical care and shelter for up to 60,000 illegal immigrants making their way into the United States over the last several months, they came up with the idea of shipping thousands of undocumented migrants to detention centers in Murrieta, California.

Americans showed up in droves to protest the proposed drop-offs. So much so that the gatherings made national news. Swarms of Americans, many of whom hailed from foreign countries themselves, stood in the middle of the road blocking scores of buses as they attempted to reach their destinations at makeshift refugee camps set up by DHS and HHS.

Given the recent history of such brazen actions by American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, it was believed that the federal government would step in and begin detaining protesters in free speech zones or temporary holding facilities so that the buses could get through.

But that never happened.

Now, a highly credible insider speaking with GMN in a recorded interview has shed some light on what happened, and according to him things could have gone a whole different direction.

According to the whistleblower, who has thus far remained anonymous for fear of reprisal, the Department of Homeland Security on orders from the White House was preparing to disperse the protesters with physical force if necessary. Federal riot police were being mobilized, complete with riot gear, body armor and armored personnel carriers.

When local law enforcement and border patrol agents, many of whom live in Murrieta, got wind of the plot they reportedly pushed back against the Federal government and themselves protested behind closed doors.

In an exclusive expose regarding the immigration standoff in Murrieta, California, it was revealed by a confidential informant inside the Murrieta U.S. Border Patrol facility that the real reason busses stopped delivering illegal immigrants was due to a virtual mutiny within the U.S. Border Patrol ranks.

—————–

A recorded telephone interview with a highly credible and prominent Murrieta community leader on Sunday July 14, 2014 when it was revealed that frontline U.S. Border Patrol agents threatened to stand down if the Department of Homeland Security executed a plan to use force upon protestors [sic] if they impeded buses transporting undocumented immigrants into the Murrieta processing facility.

—————–

“Most of the Border Patrol agents here at this facility are residents of Murrieta, and when they found out that the DHS was going to come in with riot gear, the agents declared that they would not obey any unlawful orders which violate the Constitutional rights of peaceful protestors.” said the informant.

“Our contact inside the U.S. Border Patrol told us that we do not even realize how impactful the protest was….it was a shot heard around the world….all the way back to Guatemala; Mexico, and not just the U.S. Government….the influx of immigrants coming over the border has decreased from 1500 per day down to 800 per day…cut almost in half as a direct result of what we’ve done.”

The front line U.S. Border Patrol agents are essentially refusing to perform any unconstitutional act upon the protesters, and they let their intentions be known to their superiors. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security could not proceed with delivery of another busload of illegal immigrants to Murrieta due to the lack of support by Murrieta Police Officers, as well as Border Patrol Agents who are stedfast in upholding their oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States.

GMN via SGT Report

The reports have yet to be verified because numerous reports indicate that anyone who discusses what’s happening inside of detention facilities or with the immigration process is being threatened with arrest.

However, the federal government backed down surprisingly fast when protesters started blocking roadways, which adds credence to this report because without local law enforcement or border patrol support, it would have been a difficult undertaking for the White House.

In recent years, the government has been working to hybridize local policing agencies and personnel by placing their command and control infrastructure under the directive of federal agencies like Department of Homeland Security. If this report is accurate, and all signs indicate that it is, then we have just witnessed how easy it is to take the bite out of federal authorities attempting to overstep their Constitutional bounds.

Share this:

Like this:

ARKANSAS, USA – In an ExopoliticsTV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre, advocate Eric Williams discussed Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury as conceived under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Partial Transcript

A partial transcript of Eric Williams remarks is as follows:

First, why does everyone insist on making the assertion of political Sovereignty so complicated when it is actually so very simple?

Back in 1970, I was prosecuted by the IRS in Federal Court in Los Angeles, for criminal willful failure to file or pay income tax. At the trial, at the very outset, I challenged the IRS prosecutor to present evidence that I was among those he claimed had various citizenship obligations.
When my case was called, there were only five people in the court room ….
After I say the prosecutor has no proof of BC in his file……

When neither the Court Judge nor the Prosecutor could establish that I had volunteered myself into being a U.S. citizen, no matter that to the best of my knowledge I was born in California. (Being born in the United States does NOT cause such individual to be designated a citizen due to such birth.) Because the IRS could not establish that I had voluntarily submitted myself to the jurisdiction of the IRS or Federal (or state) government , the Judge said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago, I am still waiting.

Some people assume that because my event was forty-four years ago that challenging the political jurisdiction would not now work. During the past year there have been several people who have presented letters to the IRS challenging the ability of the IRS to present evidence that they had volunteered themselves into subservience to the IRS or federal or state governments. I am not aware that any of such letters have failed to ward off the IRS or State tax collectors. Some of these individuals are still using their DL and SS# under the Law of necessity recognized by the Supreme Court in a case called Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892?)
, where the Supreme Court wrote that when the strict application of the letter of a law or Constitutional provision would result in an absurd outcome, the law of Constitutional provision must be applied in a manner to avoid the absurd outcome.

. My challenge was and is based on the 13th and 14th Amendments, which have not changed.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Because so much of what was prevalent back in the 1960s did not work, I went back to the beginning of this country, back to July 4, 1776, Prior to that date, everyone here in the Thirteen Colonies was under the dominion of King George III.

However, on that date, when King George was kicked out, at that moment there was absolutely no government here in what had a moment prior been under King George. At that moment on that day everyone present became politically equal. There were no more Aristocrats and there were no more commoners. Everyone became individually sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other person.

