Justification For An

American Liberation

This book is entitled Justification For An American Liberation. It was previously

called Justification For The Fourth American Revolution written and compiled by
me; Gnome. It was researched and written between 1993 and 1995 and self
published and sold at patriot meetings and at Little Five Points in Atlanta up till
1997. Some of the statistics are almost 20 years out of date, yet they still hold true
for today. Those states are the number of imprisoned people in this country and
the amount of the national debt. The rest is all history. Due to time it is
incomplete. I had to find this recently on 3.5 floppy, convert it to todays format
and put it in some type of cohesive manner. It is presented to you, free of charge,
in the hopes that your voice is stronger than mine and can make the people learn
what I know to be the truth. We have all been bamboozled since the inception of
this country. Remember, they were all wearing dickeyswho wore and still wear
the dickeysthe aristocracy. This is the story of how our founding fathers did
nothing more then a hostile take over of the mother company; England. I
challenge anyone to refute any of my facts. And if you are a tea-bagger or
republican, I challenge you to repute them.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long
enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer
interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is
simply too painful to acknowledge ~ even to ourselves ~ that we've been so
credulous. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise."
- Carl Sagan
 DO YOU LIVE IN DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, OR TYRANNY?

You're traveling down the highway when you see the flashy lights of a police car
behind you. You determine it is you he wants to stop, so you pull over because you know
not stopping could get you shot. He gives you a ticket for speeding and tells you to have a
nice day. You are quite sure you were not speeding, but the officer gave you the ticket
anyway.

Do you, (check one)

___a) Ignore the ticket and throw it in the trash,

___b) Show up in court to fight the charge,

___c) Send money to the address shown on the ticket because,

___1) If the cop said you were speeding you probably were,

___2) You have a lot of money, so it's no big deal,

___3) You have the cash, or are willing to get the cash, and
you would rather send it in than think about what the
government might do to either you or your driver's license if
you don't.

If your answer was a), bravo; you have a don't mess with me attitude. But they still
have your name and "number", and if they were to come across you again, you will still
have to deal with it. If your answer was b), good for you, but if you go into court and say
you weren't speeding, while the cop says you were, the judge will find you guilty and make
you pay the fine. If you answered c1), you're not paying attention. If you answered c2),
you're also a fool like c1) only you allow government agents to do what they want to you so
as not to have a confrontation. If your answer was c3), you live in fear. You fear the
"government". You cannot live in a condition of Tranquility if you have fear. Rather than
living in a condition of Tranquility you are living in one of Tyranny.

"When the government fears the people you have freedom,

when the people fear the government you have Tyranny."

--Thomas Jefferson.

Here's another test you can take to find out if you live in fear of government agents.
Are you the type who drives down the highway with the fear of being pulled over by the
police? Are you the type of person who hits the breaks (if only for a split second) each time
you see a police car, or what you think might be a police car, whether you are speeding or
not, much like a pavlov dog, who's conditioned/response is, see cop - hit breaks?

Admit it, most Americans live in fear of these extortionists who hid on the side of
1
the road waiting for someone to stop and demand money from because they took their car
over a certain speed. This is all ridiculous as well as dangerous. Who reading this can say
that they have never been in the situation of where they are driving down the highway when
all of a sudden the flow of traffic starts to dramatically slow down and box everyone in, thus
creating a danger to everyone entering that pocket, and for no other reason then because
there was a police car on the side of the road? This panic breaking is very hazardous, and is
something created by the police just by their presence. And this fear of the police has gotten
so great that now it doesn't even have to be a police car people see for them to hit the
breaks. Now, those people who live in the most fear are hitting the breaks whenever they
see any car pulled over to the side of the road in fear that it might be one of those
governmental agents looking to get money off them. And it doesn't even matter if the driver
is speeding or not. The fear of being harassed by the police is so great that it has travelers
constantly searching the sides of the road for them and hitting the breaks whenever any car
is spotted. Do you travel in a condition of tranquility, or tyranny?

You see, my kind of loyalty is to one's country, not to its

institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the
substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over,
and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are
its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged,
cease to be comfortable, cease to protect... I was from
Connecticut, whose Constitution declares "that all political
power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their benefit; and that they have at all times an
undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of
government in such a manner as they may think expedient
Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks he sees that the
commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his
peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a
traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay,
does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is the
duty of the others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as
he does.
From,
A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court
By: Mark Twain (Chapter XIII)

2
 THE DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGNTY

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for All people
to dissolve the political Bonds which have subjected them by oppression, and
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.--
We hold these truth to be self-evident, that All of mankind are created
equal, being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
That to secure these rights, Governments have been instituted, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed.--
That whenever Any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, instituting a new
Government, and laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, in most
cases, experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when a large record of abuses and usurpations from that
Government continually pursuing the People, showing a design to reduce them
under absolute Tyranny, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such evil, and
provide new Guards for their future security.--
Such has been the patient perseverance of these People; and such is now
the necessity which constrains them to alter their former $y$tem of Government.--
The form of the present government has taken that of a living organism
feeding off the fears of the people who submit to it. Its history is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having an exact purpose of establishing an
absolute Tyranny over these people. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a
candid world.--
It has refused Its approval to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
the earthly good.--
It has repeatedly arrested and murdered the inhabitants, for opposing, with
firmness, its invasions on their rights.--
It has refused, for too long a time, the legislative powers being in direct
control of the People; statutizing basic freedoms into "laws", which It compels the
People to subject to.--
It has endeavored to prevent the People of this land, and those from the
lands it gained through conquest - which it claims dominion over - sovereign rule,
through misrepresentation and the creation of the 14th Amendment (1868). And it
has shown ignorance about its station in life, by claiming to hold the rights to all the
property, when It was created by the People, who belong to the land.--
It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing us Article III
3
courts, and has conspired with others, foreign and domestic, fictitious and real, to
retain claim to Titles of Nobility and subjugate us under a jurisdiction foreign to Our
constitution, and unacknowledged by Our laws; giving its approval to their Acts of
pretended Legislation:--
For stationing large amounts of armed agents among us:--
For protecting them, by a panel/commission of investigators or by mock
Trials, from punishment for any Murders or other violations of rights they should
commit on the People of this land and others:--
For cutting off free Trade between the People:--
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:--
For seizing our property without just compensation:--
For depriving us, in almost every case, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:--
For transporting us around this land to be tried for pretended offenses
(victimless crimes):--
For denying us to live by the Common Law:--
For covering-up the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified
1819:--
For granting banking and law charters, which led to the establishment of
private banks and courts, which led to the bankruptcy of this nation, and the
creation of statutory jurisdiction for its administration, thus altering fundamentally
the Form of Our Government:--
For secretly suspending the constitution, and declaring itself invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:--
For entering into secret treaties:--
For disregarding the Bill of Rights.--
It has sent our People to foreign lands, often against their will, to fight in
wars without the Consent of the legislatures.
It has demonstrated imperialism by invading foreign lands, establishing
therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in those
countries.--
It has stationed foreign Armies on this land.--
It has erected a multitude of New Offices, Commissions, Bureaus,
Agencies, and Departments, and sent out swarms of Agents to harass the People,
and eat out their substance.--
It has declared war on us, by compelling us to perform in accordance with
"statutory" jurisdiction.--
It has given Judges a percentage of the fine money collected by them
through deferred compensation.--
It has affected to render its agents independent of, and superior to, the Civil
power.--
It has destroyed our forests, contaminated our lands, poisoned our seas,
polluted our air, and unsettled our minds.--
It is, at this time, conspiring with the United Nations, the controller of large
Armies of foreign Governments, to complete the works of death, destruction and
tyranny; already having shown circumstances of Cruelty & treachery almost
4
paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized
nation.--
It has coerced our fellow Brothers and Sisters, through the use of
institutions and intimidation, to bear false witness in favor of its fraud; to become
the oppressors and executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves
by their laws and hands.--
It has excited domestic descent among us, and has endeavored to bring on
the inhabitants of this land: racial strife, additive drugs, colorable money, deadly
ailments, and matters of no real importance, in an attempt at dividing us, so they
may conquer.--
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress of
Grievances. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Government, whose nature is thus marked by every act which may define a
Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.--
We have been trying to educate our agent brothers and sisters. We have
failed, from time to time, to warn them of attempts by their fellow agents, to extend
an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have failed in reminding them of the
circumstances of their employer's creation here. We will, however, summon them,
by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which will
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been
deaf to the voice of justice and of brotherhood. We must, therefore, submit to the
necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of
mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.--
We, therefore, the natural born inhabitants of the united states of America,
planet earth, in Council Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of all worlds
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the like
People of these lands, solemnly publish and declare: That these Free and
Independent inhabitants are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Sovereign to any
ruler; that we are Absolved from all Subjugation of the United States Government,
and that all political connection between us and any government we choose not to
give consent to, is, and ought, to be totally ignored, or dissolved; and that as
Sovereign People, we have full Power to have Arguments, conclude Peace, make
friends, trade freely, travel uninterrupted, and do all other Acts and Things which
Sovereigns may of right do.--
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Wisdom, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and
our sacred Honor.