It helps if we think of it mathematically. Think of each individual person’s authority over others as being equal to ZERO. When each person’s authority over others is equal to ZERO, how many ZEROs would be required to be added up to come up with a total greater than ZERO?

This establishes, with a mathematical certainty, that although the Founding Fathers could certainly get together and create any manner of organization that they agreed upon, but there was ZERO possibility that the Founders could have had any authority or ability to imbue their creation with any authority to command the subservience of any individual who did not individually volunteer to submit his or her self to the government created under their Constitution. ZERO plus ZERO would still equal ZERO, and in 1866, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment instilled the acknowledgment of this mathematically certain fact into our Constitution.

This information is not at all complicated, it is very simple and does not require any significant study or research for anyone to be able to understand it! Neither does it require anyone to file any rescission documents with any government agency.

All we need to do is examine how our government manages our society to entice us individually, to volunteer ourselves into subservience to its rules.

It is very important for those who have been confused by all the conflicting information prevalent among the Freedom movement, to understand how vulnerable the human child is to indoctrination, and that this vulnerability does not significantly diminish as we grow older.

Thinking is very hard work and none of us like to do any more work than is necessary, so when others tell us what we want to hear. when they tell us they have a solution in regard to bow we got under control of the government, because our names are written in all capital letters, or because of gold fringe on the flag, and that the government has taken over ownership of us through its bundling and sale of our birth certificates, and that our republican form of government has been turned into a corporation, we presume that those who tell us these things have done their homework , but they have not, as I have revealed here in what I said earlier, about how ZERO plus ZERO will always equal ZERO!

When this mathematically certain fact is applied to all the information the effect of all these assertions just vanishes, because none of it overcomes ZERO plus ZERO equaling ZERO!

As this is irrefutably true, it is not possible for any of the reasons prevalent among the Freedom community to be true!

So how were we enticed to volunteer ourselves into political servitude?

1. The Constitution was written by Aristocratic men who were politicians who had been in charge of the commoners under the British Monarch for, literally, centuries. For all of them to willingly give up their Aristocratic positions, to agree to be politically equal to scrub women and stablemen, without a whimper, is just too much to believe. It is amazing to me that very few of the members of the Freedom movement have any qualms about the true intent of the Founders.

2. They were politicians. This means they were accomplished in manipulating others. This means that they knew very well how to write legislation so that there would be loop-holes for themselves and their friends to work around whatever they were imposing on the commoners. And, it also means they knew how to writs a Constitution where there would be no such loop holes, so why did they give us this sieve? For whose benefit were all those hole provided? Or, flip that, and consider, who was it that was intended to be enslaved under the Constitution?

3. Just take a look around! Try your mirror! The one that magnifies!

4. An argument can be made to establish that everything that has been and is being done is supported by the CONstitution! Everyone reads the comments and admonishments of the Founders written or presented by them outside of the CONstitution, as to how important it is to keep a watchful eye on the government, to keep it on track with the CONstitution, but why did they not write the CONstitution to more securely prevent the problems they perceived as arising if the populace was not unrealistically vigilant.

Is it reasonable that we should have to continually watch everything that politicians do in order to keep them in conformance to the Constitution? And when the rules set down in the CONstitution are written in a way that the politicians can reasonably support everything that they do as being Constitutional, how do we prevent them from instituting the micro-management of us that they have?

5. The commoners of that time wanted and expected a society where there would only be one political class. A republic is NOT such an organization! No where in the history of man is there one single society that has been “governed” by the commoners or where there was only one political class.

6. Why were those present back then and why are the Freedom advocates of today so adamant in their concerns and demands in regard to having and restoring a republican form of government back then and here in our time? Or, was there any such advocacy or demand on the part of the commoners back then? I don’t recall ever hearing about any such issue by those commoners, so why did the Aristocratic Framers of the CONstitution include that provision, guaranteeing a republican form of government to the new states? And why do the filings of the New York Grand Jury put such adamant insistence that this CONsitutional provision which they seem to believe and claim has been in some way eradicated, be restored?

7. Where in the Federal Constitution is there any overt evidence declaring that this document created a republic? What is a republic? According to the content of there filings and the foot notes included therein, a republic is a form of society where the People are in charge. In charge of what or who? One of the foot notes included, taken from the New York State Codes, provides that the People are over the citizens. Does that foot note not indicate that there are two political classes? The People being the ruling class and the citizens being those ruled?

8. In regard to the words “citizen” and “People”, some words have an inherent political meaning and some do not, but those words which do not can be imbued with a political meaning if the context in which they are set is political. And while we are considering this it is also advisable to be aware of the propensity of politicians to use certain words as “terms of art”, which means with devious unrevealed intent.

9. It is self evident that the word “citizen” is a political word which constitutes an acknowledgment of subservience to a political superior no matter the context, such as, “All the citizens in the swimming pool or all the citizens watching the football game”. Is there any doubt that both references to citizens indicate a subservience to a political superior?

10. If the word “people” were substituted would there be any such political subservience implication? “All the people in the swimming pool or all the people watching the football game”?

11. If we carefully read the Preamble to the Constitution, paying attention to this political context in which the word “People” is set, we have, in relevant part: “We the People of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

12. Is it not self evident that in this political context the word “People” is automatically imbued with a political meaning, that it is now a political “Term of Art”, that devious politicians can use to subjugate innocent common people?

As they did in their condensing and rewording of the fifty amendments to the Constitution proposed by the commoners, where they used the word “people” in the five most critical of those amendments, and totally avoided using the word “citizen”, because if they had used both of those political status establishing words, the commoners would have objected.

13. The purpose of the Preamble is very important but is usually overlooked. The Preamble establishes the purpose of the Constitution and declares the source of its authority, which is clearly stated to be The People of the United States, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to THEM, and THEIR Posterity”.

14. In order to have the authority to declare such purpose those doing so must be politically Sovereign! Those doing so must be subservient to no politically superior man or entity.

15. At that time was there anyone or any entity present in North America who had more political authority than the People of the United States? Clearly there was no such superior authority.

16. In the Preamble the Founding Fathers established that the People of the United States were Sovereign. This meant that neither They nor Their Posterity would be subject to comply with what they established in the Constitution. This indicates the purpose of the Constitution was to govern the government, to prevent it from treating the commoners as a politically subservient class.

However, a careful study of the Constitution, with a suspicious eye, will reveal that the Founding Fathers had a different intention.

17. The establishment in the Preamble of the Sovereign status of The People was open and notoriously done. Everyone then present knew that they were of the People of the United States so no problem was perceived, except by Patrick Henry, when Patrick Henry read the CONstitution he said he smelled a rat and he would have no more to do with it.

18. Now is where the Founding politicians get tricky and devious. These politicians creating this political document are going to unambiguously and surreptitiously create a subservient political class, citizen of the United States.

19. This is in Section Two of Article One, where it is made clear that U.S. citizenship is not acquired by birth because it provides that to serve in the House, the citizen must be twenty-five years old and seven years a citizen; and to serve in the Senate, Thirty years old and nine years a citizen.

20. Please take note here that there are no limiting eligibility requirements established for those of the ruling People class to serve in any of the offices of the Federal Government.

21. So there now, the Founders created heir subservient commoner class, causing the political entity, the United States of America to be a Republic.

22. Do these provisions give us cause to have some concerns about the actual parental intentions of the “Founding Fathers”?

23. Am I the only one who perceives a concern in regard to the word “republic” being used here in the Constitution and in the filings of the New York Grand Jury, because I see the word “republic” in the official names of about a hundred totalitarian dictatorships on this planet? Such as “The People’s Republic of China”, and “The Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea”.

24. I have written about this in other comments on Jean’s Blog, as to why the Founders included this Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government in all the states, being so that all of those of the “former” aristocratic class could move to an outlaying territory and create a Dukedom for themselves where they could have control over their own subjects, except here we would call them states, and Governors rather than Dukedoms and Dukes, and citizens rather than subjects. What is the significant difference?

25. In regard to the filings of the New York Common Law Grand Jury, rejected by the New York State Courts, who was it that included in those rejected filings all of the exceedingly strong emphasis in regard to the demand therein that the CONstitutional guarantee that every state have a republican form of government be honored?

26. What has that got to do with the re-establishment of the Peoples Control over the Common Law Grand Juries? And why would the advocates of the Common Law Grand Juries want the provision establishing two political classes be honored by the Federal Government?

27. Wouldn’t it be expected that whomever had the intellectual skills to create those beautifully crafted very emotionally stimulating documents, would have had the intellectual ability to see the need for a further examination of the propriety of the use of the word “republic” here, in a society purported to be Free, where all us commoners are led to believe there is only one political class, and where the Supreme Court wrote in the Dred Scott case in 1864, that the terms citizen of the United States and People of the United States, both had the same meaning. And when we observe the word “republic” so flagrantly obvious in the names of so many totalitarian dictatorships?

28. All of this ranting to restore the republic has caused great confusion here among the common people, especially in their very divergent opinions and beliefs as to what is Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional. We all agree that we want lower taxes and less government, but when “everyone” has a different opinion as to what constitutes “lower”and “less”, how can we ever attain either?

29. Does not this dilemma indicate that we all need to back up and take an unbiased view of what would actually be a proper form of society? If we start at the beginning – well what then is the beginning?

30. Well, I contend that everyone who is reasonable will have to agree that when we humans are born that we then have no knowledge of human society or of anything and, of the utmost importance, we have no frame of reference against which we can compare what we are taught, to enable us to properly determine if such information is good for us or good for whomever was teaching it to us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact?

31. While we are considering our birth condition, surly we can all acknowledge that when we are born we have no Naturally imbued authority to command anyone to obey us. Can there be any reasonable reason anyone could refuse to acknowledge this self evident fact? That when we are born our political authority over others is mathematically equal to ZERO?

32. Do not these two self evident facts clearly establish that as none of us are born with any individual authority to command others that it would then be totally ridiculous and impossible for any number of us to purport to have an ability to combine our non existing individual authority in order for a “majority” to create an authority to command the “minority” to obey them. That no matter how many ZEROs are added together, the total will always be ZERO.

33. From where could authority for a majority to command the minority to obey, reasonably arise?

34. As it is self evident that no one has any Natural authority to lay a tax on anyone then is it not then equally self evident that it would be impossible for such impotent individuals to combine their non-existing ZERO authority in order to create an authority to lay a tax on anyone?

35. Does not this reasoning clearly establish that the level of lower taxation that is proper is no taxation at all and likewise establish that what properly constitutes less government is no government at all?

36. If anyone listening does not agree with this logic, would you please point out its defective reasoning?

37. Well, many listeners will argue, “We must have some rules!” Yes, that sure does sound reasonable, but who will decide what those rules will be and who they will apply to? “Well we must at least outlaw abortion and child molestation, and we certainly can’t allow people to gather rain water from the roofs of their houses!”