5
 PRELUDE

What is meant by "The Fourth American Revolution"? Opening this book

means you are the type of person who can see what is going on enough to know
that something is about to happen. A revolution? Perhaps. But what is
"revolution".

The term "revolution" alone symbolizes some form of radical change. We

often think of it in the terms of war. In that, the word becomes synonymous with:
anarchy, disorder, insurrection, lawlessness, mutiny, sedition, coup d'etat, revolt,
and rebellion. But the word "revolution" came about after Galileo stated that the
earth was not flat, stationary, nor the center of the universe, but revolved in
revolutions about the sun. That didn't hold well with the Church boys who
threatened to burn him at the stake if he didn't take it back, so he did. But his
discovery was a radically different view of the planet, and to call the popular belief
of that time wrong was a courageous and intensely fundamental challenge to the
ideology of the powers-that-were (-are?). Henceforth, the term "revolution"
became connected with any new, and what could be considered "improved", or
"radical", idea of replacing the old form or theory with a new one. Any subsequent
challenges to established ideology, political (economic) power, cultural norms, etc.,
which approached the magnitude of Galileo's, were thus termed as Galileo's
"revolution" or revolutionary.

The above example of the term revolution illustrates that the use of the term
"revolution" is not in the least useful compared with a good description of the thing
itself. What is genuine, political, economic, cultural, psychological, spiritual,
peoples', lasting revolution? Something(s) that will secure the blessings of Liberty
for ourselves and our posterity? While that's a very complex and personal process
which will be addressed more later, most of all, what is suggested by the "Fourth
American Revolution"?

We all know of the Revolutionary War, and, if one thought about it you
could include the Civil War. That also was a "revolution". That makes two. But
where are the other two? One is not the Industrial Revolution.

To me, the "Fourth American Revolution" is the same as the "Last

American Revolution", which is the same as the "First American Revolution", which
is known to most as the "Only American Revolution". In the words of Janice
Joplin, "it's all the same shit man. You know?"

From the top, let's get the names right. The first we all know as the
American Revolution, or the Revolutionary War. This matched the English
colonies of North America against Great Britain; a war which lasted from 1775 to
1783. Call it what you like, but in all actuality, this was the War For Independence.
Its motives were recorded in what is known as the Declaration of Independence
and are enshrined in the National Archives.
6
 What I consider the second revolution could have been called the "War For
Reaffirmation"; better known as Shays' Rebellion.

The Declaration Of Independence states:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among

Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed,--"

so this exalted document makes it clear that any government can only get its form
of existence from the "consent" of the people it is to govern. Without that consent,
the government lacks representation of the People and becomes a nuisance; a
tyrant, subjecting the people to its will. It goes on to state:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of

these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Daniel Shays was a captain in that war to secure those words. Obviously
he believed in them. So, when the people of Massachusetts (who began fighting
for independence from the British two years before the other colonies joined) felt
their economy was not doing very well and no longer wanted to give consent to the
government created by the Articles of Confederation, it was Daniel Shays who lead
the way of what would become known as Shays' Rebellion; a war which lasted
from 1786-87. This became the first example of what would happen to anyone
trying to go against the new "company". With Jefferson away in France, liberty,
and the Declaration of Independence, would become an illusion. (Shay's
Rebellion may even have been the reason why John Jay, the first Chief Justice to
the Supreme Court, wanted to merge New England with New York. Rather, I'll bet,
it was the reason why they broke it apart into new, smaller states.)

So what was going on? Here was a state who felt it was "the right of the
people to alter or abolish" the existing form of government, which was now vested
under the Articles of Confederation, and "institute" a "new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." If this was the truth to
be followed, than why weren't they permitted to just do it? Why did their have to
be a war?

Something isn't right. A country which fought for independent forms of

government, declaring it was a natural right to do so, would not let one of their own
live by those words? It's a little too confusing. I wonder how it would have been
dealt with if the author of the Declaration Of Independence, Thomas Jefferson,
7
wasn't out of the country being a diplomat in Europe. I'd bet he would have had a
thing or two to say about it. Rather, the new Federal Government was going to
seize absolute power of the land, and control of its people, and "beat" any
"resistance" to it. Basically, this action showed that the new government was
outlawing Jefferson's words of wisdom. They may have succeeded from British
rule, but no one was going to succeed from their rule. What a shame; not ten
years after the Declaration Of Independence and already it had been forgotten.

Request for reaffirmation of those sacred words: D E N I E D !

So Shays' Rebellion is what we could consider the "Second American

Revolution", or the "Second War For Independence", or "The War For
Reaffirmation". That would take us to the third: The American Civil War.

Disguised by the federal government under the name Civil War, this was
again a test of reaffirmation of the principles of America. To the states, which
formed the now defunct, yet still lawfully existing, Confederate States of America,
this "Third War For Independence", or "Second War For Reaffirmation", was the
War For Southern Independence.

The federal government can call Shays' Rebellion, or the Civil War,
insurrection all they want. The British said the same about them. Only their
definitions between rebellion and civil insurrection, compared to revolution, arise
from the fact that Great Britain was a foreign government; foreign to the extent that
they were from a land overseas. But any form of government, which does not
have the consent of the people, is foreign to their nature. That is what Jefferson is
saying. The mere fact of where those governments are located makes no
difference. If I give no consent to anyone to govern me, then I give no consent to
anyone to govern me. ANYONE. No matter where the headquarters for that body
of people calling themselves a government is located; whether it be in London,
Mexico City, Paris, or even Washington D.C.. If I give them no consent, then they
have no authority over me. And if they try to continue to rule over me, then they
become an organism practicing tyranny against me.

The Confederate States of America were invaded by the United States of

America and lost. Only "reaffirming" what it was Massachusetts had already
learned almost 80 years previous; that no body of people on this land will make a
declaration of independence against a government created by the people - for the
people. So much for the land of the free.

This all brings us to what has become the "Fourth American Revolution".
Take a look around. People are already standing up for their sovereign rights. A
whole new breed of "revolutionaries" are springing up all over the place; not to
mention militias. These people are saying "no" to tyranny. These people are
making a "Declaration of Sovereignty".

8
 For "all men," and women, "are created equal," being "endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness." And "when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
1
and to provide new Guards for their future security."

These works will go on to show the reader just what kind of a mess we are
in, how we got here, and where we are headed if we don't invoke our right to "alter
or to abolish it." This book is current news and information about our country and
planet not seen on TV nor read in the paper. And it only scratches the surface. It
is a history lesson, not taught in high schools, as well as lessons, not taught in law
schools, for fighting this "revolution" in the present, in order to correct the misdeeds
of the past, so that a war can be avoided in the future. Remember that revolution
does not have to entail war, but rather, new ideas for changes in ideology and form
- which hopefully will not have to be secured by guns. These are the works of
many authors, known and unknown and dedicated to freedom. They are truths
about our "trustworthy" government, which should be understood by everyone,
most of which should be practiced by none, so that we could all live as one.

What you are about to read is a conspiracy theory so extra-ordinary, that to

call it a theory would be like calling a butterfly a caterpillar, the Mona Lisa another
picture, a Red Giant just another star, or Jesus Christ a wise man. Most of you will
understand the illustration I draw with hardly any waste of time. Others will gaze
about it - knowing something is there, yet not fully aware of how it all has to do with
you. You might as well know now, if you are going to use any of this, you better
first learn all of it. Read it through and understand. I'm sure that some will scoff at
its truths. They will want to hold on to their illusion until it either slaps them in the
face or buries them six feet underground. I don't know...I don't find it so hard to
believe. But if you are the type of person who thinks their government can do no
harm, or the type of person who is living fat off the $y$tem, you won't want to
believe this. To do so would go against everything you currently believe in. But
that is the beauty of the reckoning; it all happening at the point of "free your mind,
and your ass will follow."

Quoted words courtesy of Thomas Jefferson.

9
 I

WHAT IS THIS!

Six up, five-O, one-time, the man, the fuzz, pigs, coppers blue-coats, blue-
meanies, cops, Johnny Law, the city's "finest", are some of the more colorful terms
given to denote the police. But why is it that we refer to our "peace officers" with
such disrespectful terms? For those who use such expressions it is usually
because they have received nothing more then insolence from the very same
people sworn to "uphold the law".

The job of the police is to serve and protect. But who or what is it they are
serving or protecting when they use their position of power and public trust as a
means for harassing and intimidating the very same people they are supposedly
serving? It isn't the common man. No. It is the esquires: the judges and lawyers
who make the most profit by having us hauled into court.

The United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, yet it
contains 85 percent of the world's lawyers who take $750 billion [could be more
today] a year out of our hands. Couple that with the fact that we also have the
most people per capita imprisoned than any other country on the planet and it
becomes quite obvious that WE ARE living in a police state.

"We realize that the police power is elastic to meet changing

conditions and changing needs, yet it cannot be used to abrogate or
limit personal liberty or property rights contrary to constitutional
sanction." City of Cincinnati v. Correll, 49 N.E. 2d 412, 414; 141
Ohio St. 535

But who is it that we have locked up? Who are these people who pose
such threat to society that they must be removed from it? Is it that America is such
a violent country that many of our citizens must be caged? Do we inflict such
violence on each other to justify the spending of $35 billion for the building of new
prisons and for the outfitting of 100,000 new peace officers for the purpose of
serving and protecting?

10
 According to the 1992 Source Book, in 1991 America had over 1.2 million of
2
the adult population incarcerated. Over 10.5 million of the over 14 million people
who were arrested, passed through some form of lock-up. The state prisons had
3
711,643 people locked-up in 1991. According to the people who did the survey,
4
7,462 of them were being held for no reason they could determine . And of the
79,485 people being incarcerated in the Federal pen system, 47,316, or 55% of
5
them, were being held for violating some drug prohibition law .

Combined State and Federal prison populations have increased 400%

between the years of 1970 and 1990. In 1970 there were 200,000 prisoners. The
population increased 50% in 1980 to roughly 300,000 prisoners. However, by
1990 there were around 800,000 people being held behind the bars of these two
institutions. This is a 166% increase in the prison population since Ray-gun and
Bush took office; over 1/2 million new people being stripped of their personal
liberty.

So what is really going on? Is America becoming more violent? Maybe.

For violence is something "marked by unjust exercise of force; harsh; severe; to
6
take violent measures." But where there is no victim, there is no crime. And most
of the 10 1/2 million people who enter jails every year are arrested not because
they did damage to some other's life, liberty, or personal happiness, but because
7
they did or had something some others said they could not do or have. Thus, an
"unjust exercise of force" was thrust upon them by "agents of the state".

 Table 4.1 1993 Sourcebook.

 Tables 6.69 and 6.70, pages 622-623, U.S. Department of Justice, 1992
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Tables 6.41 and 6.42, pages 612-
613, 1993 Sourcebook.
 Ibid.
 Table 6.67, page 630, 1993 Sourcebook.
 Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary Of The
English Language, Encyclopedic Edition, 1980. J.G. Ferguson Publishing
Company.
 Permission to do or possess something which you could normally do without
some high mucky-muck telling you could not without their say-so is called a
license.
11
 II

THE FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF

Who is the Plaintiff?