38, If we allow our emotions to control us we will soon wind up right back where we are. The one and only way is to acknowledge that zero plus zero always equals zero, and that this basic Principle is true no matter how emotionally large we make the zeros!

39. The way criminal behavior is controlled in a Truly Free society is through the Common Lay Jury.

40. In a Truly Free society, when a person contends they have been criminally victimized, the victim files a report with the Sheriff; the Sheriff presents the complaint to the Grand Jury, if the GJ agrees that it appears that a crime has been committed, the GJ will empanel a petit jury to hold a trial. After a full and proper examination, as determined by the jury and the defendant and victim, each of the jury members will consider the facts and determine that if the juror had been in the same situation as the accused, and had acted as had the accused, would the juror feel that he or she had acted properly or criminally? If the jurors reach a unanimous decision of guilt,, that same jury would decide the penalty and the community would enforce it.

So how do we individually become subservient to the government?

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

References

Eric Williams – Commentary
http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/?s=eric+williams

Eric Williams – Discussion Group
groups.yahoo.com/group/whoru

Eric Williams: Sovereignty, Personal Freedom, and the Grand Jury

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_news/2014/06/eric-williams-sovereignty-personal-freedom-and-the-grand-jury.html

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

tg

Eric Williams has made the most sense of all of those speaking on Citizens Grand Juries, personal freedom, sovereignty, etc. In this particular interview though, I would have defined at the start the difference between “U.S. Gov.” (Corporation in DC and the 4 territories it governs) vs the “U.S. of America.” And I would have left out reference to a “Creator” as the basis/impetus for one acting in right-consciousness/right action, given that there are such diverse definitions for this concept/beingness and not everyone on this planet agrees to what it is/has represented through time (i.e. in certain Gnostic texts the “Creator” of this universe is the main source of our problems!). And I’ve noticed an inherent bias int he Citizens Grand Jury sites using this “Creator” reference and biblical references as the basis of their action/representations in court at the exclusion of all others who don’t believe in same. Where is the justice for the rest of the population? (for those who don’t believe similarly?).

Posted by: tg | 06/19/2014 at 10:13 AM

Jay Spencer

tg, I share your point of view and the concerns you expressed above. First, allow me to share my current situation. I am being forced out of my home by the scam that is popularly known as the “foreclosure crisis,” actually a well-laid plan to use the court system to enforce the endgame of the scam, devised by the banksters to transfer the real wealth of this country from the middle class to the top fraction of 1%. I was forced to refinance my home several times when I could not make timely payments due to circumstances beyond my control (including a sick wife and unemployment). I have learned the working details of the scam, and determined that the foreclosing entity (in my case, Freddie Mac) has perpetrated, in concert with other financial entities, fraud on the court, on investors, on taxpayers, on the government, and on me. I have been fighting these frauds unsuccessfully in court since 2011. In the process, I have lost the last of my financial resources, my job and my wife (due to the stress she has suffered).

This Monday, June 23, is the deadline for answering a Notice of Ejectment, including a notice of seizure of Title to my property (having been sold for a dollar), signed by the County Sheriff.

I wish to include in my response a notice to the Sheriff that there is a case pending in the PA courts challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which (as now written into law) violates every defendant’s constitutional rights. Until this case is decided, all defendants who claim such violations should have the legal action against them suspended. In addition, I will demand that the Sheriff present my complaint to a Grand Jury for their determination whether or not my case should be tried by a petit Grand Jury.

I am contacting several people with whom I have spoken about this problem, including John Darash of the National Liberty Alliance. I am aware of the problems with this group, as Eric Williams has mentioned (as have others). I welcome any suggestions.

Posted by: Jay Spencer | 06/21/2014 at 11:37 AM

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd

This comment is from ERIC WILLIAMS:

Hi Alfred,

Something has been bothering me about your characterization of birth certificates being legal fictions. I had never considered such to be the case. Birth certificates are created as the record of the birth of a human baby and are, for the most part, an accurate record of the parents and the name assigned to the child. None of that is fictional. The fact that the child contributes nothing to the creation thereof and has no ability to acquire personal knowledge of the creation at the time of creation does not cause the creation to be fictional. The fact that the birth certificates are recorded with the state is not fictional. The fact that the names entered thereon are valuable is not fictional. The fact that parents do not enter an ownership claim of the name entered on the birth certificate is not fictional. The fact that all the states have abandoned property statutes is not fictional. The fact that each state becomes the owner of the names after a term of years is not fictional. The fact that the child can not possibly acquire a legal ownership of the name is not fictional. The fact that when the child becomes sixteen years of age and presents that birth certificate to the state to be issued a driver license is not fictional. The fact that the state has no standing to require the sixteen year old to procure a driver license until after the sixteen year old voluntarily submits himself to subservience to the state is not fictional. The fact that the state uses the driver license ploy to seduce sixteen year old young adults into a situation where the young adult unknowingly applies to the state for the state to issue the young adult a franchise license to use the name on the birth certificate as the young adult’s “true legal name” is not fictional. The fact that this ceremony causes the young adult to unknowingly surrender the young adult’s Naturally acquired individual sovereignty and to enter into a condition of political servitude to the state is not fictional.

So Alfred, where is there any part of the foregoing that constitutes a “legal fiction”?

The fact that the state manipulates all of the foregoing constitutes intentional criminal fraud on the part of the state is clearly self evident and undeniable, but how is that fictional.

I consulted with two online dictionaries for “legal fiction”:

Legal Fiction:
“An assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it.”

Law Dictionary: What is LEGAL FICTION? definition of LEGAL FICTION (Black’s Law Dictionary)

What is LEGAL FICTION?