Who (or what), are those so-called "agents of the state"? It is obvious they
are the perpetrators of this increase of violence in America. An agent, by clear
definition, is:

"a means by which something is done" by "any force or substance

having power to effect a material change in bodies." It is "one who
8
or that which acts for another...who transacts business for another" .

So these agents are the people who are working for, and in the name of, "another".
That "another" is the plaintiff.

When the plaintiff is the state, the real people working together acts and
transacts business for it. They become the means for which something is done;
i.e. pulling your car over to the side of the road and arresting you for not having a
"license" and seeing to it that your personal liberty is taken away as a result. The
agents must work together for this because the plaintiff, the accuser, the real party
with a dispute, is not a "real" party at all. It is a fiction; made up solely on paper. It
has many names, some of which are, "The Town of...", "The City of...", "The State
of...", or even, "The United States of America". It is of no real substance; only
existing as long as the agents exist and work together.

Is the peace officer who arrested you for not having a driver's license an
"agent of the state"? Of course, and so is every one else involved in compelling
you to change the material surroundings of your body.

First, a force "having power to effect a material change in bodies"

just created a material change in yours when s/he changed your
body from being in motion to one at rest. Then, because you didn't
have "the proper papers", you were arrested and brought to the
county jail. Your body was held, against its will, and a totally different
body was put into motion, changing its surroundings, by placing it in
the office of a bail bondsmen, then later, with the cop at the desk, so
that your body could try to pick up where it left off when it had its
direction changed from going home...to going to jail.

Is the person who tells the cop to arrest you for not having permission to

 Ibid, footnote #5, page 27.

12
operate your private property an agent of the state? Yes. His trip is, you have to
give him money in exchange for the permission of operating yours, or anyone
else's, internal combustion engine propelled vehicle. S/he too, is a force "having
power to effect a material change in bodies". They help to change the material
surroundings of your body by having you either; a) get a job so you can give the
"agent of the state" federal reserve notes -- at which point they "effect a material
change" with trees, oil, and other bodies, by magically producing a cardboard and
plastic "permission card" to operate privately owned internal combustion engine
propelled vehicles, -- or b) have your body go to jail and/or get a job in order to give
the "another" federal reserve notes in exchange for not going to jail or not having
to go or stay in jail any longer.

The above form of extortion restricts your freedom and places you in a
condition of involuntary servitude. When you are a free person you can just get in
your car and go. However, when you are told by force/agents that you must raise
and come up with Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for having the permission to
do that which you could normally do under the common law -- without some high
and mighty telling you that you can only drive a car if they say you can -- you are
placed in a position of involuntary servitude. In fact, any form of permission, a.k.a.
license, is a form of involuntary servitude. Also, too, any "fines" imposed on you is
the same. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition defines involuntary servitude as:

"The condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or

imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is
paid or not. Slavery, peonage, or compulsory labor for debts; all of
which are prohibited by the 13th Amendment, U.S. Constitution."

Peonage, as further defined by Black's, is:

"A condition of servitude (prohibited by 13th Amendment)

compelling persons to perform labor in order to pay off a debt."

They define "compulsory" as an adjective meaning:

"Involuntary; forced; coerced by legal process or by source of

statue."

Slavery is the condition of a slave and a slave is defined by Black's as:

"A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has
no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly
under the control of another."

The 13th Amendment, ratified December 6, 1865, states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a

13
 punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
9
their jurisdiction .
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriated legislation.

Section two of the 13th Amendment (1865) gives congress the "power to
enforce this article by appropriated legislation." Chapter 77 of Title 18 is devoted
to just that. Title 18 U.S. Code, sec. 1581, Peonage; obstructing enforcement,
states:

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage,

or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning
him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined not more than $5,000
or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) Whoever
obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or
prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the
penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

Any person who assists in creating a reality from a fiction is in essence an

"agent" from which the new body (a.k.a. the government) gets its "force or
substance having power to effect a material change in bodies". (It is a reality, of the
arrest, that your body was moved into a different material surrounding against your
better judgment about where it should rather be at that time.) When most people
are arrested, none of the "agents" acting for this phony "person" has had their
10
personal life, liberty, or property damaged in any way by the person accused of,
and compelled to answer for, being a criminal. This kind of treatment by the agents
(a.k.a. "force or substance having power to effect a material change in bodies") is
a form of violence because it is something marked by "an unjust exercise of force"
(a.k.a. agent), and, I would think, goes against "Domestic Tranquillity". How can
the so-called plaintiff be an injured party to a suit based on law when not only does
the plaintiff nor the law not exist in substance, but also when none of the
force/agents -- who do exist in substance yet only act for the plaintiff -- was party to
an injury in any way at all?
11
My friend Ken Dill was arrested on trumped up "governmental" laws

 The signers of the Declaration of Independence state in the second

sentence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Your personal
property are things which make you happy. You only keep those things which
make you happy. Even if you keep those that make you sad it still makes you
happy knowing you can be sad if you want.
 Kenneth Dill, patriot, is college educated. He is vice-president of a health
14
(victimless crimes). However, when his case was called by the judge back in
December of 1992, Ken's response to the charges was anything but routine for the
force/agents of Carmel, New York, who impose this form of extortion every day.

Judge Stockfield called the case and asked if both "parties" were present -
at which point Ken walked up and said, "The plain-tiff motions to dismiss all
charges against Kenneth F. Dill."

"The Plaintiff," asked the judge.

"That's right, the plaintiff," answered Dill.

Stockfield quickly responded, "But there is no plaintiff," at which point he

paused for a split second, then promptly diverted everyone's attention from the
boo-boo by stating, "...ah the matter before the court is..." Babble-on, babble-on,
Babylon.

After the judge had read the "charges", and asked Ken if he understood
them, Ken began to question him as to the "nature" of the plaintiff.

"It says here the plaintiff is the 'People of the state of New York'..."

Stockfield eagerly replied, as if he had been given a way around his boo-
boo, "That's right, the 'People of the state of New York', as represented by A.D.A.
Mary Jane McCrae."

"I'm one of the people," Dill told the judge as he pointed his index finger
back at himself.

"That's right Mr. Dill, you are."

"Then I would like to see the signed power of attorney..."

At that point, Ken was cut off by the judge. Stockfield had to once more
bounce around the "no plaintiff" boo-boo. Again he quickly read the charges and
asked my friend if he understood them and was he ready to plea. Further attempts
to ascertain the true "nature" of the plaintiff and the charges were met by "Judge"
Stockfield having him held for a mental evaluation to determine if he was
competent to stand trial. Basically, Stockfield had to silence him. Assistant District
Attorney Mary Jane McCrae did not have any signed power of attorney to
represent the plaintiff because there was "no plaintiff".

food store in upstate New York.