“Believing or assuming something not true is true. Used in judicial reasoning for avoiding issues where a new situation comes up against the law, changing how the law is applied, but not changing the text of the law.”

This is why I insist on referring to the birth certificate driver license ploy as criminal.

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

Posted by: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd | 06/25/2014 at 04:00 PM

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd

This comment is from ERIC WILLIAMS

“Response to some comments on my interview at:

Hi Alfred,

The problem here in the United States is in educating those involved in the “Common Law” Grand Jury movement to understand that the Fifth Amendment, the authority establishing the Grand Jury, does not imply or establish that the Grand Jury established thereunder, is to be a Common Law entity as is characterized by the current Common Law Grand Jury movement, which proclaims it would have authority to totally displace the Legislatures and Civil Court System.

The Seventh Amendment reference to the common law are specifically designated therein to apply to civil suits. There is no mention therein or suggestion that the application of common law mentioned therein was to be applicable to criminal prosecutions. Additionally, the Seventh Amendment does not in any way suggest that the Grand Jury would displace the Civil Courts as the Trier of such issues, as is proclaimed by the advocates of the current Common Law Grand Jury leaders and or spokespersons.

The difficulty here is in the Common Law itself, and what it is that actually constitutes the Common Law. As the Common Law is unwritten, and has always been subject to interpretation and application on a case by case basis, it is impossible to come to a specific determination as to what it is or is not. The purported purpose of the Common Law is to insure that justice is accorded to all concerned in a given instance, with due consideration to previous determinations, but not strictly required to adhere to them, but even this is in dispute.

After the Constitution was written and presented to the Thirteen States, it was agreed to be ratified on the condition that certain protective amendments would be considered and adopted, and made a part of the Constitution.

In order to facilitate this, the Several States independently of each other, created a total of approximately fifty amendments. Due to the difficulty in communication at that time, there were many duplications from the various states, and the fifty proposed were presented to the Framers of the Constitution who condensed the fifty down to ten, with two additional amendments proposed by the Framers, both of which were rejected by the legislatures of the Thirteen States.

To review the fifty amendments proposed by the Thirteen States, go to this very well organized website: http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

In my research I was able to determine that there was only one state that requested an amendment creating a grand jury, and that state did not mention that the grand jury it requested operate under Common Law.

When a society operates totally under common law no statutory laws are permitted. All determinations of wrong doing are determined on a case by case basis by the Common Law Grand Jury, and if the CL Grand Jury determines a wrong has been committed, a petit jury is assembled and a trial held.

The Government of the United States was not created to operate strictly as a Common Law entity or society. This could not be more clear as the original Constitution was explicitly designed to have a Legislative and Judicial Branch.

What is important to understand here, is that the present Grand Jury movement here in the United States, in characterizing itself as being a “Common Law” Grand Jury, with unlimited power to supplant the current civil court system and legislature. If it were to be accepted by the civil judicial system presently in control of our judicial system, the assertions of the Common Law Grand Jury advocates, if implemented, would eradicate and eliminate the current civil justice system and the legislatures. Which would totally destroy the Constitution, and would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Now, whether that would be good or bad must be set aside because there is no possibility that the current Civil Court system is going to approve the constituting of a Citizens Grand Jury that is to operate under Common Law as envisioned by the current CLGJ advocates.

There is no Constitutional provision for a Common Law Grand Jury. The Fifth Amendment does not assign the Grand Jury established thereunder, authority to invoke an unbridled version of the Common Law in its operation. The civil justice system in the United States was based and developed on the concepts of the Common Law, but with statutorily established clarifications. The purpose of the Common Law petit jury is to oversee the application of these legislative enactments to insure that justice is the prime consideration rather than the enforcement of the letter of the “law”.

In recognition of the foregoing, the Supreme Court has acknowledged and recognized that the Grand Jury created under the Fifth Amendment is autonomous, not under the direct control of the Three Branches of government created under the body of the Constitution, acknowledging that the Grand Jury is a Fourth Branch, for the purpose of overseeing the other three, by the People, but, a fair interpretation of the Constitution as a whole, together with the Fifth Amendment, indicates there was no indication of intention by any of the states, in ratifying the Fifth Amendment, that they intended that the Grand Jury created thereunder would have power to eliminate any of the other branches of the Federal Government created under the Constitution.

The People’s Grand Jury would most definitely have authority to investigate and indict any government official who was acting in a criminal manner, but the People’s Grand Jury would not have authority to eliminate or assume the duties of the Judicial Branch established under the Constitution or to eradicate the Legislature.

The suits at common law mentioned in the Seventh Amendment are civil suits, intended to be tried under courts established under the Judicial Branch, not elsewhere.

The wording of the Seventh Amendment does not suggest or indicate an additional manner of suit is being created, what the wording does establish, and the purpose and the intent of that amendment is to guarantee a trial by jury in civil suits where the value in controversy is in excess of twenty dollars. And it further establishes that if a matter were to be re-examined, the civil court conducting the re-examination must follow the rules of the common law.

There is nothing in the Seventh Amendment that indicates relevance to the Grand Jury established in the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment is relevant to criminal issues, the Seventh to civil.

That is, if those concerned about how our government has gotten out of control, realistically want the People’s Grand Jury to be re-activated, they would be well advised to drop their assertions of Common Law authority.

We are all concerned about how citizen defendants are being treated in various courts, however the guilt or responsibility, is not entirely on the judges or the courts, or even on the legislatures.