15
Where did the Plaintiff come from?

This all raises the question, what is really going on? Who, or what, gives
any person the right to impose an alien value system on others? Are the peace
officers serving or protecting you? No. Is the judge protecting your inherent
rights? No. The only thing they are serving or protecting is their paycheck by
creating "criminal" statistics in an attempt at bolstering a belief that they are
necessary and should be given more money for doing their job. They have neither
served nor protected anyone from you (or you from a tyrannical government) when
they stopped and arrest you for not having the proper permission for doing what it
is they say you need permission to do. There has been no injury to any other's
personal life, liberty, or property.

The United States of America was founded on the principles of The

Declaration of Independence. The first sentence said it all:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for

one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
12
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.

While this is the preamble to their grievances, the statement "to assume among
the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature
and of Nature's God entitle them...", is an anarchist manifesto dissolving the
political bonds [on them] for a system of common law.

Common law is what America was founded on. It is the law of nature and
God's law. It is written in Exodus, chapter 20. This is the "law" of the planet. It
shows us how to respect God's creations, which we are a part of. In common law
you have at least two real people with a problem between them. One has injured
anothers personal life, liberty, or property. This form of law says you can do
anything you please as long as you do not cause injury to another.

During these days of old there were no fictitious plaintiffs claiming a conflict
between you and it through the help of a force/agent. If you had a dispute with
another person who had caused injury to your life, liberty, or property, you, or a
friend, and that other person, or their friend, told your stories before a jury or panel

 Again, here is that "another" that the force/agents of some fiction

mentioned earlier makes happen.
16
of judges. Neither of you were represented by a force/agent. Both stood there
and told their side of the story.

So where did "the law" come from? That was something we were all
conned into with the drafting of the Con-stitution.

From 1787 - 1789 a group of lawyers, politicians, businessmen, bankers,

and landowners got together and formed the corporate United States. The Con-
stitution is nothing more then their corporate charter laying down the parameters
for which this business would be conducted.

The prelude to The Constitution Of The United States declares,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Right away it tells who is establishing this charter. "We the People," are the
real people acting as the agents for the creation of this charter. "Of the United
States," would tend to indicate that these very same people come from a territory
described in The Declaration Of Independence. However, throughout the Articles
of Confederation, that territory is written as "united states", and this is written as
"United States". Therefore, that would lead me to believe that perhaps they are
speaking of this new "United States" which was going to replace the old "united
states". Next, the way they capitalize the word "Order" shows us how serious they
were about having Order. Does this part of the sentence suggest that the people
who were going to sign this charter were all "in place" "to form a more perfect
Union", or is it just an explanation as to why they were forming this new
corporation?

The prelude goes on to state what these people are going to do and how.
Number one, "establish Justice". That's the big one. That's the first point they want
to get across; we are going to establish Justice. Justice is a heavy word if you look
it up in the dictionary. According to Funk & Wagnalls, it's a, "Conformity in conduct
or practice to the principles of right or of positive law; regard for or fulfillment of
obligations; rectitude; honesty." Well, that's good. If they're going to play this
corporate game, better they do it in this manner. And hey, it is great to know that
their business provides that service for me. Maybe I'll call them if I ever want their
help in settling a dispute between me and someone else. Number two, "insure
domestic Tranquility", is a pretty cool thing to have. But does this mean that, like
an insurance agent, they are going to buy and place a policy on domestic
Tranquility and then cash it in when it ceases to be? Tranquility is another big
word. My Funk & Wagnalls has that one as, "the state of being tranquil; rest;
quiet." Tranquil is defined as, "1 Free from agitation or disturbance; calm: said of
17
persons. 2 Quiet and motionless: said of things." So I hope this means that these
people who are going to be part of this corporation are going to see to it that they
give this to the domestic public. (Lord knows that fighting the British crown for 8
years has me wanting to be "free from any agitations or disturbances" from some
other form of government.) Number three declares that they will, "provide for the
common defense". Good, I'm glad someone out there is going to
provide/acquire/get/buy the equipment needed to defend the little states from any
foreign invasions. God knows I don't have the money to donate to the cause.
Next they say they are going to "promote the general Welfare". That's
humanitarian of them. Lastly, they say they are going to "secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". By this do they mean they are going to
secure, as in not let get away, the Blessings of Liberty just for themselves to have?
By "ourselves" and "our Posterity" are they just speaking of the "people" in the
"We the People" who are about to sign this charter, or is everyone else not
involved in the signing part of the "our" in "ourselves"? Just who were they really
creating this charter for?

Those are the things this new business is going to do. They sum up the
introduction with how they are going to do what it is they say they will; "do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words;
do enact a permanent charter for the corporation known as the United States of
America.

"The office and purpose of the constitution is to shape and fix the limits of
governmental activity. It thus proclaims, safeguards and preserves in basic form
the pre-existing laws, rights, mores, habits and modes of thought and life of
the people as developed under the common law and as existing at the time of
its adoption to the extent and as therein stated." Dean v. Paolicelli, 72 S.E. 2d
506, 510; 194 Va. 219 (1952).

"Hence, it may be said with great propriety, that a constitution

'measures the powers of the rulers, but it does not measure the
rights of the governed;' that it is not the origin of rights, nor the
fountain of law-but it is the 'framework of the political government,
and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws, rights,
habits, modes of thought'" Cooley Con. Lim., 37. Atchinson &
Nebraska R. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 41.

The Con-stitution of the United States is a corporate charter for the United
States of America -- the corporation. A corporation is:

"An artificial person created by law, consisting of one or more

natural persons united in one body under such grants as secure a
succession of the body, and empowered to act in a certain capacity
or to transact business of some designated form or nature like a

18
 13
natural person".

It is "an artificial person"; it's made up; it's a fiction of someone's imagination.

Is that what makes the United States of America a corporation? Yes. And
the Con-stitution is their charter because it is:

"an act of incorporation of a municipality, company, institution, or the

like; a writing permitting the establishment of a branch or chapter of a
14
society; a document granting special rights or privileges."

So the next time you are up in front of a judge ask him "who" the plaintiff is. Then
ask him how a fiction can have a problem with a reality. There's nothing to fear; it
doesn't exist.

 Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary Of The

English Language, Encyclopedic Edition. 1980.
 Ibid.
19
 III

THE SCAM

Tyranny

This scam of the fictitious plaintiff goes on deeper; and even deeper than I
can explain.

Earlier, I used the word extortion. In law, extortion is:

"the offense, committed by an official, of taking money under color

of his office, with the consent of the victim, either where none is due,
15
in excess of what is due, or before it is due."

Extortion is the act of extorting. And to extort is:

"to obtain from a person by violence, threat, oppression, or abuse of

16
authority."

"Y/our" federal government even has a statute proscribing extortion; Title 18,
United States Code, section 872 Extortion by officers or employees of the United
States, declares that:

"Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any

department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or
assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or
employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined
not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed
$100, he shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both."

So exactly what did I mean by "the force/agents who impose this form of
extortion every day?"

Whenever anyone extorts there are two factors involved. First, the person
doing the extorting wants "to obtain" something from the person being extorted.
And second, the person doing the extorting is going "to obtain" what it is they want

 Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary Of The

English Language, Encyclopedic Edition. 1980. Page 450.
 Ibid.
20
by the use of either "violence, threat, oppression, or abuse of authority." Are the
force/agents of the state trying to get something from you by the use of "violence,
threat, oppression, or abuse of authority"? Let's figure it out.

We already learned that violence is an unjust use of force and that an agent is
a force. A threat is:

"a menace; especially, any menace of such a nature and extent as

to unsettle the mind of the person on who it operates, and to take
away from his acts that free and voluntary action which alone
constitutes consent. A declaration of one's purpose or intention to
work injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with a view of
17
restraining such person's freedom of action."

Oppression is the act of oppressing. And to oppress someone is:

"to burden or keep in subjugation by harsh and unjust use of force

18
or authority; tyrannize."

To subjugate someone is:

"1 To bring under dominion; conquer; subdue. 2 To make

19
subservient in any way; enslave."

A slave is:
20
"a person who is wholly subject to the will of another."

And to tyrannize is:

"1 to exercise power cruelly or unjustly. 2 To rule as a tyrant; have

21
absolute power."

An "abuse of authority"? You bet 'cha.

Violence, threats, oppression, and an abuse of authority is exactly what the

force/agents are using when they tell you to pay the fine or go to jail. If your
answer to the questionnaire was c3), and you live in fear of "governmental agents",

 Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 1327.

 Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary Of The
English Language, Encyclopedic Edition. 1980.
 Ibid.
 Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.
 Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary Of The
English Language, Encyclopedic Edition. 1980.
21
is not that fear brought about by there threats? That is, are they not a menace of
such nature and extent as to unsettle your mind and take away your free and
voluntary actions? Is this not extortion? Is this not oppression? Is this not
tyranny?

Oppression laws are definitely the force/agent's declaration of their intention

(extortion for a compelled performance) to work injury to your person
(incarceration), property (money, car, land, etc.) or rights to do whatever it is you
want so long as it doesn't injury another's life, liberty, or property, with a view of
restraining your freedom of action. Oppression keeps people in subjugation. It
enslaves. It makes you "wholly subject to the will of another." (There's that
"another" again.) Do you want to be made a subject? You already were.

But you say you are an American citizen and not a subject. No you're not. The
noun "subject" is,

"One who is under the governing power of another, as of a ruler or

22
government, especially of a monarch."

When they "subject" you as an adjective you become a, "being under the power of
23
another; owing or yielding obedience to sovereign authority."

Now, a sovereign is,

"One who possesses supreme authority, especially a person or a

determinate body of persons in whom the supreme power of the
24
state is vested; a monarch."

And a monarch is,

"A sovereign, as a king or emperor....one who or that which

25
surpasses others of the same kind."

The Monarchy and Other Titles of Nobility

When we commonly speak of the Crown, we are typically speaking about

monarchies (sovereigns); those kings, queens, dukes, barons, knights, squires,
esquires, and the likes of which our forefathers fought so diligently to rid
themselves of; those people who claimed to be sovereign over others; the people

 Ibid. Page 1248.

 Ibid.
 Ibid. Page 1201.
 Ibid. Page 821.
22
who inspired American patriots to take up arms and decree the Declaration of
Independence.

"But this is America, those people don't live here. Right?" Wrong. Not only
do they live here, but they operate the corporation known as the United States of
America.

All, but a few, of the signers of the U.S. Constitution were men who held
prominent positions in their "colonies". There were 39 of them all together,
representing 11 different occupations. But the interesting aspect about our
"signers" is that 19 of the 39 were lawyers; one a banker; and one a financier,
Robert Morris, who was born in England and who also signed both the Declaration
of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The other 18 signers took up
the remaining 8 occupations.

So what does all that have to do with anything? Well, half of the signers
were lawyers. Lawyers love law. They're lawYEaRnS. They yearn for disputes
between neighbors and/or fictitious plaintiffs. They live, parasitically, off the
anguish and/or greed of either party. So it should come as no surprise that most
of the people who brought us law (or is that "U.S. law"), via the Con-stitution, were
lawYEaRnS.

"So what," you might say. Well, have you ever hired a liar, I mean a lawyer, or
been up in front of a judge? Ever notice the title given to them after their name? It
says "esquire". An esquire is a title of nobility ranking under that of the knight.

"The word esquire, es squire, means of the squire. Squire is a

perversion of the Egyptian word square; which was a masons tool for
building schemes like pyramids. In heraldry, esquire is a rank just
below knight and above gentleman. The squire bears the shield for
his knight in the same manner as Sancho performed for Don Quixote
in the writing of Cervantes. The knights scored well on the crusades
and became the bankers. "You can't be a lawyer if you don't
26
represent banks." Remember, Ms Hillary in Chicago?"

"But knights and esquires are of the British Royalty, right?" Right. But if
you look at the American Bar Association (ABA), you will come to learn that they
are a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain. And let's not forget our
former esquire president George Herbert Walker Bush, Esq. After he lost the
presidency he was promoted by the Queen of England. That is to say, he was
knighted. He is now Sir George Herbert Walker Bush.

Luckily, at least one framer of the Constitution didn't want to play that "king

Reprinted with the permission from David M. Dodge, c/o P.O. Box
610933, Miami, Florida.
23
game". He didn't even want the sorts in their company. That prohibition was
placed in Article I, section 9, at clause 8, and states:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no

Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince, or foreign State.

The Articles of Confederation, agreed to by Congress on November 15, 1777,

and ratified and in force on March 1, 1781, also gave prohibitions to titles of
nobility. Article IV states:

...nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the
united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument,
office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign
states; nor shall the united states in congress assembled, or any of
them, grant any title of nobility.

Not only do we find mention of titles of nobility in these two charters; Article
I, section 9 of The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, unanimously
adopted on March 11, 1861, has the same exact wording as in Article I, section 9
of the U.S Constitution.

So what does it mean: to be granted a Title of Nobility? In Horst v. Moses,

48 Ala. 129, 142 (1872), the court gave the following description:

"To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to

who privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people.
It is not necessary hereditary, and the objection to it arises more
from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise
empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in
the terms 'privilege', 'honor', and 'emoluments', as they are
collectively in the term 'title of nobility'. The prohibition is not affected
by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant."