Many of you reading this are not going to be happy with my assessment, however, if we are to ever establish Freedom in our country, we must recognize that Freedom was not established here under the Constitution due to several reasons then prevalent.

First, no one then present had ever experienced true Freedom, or if they did, they did not put 2 and 2 together to realize it. What I am in reference to here is the fact that the only people who were actually free back then were the “Pioneers” who moved west in covered wagons. As soon as they had traveled far enough to be outside the reach of the government they had left behind, they were then politically free, but they had no reason to consider that fact as to them it was then irrelevant.

And, on that same note, as soon as there were enough of them in the same outlaying area, they established a local government, with a constable or sheriff, and then moved right along to creating a state government. There was never, to my knowledge, any thought or consideration that they were not at all times under the political jurisdiction of the government they had left behind.

Is there any evidence that the people back then considered themselves to be politically sovereign or outside the authority of any government? I am certainly not suggesting that those people were not politically sovereign, because they certainly were, however I am not aware of any evidence that they realized such to be the case. This could very well be because the governments back then did not purport to have the authority to micro manage the lives of the people back then as at present.

The point here is, how could a society where there is no formal government, because those present had revolted against and expunged the government they had submitted themselves to for uncountable generations, establish a political government which would recognize Freedom when none of the creating participants had ever knowingly experienced Freedom, and had always expected there would be some manner of political authority over them.

Why else would the “former” commoners feel it was necessary to have formal protection from the government they were themselves creating, by demanding a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution?

Those persons then present had been indoctrinated for centuries to believe that commoners were not intellectually qualified to participate reasonably in government, and, to believe that those of the Aristocrat class were Naturally born with such intellectual qualifications. It is important to understand that this belief was then universally held by both commoners and aristocrats.

When the foregoing is acknowledged can we then be surprised that when the Aristocratic Founding Fathers create THEIR CONstitution, that they were going to write it as best they could, to insure that the intellectually incompetent commoners were not going to be in a position to cause the entire society to fail? So the Founders designed it as a republic, without openly acknowledging that fact anywhere in the Constitution in regard to the Federal Government, but they did so surreptitiously, by creating a ruling class in the Preamble and a subject class is Section Two of Article One.

When one considers the manner of societal organization in England back then, is it not observable that the purpose of the commoner class was to serve the Aristocrat class?

The reason designating oneself as “of the people” is not sufficient as a declaration of a person’s sovereignty is because there are more that one political class that could be included in that undefined term. Generally, the word “people” does not establish a reference to the Sovereign class, it merely refers to humans. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans have relinquished their Naturally imbued political independence, sovereignty, when they presented a birth certificate engraved with a state owned name, to be issued a driver license, whereupon the person unknowingly, as the first order of business of that ceremony, applied for a franchise to use that state owned name as the person’s “true legal name”, and thereby entered himself into a subservient contractual relationship to the state. The fact that this was unintentional does not negate the subservient relationship until and unless the person knowingly rejects it. And, stops using that government owned name. I don’t mean the person needs to stop using the same alphabet letters to write his or her name, just stop claiming the name you are using came from a birth certificate! Please understand, you get to decide where your name came from, no one else has standing to do that for you!

There are several factors involved in the creation of a sovereign political society (country). Of utmost importance is the need to establish a military force capable of defending it from outside invaders. This is very expensive and must be paid for. The traditional means by which this has been accomplished has been through various means of taxation. The fact that this has been greatly abused by all levels of our government is just as much the fault of the common people as it is of the bureaucratic politicians.

It seems to be Natural for humans to want to get whatever they can without paying for it or expending any of their own energy. Most people deny this but the proof is in the pudding. Everyone is in agreement that we want lower taxes and less government, meaning lower my taxes and get the government out of my life but do not reduce the freebees I get from government, just reduce the freebees of everyone else.

It seems there is universal agreement that because the Federal Reserve has caused all our monetary problems that it should be eliminated and the paper money replaced with CONstitutional gold or silver. How can it be that all those who are so down on the Fed do not realize that the Fed is totally under the control of CONgress? “Everyone” seems to back Ron Paul’s demand that the Fed be audited. Do none of those backing Ron Paul do any research of their own? For if they did they would discover that the Fed has been audited every year since it has been in existence, with all of its profits credited to the Treasury of the United States.

The problem is not with the Fed nor with CONgress, well, yes the fiscal mess we are in has been caused by CONgress, but CONgress has done no more than would be expected; when you give the keys of your chicken house to the fox, do not be surprised if the fox eats your chickens.

If you really want to place the blame of our financial mess where it belongs, go read the CONstitution, where you will find in Section Eight of Article One, written by the wonderful deified Founding Fathers, authorization for the CONgress of the United States to borrow as much money as it can from where ever it can get it. How best to facilitate that authority than for CONgress to create its own lending source?

Does this not indicate the blame for our financial mess should properly be assigned to the Founding Fathers? Well, many will say (because they can’t stand blaming the Founding Fathers), CONgress should have known better, because what CONgress did was not intended by the Founders. Well, if that was true then how could those Founders, recognized as being among the most intelligent and highly educated men to have ever lived, be so totally stupid as to hang the key to the chicken house right there next to the lock on the chicken house door?

Is it actually possible that it is impossible for humans to learn from the errors of the past? Because that certainly seems to be the case. Everyone who hates the Fed and paper money wants to return to Constitutional gold and silver. They claim that CONgress had no proper authority to give its authority to issue money to the Fed. Which CONgress did not do, because, as I mentioned herein above, CONgress owns the Fed, lock, stock and barrel, and next, there is no Constitutional authority assigned to CONgress to issue money and CONgress has never ever issued any, gold or silver money. CONgress has borrowed jillions and jillions of paper dollars, from itself, and spent or given it away all over the planet, but it has never ever issued gold or silver.