"After a generation of dealing with the new government established under

the Constitution, it was clear that the allegiance of attorneys and judges was not at
all with the people. The Jay Treaty [named after John Jay] had resulted in the
United States having to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to the British for reparations
27
after we had reportedly won the revolution." In 1789 John Jay became the first
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He received his law
degree from "Kings" College (now known as Columbia University) and was
admitted to "the bar" in 1768. It was because of this treaty that Congress had

Ibid.
24
secretly entered into, in 1794, that the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 was passed
after the treaty was uncovered and published by a grandson of Ben Franklin. The
act was an excuse to arrest and "beat-up" the editors and publishers of
newspapers who wrote unkind things about the conduct of public officials.
Basically, it outlawed freedom of the press. They had hoped it would keep
Jefferson out of the Presidency, but Jefferson won anyway.

Article V of the Constitution creates the boundary for which the corporation
(a.k.a. the "United States of America", a.k.a. "the company") may make
amendments to its charter. On October 27, 1809, an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution was proposed. On March 12, 1819, the 13th amendment became law
of the land in accordance with the provisions of Article V. It reads:

"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or
retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of
congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or
emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or
foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United
States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit
under them, or either of them."

A person with a title of nobility is a person who claims "title" over your life.
Some examples are the landlord, slave master, or esquire. They tell you what you
can and cannot do and will interfere with your Life, Liberty, and pursuit of
Happiness if you do not comply. You pay the rent or the landlord throws you out
on the streets. The slave masters said pick the cotton or get a whipping. The
lawyers claim the power and exercise it as well when they tell you to pay a fine
and/or go to jail, or even worse, to the gas chamber. Total control of your life.

"Under the titles of nobility amendment, the governments [and

those whose allegiance is required by the Article VI to take an Oath
to uphold the Constitution] cannot exercise any claim to eminent
domain; the government cannot subject our homes and lands to
forfeiture; and, it can claim no ownership or right to sell, to the
28
highest bidder, our inalienable or unalienable rights."

This amendment was to outlaw banking and law charters (as well as any
other form of corporate charter). It was through those two institutions that England
was able to keep the people in a condition of economic slavery. This emolument
allows the bankers (knights) to create money, with the stroke of a pen, and, with

 Titles of Nobility...and other usurpations. By David M. Dodge, discoverer

and researcher of the hidden 13th Amendment. To order a copy of his book,
send $25 to David M. Dodge, P.O.B. 610933, N. Miami, Florida 33261. (Price
includes 2-day mail.) [This was written many years ago and I have no idea if
David Dodge is still alive.]
25
the help of the lawyers (esquires), hold people "subject" to it.

Thomas Jefferson once stated:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our

liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a
monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The
issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people to whom it properly belongs."

_____________________

26
 IV
BANKING

What is money?

"The few who understand the system, will either be so

interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors
that there will be no opposition from that class. The
great body of people, mentally incapable of
comprehending the tremendous advantages will bear
its burden without complaint."

-- Rothschild Brothers of London

From a letter dated June 25, 1863.

Thomas Jefferson comments in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query

17, p. 161, 1784:

"Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless...the time for
fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are
honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we
shall be going downhill. It will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights
disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of
making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect
for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked
off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made
heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a
convulsion."

What is the nature of this beast which shackle it to our desires? Why is this
the pursuit of our government officials upon every individual? Why do we have to
raise it every time we need to get the proper "permission" to get married, operate a
car, go fishing, go hunting, start a business, or even leave our spouse, to name a
few? Why is this, in most cases, the demand of the force/agents for our not being
deprived of our liberty, each time they arrest us because we did or had something
some "other" said we could not do or have?

Earlier, I mentioned Federal Reserve Notes. The Federal Reserve Note is

our "money". The forming of the Federal Reserve Bank and the 16th Amendment
happened in the same year. And brother, let me tell you, this was the scam of the
century. How we got there is a disturbing story which will unsettle your mind and
perhaps sadden you.

27
 First, to understand where paper money is coming from, I would like to give
the story Barrie Konicov tells in issue 21 of Connecting Link magazine. It goes:

...Imagine that you are in England around 1660, at a time when the
only money around is gold or silver coins. These are minted and put
into circulation by the king. When the king is short of gold or silver
and in need of something, he adulterates the money by diluting the
gold with copper. The newly minted coins are the same size but with
less gold. If his subjects refuse to accept these adulterated coins, no
matter. The king merely has his court rule that the money is worth
whatever he says it is worth. After all, he is the king.
Imagine you have worked hard and saved some money. Where
will you put that money for safe keeping? In most communities there
is a goldsmith who has a large iron box where he keeps his gold and
silver. You ask the goldsmith to keep your gold and silver in his safe.
He agrees and you pay him a fee for his service. As proof that he
has your gold and silver he issues you a receipt.
The next time you want to buy something, rather than first redeem
your gold and then buy what you want, you use your gold receipt. It
is quicker and easier. As long as the seller can go to the goldsmith
and redeem the certificate for gold, everything works out fine. This is
probably how paper receipts began to circulate as money.
Now, place yourself in the position of the goldsmith. How long
would it take you to figure out that very few people ever come at the
same time to redeem their gold certificates. Maybe one day, like the
king, you find yourself short of gold and silver. Could you say "no" to
temptation, or would you tell yourself, "I'll issue a gold receipt without
any gold to back it up because, after all, who is going to check up on
me. Besides, I'll have the gold in a few days to make it right."
You quickly learn that spending your own gold receipts causes
certain unsettling questions to be asked. You come up with a new
plan that gives you something for nothing but doesn't make it too
noticeable. Your plan is simple; you loan gold receipts and collect
interest. As long as you don't get too greedy, you can get away with
this something for nothing scheme. Soon you and other goldsmith/
bankers are lending four times as many paper receipts as you have
in gold.
This process of the goldsmith/bankers got a boost when the king of
England was in need of a great deal of money to fight a war. The
king turned to William Paterson.
Paterson and his friends pooled their resources and came up with
72,000 L. in gold and silver. But instead of lending the gold and
silver directly to the king, they formed a bank and printed paper
receipts equal to 16-3/4 more than their gold and silver reserves.
They lent the king 1.2 million L. at 8-1/3 percent interest per year.
Their yearly interest was 100,000 L.. The king didn't care; he had a
28
 war to fight. After all, he would simply raise the taxes on his subjects
to pay the interest.
Paterson and his friends were protected. He had the foresight to
lend his paper receipts to the government. Since these receipts
were needed to fight a war, the king couldn't allow them to fail. He
declared them legal tender. These receipts were now regarded the
same as the gold for which they had stood. A new golden rule came
into being: THEM THAT HAVE THE GOLD...RULE!

That's right folks; it's all just a game their playing, where, to get the best
comparison of it, all you have to do is read the rules for the Monopoly game - very
similar. Only in this game going to jail is not a fun three rounds and your out gig.
And your income doesn't really come from just having to walk around city blocks.
But yes, the money is still made up, and, if the banker is good, he can always slide
himself a few extra dollars in the same like manner.

"The titles of nobility amendment prohibited corporate charters.

Corporate charters are titles granted to imaginary, corpora ficta,
entities. They are civil as well as ecclesiastical. They are individual
or group functions such as a king, judge, bishop, or professor for the
former; or, a church, government or university would fall into the
29
latter."

It is obvious that our government does not officially notice the 13th (1819)
Amendment. It is also obvious that this paper money thing has got us all in quite a
compromising situation whenever dealing with any force/agent of the state. So how
come no one ever warned us about what money could do to our country? Well,
someone did.

Essays On Banking

Thomas Jefferson is believed to be the author of a series of banking essays

which were published in a Washington City news-paper known as The Spirit of
Seventy-six. These articles began to appear within two months after the 13th
(titles of nobility) Amendment was introduced to congress. It was probably
because of these essays that the international banksters felt it necessary to fund
England in the War Of 1812. The essays were our warning to be on guard of the
possibility of disaster coming from the banks if we were to allow them to flourish in
this country. They were: a boost for the 13th Amendment. As much as could be
found were transcribed by David Dodge and are included here in this publication.

 Reprinted with the permission from David M. Dodge, c/o P.O. Box 610933,
Miami, Florida.
29
 In the March 16, 1810 publication of the Essay On Banking, Jefferson (if he
be the author) stated:

"The course of reasoning pursued in this essay results in the

definition, that a transfer of property in any form by law, is aristocracy
[nobility or privileged class], and that aristocracy is only a transfer of
property in some form of law. The essential quality of titled
aristocracy [nobility] consisted in an operation on property, which
naturally involved an operation on power. The essential quality of
banking consists in the same operation. Mr. Adams's book is
eminently instructive in proving, that aristocracy has every where
generated calamitous struggles between those who lost, and those
who gained the property it transferred. By creating the cause of the
miseries detailed by Mr. Adams, the miseries will follow. We must
either banish the alien which has crept into our policy, namely a
transfer of wealth by law, or prepare for the atrocities which Mr.
Adams undoubtedly shows must occur, between the enriched and
impoverished parties. He proves that we must prepare for more.
For the refuge which one party will take under a single despot
[tyrant], as more tolerable than a faction enriched by laws; or the
other, to obtain in that despot an ally. Banking it is true, like the
balances, will tell mankind that the mischiefs it produces, and the
frauds it commits, are not the effects of the principle itself, but of its
inartificial texture; and that if we weave the principle properly, it would
come out a beautiful manufacture. But it will also use the old adage
like hierarchical aristocracy, that it is good, if not abused, but
otherwise bad; or to speak plainly, that it is good to pilfer a nation
moderately, or secretly, but bad to push the imposition far enough to
disclose it."

Our founding fathers did not go far enough in their fight. The Revolutionary
War was fought to stop a tyrannical government, which compelled involuntary
servitude on its subjects -- and yet, that is what we live under today. But no one
caught the point. At least, not until the author of the banking essays tried to tell us.

Why could Jefferson not have written this? He was both an idealist and a
realist. He wrote the way it was in the Declaration of Independence. The Articles
of Confederation already laid down the means for operation. And the
Constitution...with Charles Pinckney's and Alexander Hamilton's plan for a strong
central government figure, with powers to control the militia, and mentions of
treason, rebellion and insurrection, coming two years after Shays' Rebellion,
well...Jefferson wasn't "in" on any of that. But in those days the Presidential
candidate did not pick a running mate. Both were voted on separately. That
enabled Jefferson to win vice-president under John Adams -- where I am sure he
was able to keep a watchful eye. Because of his experiences, from: being a
diplomatic commissioner of Congress in Europe and a U.S. diplomatic minister to
30
France under the Articles of Confederation; to being Secretary of State under
George Washington; to being Vice President under John Adams as well as the
third President of the United States, he was able to observe what was going on
and "slip the cat out of bag" to "let us in" on what was happening. This should
have been the focus of the Revolutionary War. But our founding fathers were
naive to it. They were easily led on a path back to the bank and the monarchy.
How could they have known? If any of them had (and there were 19 lawyers and
30
one banker, George Clymer , among the lot), they sure were keeping it to
themselves. The Essay on Banking, however, was clearly written by an insider;
someone who knew the ins and outs and was willing to let us know.

What you have read so far is nothing compared to what is really going on.
To understand "the big picture", one must realize the evil we are up against. We
must identify every aspect of it and see where they blend. The essays were our
warning as to what would happen if the United States started granting charters.
The Constitution never gave congress that power and now they were debating as
to whether or not they should make laws regarding the subject. Article I, section
IX, of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the act of granting titles. Banks, however, had
showed up in five states. It was time to deal with this issue head-on; for there was
now talk about national currency.

What you are about to read will depress you. It may even make you angry.
I believe the collection was written before 1808; perhaps by Jefferson; perhaps
while he was president. It is an in-depth - comprehensive - view of the "world" we
live in. They are predictions come true. The essays show how the granting of bank
charters would lead to law charters, which would all have a monopoly, and for the
sole purpose of collecting taxes. It predicts the coming of special interest groups,
wars for markets, and a loss of capital and industry from the use of paper money
abroad. This is a scary view of our banking $y$tem and how it influences our
commitment to servitude with the help of other corporations known as the I.R.S., or
the A.B.A., or even the U.S.G.. It also makes point to the fact that the United
States is a chartered entity given limited power from the people it governs. It has
no power over them - just the opposite. It tells of the dangers a government faces
when it fails to admit they are entities of limited powers chartered for those
reasons, and those reasons only. And, how for them to grant emoluments for the
purpose of collecting a tax, and imposing law, which make very few rich, while very
many oppressed, will only lead to revolution.

After reading the Essay on Banking, you will better understand the business
of banking and why certain unscrupulous people would labor so hard to see Article
I, sec. 9, and the 13th (1819) Amendment, be forgotten. Pay close attention, for
this is the evil which oppresses.

 George Clymer signed both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.
Constitution.
31
 About the task of reproducing the work, David Dodge states, "a number of
issues are missing; and many are in poor, often barely readable condition; and
where impossible, a blank space or two is entered."

ESSAY ON BANKING
December 29, 1809

SHALL a tax be created for the sake of its expenditure at home? Shall we
foster __________ _________our interests at home, become a contribution
towards that support abroad is an evil, And even these questions would have
resulted in a very simple numerical calculation; namely whether it would be wise
to extract a revenue from the state, payable by all its citizens, except about one
thousand, who should receive it' in order to save half the sum, collected by
citizens of other states, towards the payment of which these thousand also
contributed. This degree of sincerity might reasonably have been expected of
stock itself; but disinterestedness would have added, that the idea of one tax
driving out bank paper issued without the authority of the state was delusive. The
extraneous paper being possessed of the quality which collects the tax; and the
remedy would therefore simply amount to an addition of a new tax to the old. -
Such will continue to be the effect of this