The one and only reason why CONgress did not do so was because it was physically impossible because CONgress had no source of such gold or silver, or it would have done so.

All the gold and silver that was created by the Government mints was created from gold and silver ore that was owned by private entities. After the mint purified the metals and made the coins, the coins were returned to the private entities that brought the raw ore to the mint. At no time did the government become the owner of the raw ore or the coins made therefrom. All the gold and silver coins that entered into circulation were spent into circulation by the private owners of those metal coins.

There is no Constitutional provision authorizing CONgress to acquire gold or silver for the purpose of issuing it into circulation, or to accumulate it in a huge pile in Fort Knox or anywhere else.

If you get right down to the bottom line there is nothing more stupid than using gold and silver as money!

Did I loose you there? Do you believe gold and silver is truly the best medium to be used as money?

Think of this: If one man were to spend his summer growing food and laying it up for the winter, for his wife and children; and another man were to spend his summer digging for gold, and accumulated a large quantity, what would his family eat during the winter? And, why would the man with the food want to sell any of his food to the man in exchange for worthless gold? Oh, you don’t agree that gold is worthless? Then why do people spend any time growing food? Why not spend all time digging for gold? After, all, who needs food? Clothing? Or shelter?

Oh, you can buy food with gold?

It is a good idea to understand what humans need and want, food, clothing, shelter, recreation. All of these are made available through the expenditure of human effort, either physical or intellectual. None of these include any manner of money. No one actually wants money, what they actually want is what they can get for their money.

So what is money? Basically, we don’t really need money, because what we actually need or want is not money, it is food, clothing, shelter and recreation. In theory, we could engage in bartering to get what we need or want that we do not provide for ourselves. Trading our excess for the excess of others, trading what we have that they want for what they have that we want. The problem, however, is finding someone that has what we want who wants what we have. Bartering will always work to some limited extent but how do millions of people who live in cities trade what they have for what they need? It is not only impossible, it is ridiculous to even suggest!

There is only one basic purpose of money, and that is to facilitate bartering. Common sense will reason that as the purpose of money is to facilitate bartering. That being true, then the most sensible medium to use as money would be the lease expensive.

In examining the foregoing, what is it that establishes the expense (or cost) of anything and everything? The expense is the accumulation of the value of the human effort expended. When you purchase a piece of lumber, you do not pay for the wood. Nature provided the wood at no charge. What you pay for is the cutting of the tree, the hauling to the mill, the cutting into lumber, the transport to the retail outlet, and all of the incidental expenses along the way. Everyone of which are due to the additional expenditures of human effort.

The point is, the value or cost of the money medium should be kept at the minimum. Gold and silver are certainly NOT on that list! At the top of that list would be paper!

So why has paper not worked well as money? In truth, paper has worked very well. The problems we have are not caused by paper, our problems are caused by dishonest humans!

Once again, is it actually possible that it is impossible for humans to learn from the errors of the past?

Every time gold or silver has been used as money the system has soon been corrupted by humans. Likewise, every time the monetary system of a society has been under the control of one entity it has soon been corrupted. It has made no difference if the medium was paper or metal.

Every time the monetary system has been under the control of the same entity that is in control of the spending of the money, the system bas been corrupted. here is not even one historical exception to this fact.

When are we going to stop being stupid by repeating the errors of the past and design a monetary system that would be as protected from corruption as possible with humans still involved.

It is critically important to understand that the advent of electricity has had a profound effect on what would work best as a money medium, particularly the refrigeration of food, which has resulted in millions and millions of families living in suburbia USA, where it is impossible for them to grow their own food, or homestead the property they live on and in.

And design a system where taxation would be totally eliminated as the means of funding government.

It is important that this new system not be any more disruptive to the existing economy than necessary. That is, everyone in this country is familiar with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs); everything is already priced out and evaluated in them, including everyone’s pay, food costs, utilities and etc. When the cost of something goes up or down the free market automatically adjusts. If the new system can be implemented with most people not even realizing a change has been implemented, that would be outstanding.

I contend that I have designed such a system.

If we properly evaluate the Federal Reserve to determine its flaws, the reasons for the diminishing value of our money, we will determine there are two basic flaws. The first, and worse, is the Constitutional provision assigning CONgress the power to borrow an unlimited quantity of money from wherever it can create a lender, meaning its own self.

As CONgress already owns the Fed, we simply re-assign the ownership to the People of the United States, NOT CONgress or the Federal Government! We assign oversight of The People’s Central Bank to the Legislatures of the Fifty States. The fact that these Fifty States are Sovereign Countries totally Politically Independent from each other, establishes a Natural jealousy between them that will best insure that they each keep a diligent watch on the others to prevent any corruption, which will be virtually impossible because in addition to prohibiting CONgress from borrowing money, we will likewise prohibit every level of government in all of the states from borrowing money from any source for any reason.

The People’s Central Bank will be allowed to extend loans only to private sector borrowers; mortgages, business loans and credit card loans. All interest collected will be distributed to the treasuries of the four levels of government, cities, counties, states and federal, with no level of government imbued with authority to determine how much money it needs or where such money shall come from. All taxation at every level of government shall be eliminated. That is, there shall be no manner of taxation anywhere in the United States. (Except on all the beer that my wife keeps buying).

The level of interest charged on loans shall be determined primarily by the free market, and approved by the population of the cities and counties, not by any level of government.

The distribution of interest to fund each level of government will be determined, for cities and counties, by the population of those entities. The amount to be accorded to the state government shall be determined by the county governments. The amount to be accorded to the Federal Government shall be determined by the state legislatures.

For those who believe that interest is usury, usury is where the interest collected by the lender is taken out of circulation causing a shrinkage of the circulating money supply, resulting in profit taking foreclosures. Under the Fed system, the only way local banks can take a profit is through foreclosures. Interest does not constitute a profit to lending banks under the Fed because those banks cannot collect more than they lend out. In order for them to take a profit through interest they would have to collect more than they lend out, which is totally impossible when they take the interest collected out of circulation, as is their common practice.

Interest is the reasonable profit on the lending of money. Interest is no more inappropriate than the profit a baker of bread adds to his cost of making the bread. The difference is that the amount of profit on a loan is immediately observable, while the profit on a loaf of bread is not.

Under this system, all interest collected on loans to private sector borrowers will be distributed to the four levels of government and they will spend the interest right back into circulation, thereby eliminating the shrinkage of the circulating supply occurring under the Federal Reserve.

We amend the CONstitution to eliminate this power, and adding a clause establishing that the federal Government shall never ever have authority to borrow money from any source for any purpose, no matter the emergency that may be concocted by CONgress or the President.

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

Posted by: Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd | 06/25/2014 at 04:07 PM

Share this:

Like this:

THE ENORMITY OF THE CRIMES that have been committed against defendants in foreclosure cases is easy for much of society to ignore.

Those who are defendants in foreclosure cases are, after all, those who deserve to suffer the consequences of failed generations of economic policy. Those who are defendants in foreclosure cases are, after all, the people that deserve scorn and disgust and contempt because they chose to live in a country that gave away their jobs, their industry, their future.

But far worse than the crimes and the consequences for the millions of Americans that are victims of the largest organized crime spree in the history of mankind is the fact that in order to accomplish this crime spree the criminals and their counterparts destroyed our nation’s civil legal system.

Make no mistake, the “foreclosure crisis” as it has played out, and as it continues to play out all across this country is a complex and interconnected series of state sponsored crimes. The crimes began when the loans were made, continued when the loans were sold to investors, continued when mortgage payments were loaded onto the international PONZI scheme that is mortgage securitization, then really ramped up when the criminals continued their crime sprees in state and federal courts all across this country.

The crime spree called foreclosure that continues to play out in homes and neighborhoods all across this country could not have occurred if our courts did not agree to become partners in the crime spree.

Our nation’s court system is in fact desecrated, destroyed, a crumbled heap of what it once was. We were a nation of laws. America was a nation that was governed, ultimately, by judges and a legal system that served a larger societal and historical purpose. At one point in time, judges and our nation’s court system recognized that the function of the court system was to protect The People and The Nation from the out of control evil and corporate interests that brought us all robo signing and foreclosure fraud and LIBOR rigging and HSBC money laundering and everything that is our national banking system.

To this day, banks foreclose on borrowers using fraudulent mortgage assignments, a legacy of failing to prosecute this conduct and instead letting banks pay a fine to settle it. This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now essentially “whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of doubt from the judge.

Allegations from today’s lawsuit:

The defendants concealed that the notes and the assignments were never delivered to the MBS trusts and disseminated false and misleading statements to the investors, including the U.S. government and the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, District of Columbia, the City of Chicago and the City of New York.

Relator conducted her own investigations in furtherance of a False Claims Act qui tam action and found that the Defendants pursued and continue to pursue foreclosure actions using false and fabricated documents, particularly mortgage assignments. The Defendants used robo-signers who signed thousands of documents each week with no review nor any knowledge of their contents and created forged mortgage assignments using fraudulent titles in order to proceed with foreclosures. The Defendants used these fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents, namely, the mortgage assignments that were required to have been delivered to the trusts at the inception of the trust.

Without lawfully executed mortgage assignments, the value of the mortgages and notes held by the trusts is impaired because effective assignments are necessary for the trust to foreclose on its assets in the event of mortgage defaults and because the trusts do not hold good title to the loans and mortgages that investors have been told secure the notes.

The fraud carried out by the Defendants in this case includes, inter alia: Mortgage assignments with forged signatures of the individuals signing on behalf of the grantors, and forged signatures of the witnesses and the notaries;

• Mortgage assignments with signatures of individuals signing as corporate officers for banks and mortgage companies that never employed them;

• Mortgage assignments prepared and signed by individuals as corporate officers of mortgage companies that had been dissolved by bankruptcy years prior to the assignment;

• Mortgage assignments prepared with purported effective dates unrelated to the date of any actual or attempted transfer (and in the case of trusts, years after the closing date of the trusts);

• Mortgage assignments prepared on behalf of grantors who had never themselves acquired ownership of the mortgages and notes by a valid transfer, including numerous such assignments where the grantor was identified as “Bogus Assignee for Intervening Assignments;” and

• Mortgage assignments notarized by notaries who never witnessed the signatures that they notarized.

The MBS Trusts and their trustees, depositors and servicing companies further misrepresented to the public the assets of the Trusts and issued false statements in their prospectuses and certifications of compliance.

complaint symoniak false claimS.C. Second Amended Complaint (ECF) (3)

[advanced-iframe securitykey=”a89b984039fb3b09578b3059dd44d761a319ccc0″ src=”http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/” width=”1000″]

Share this:

Like this: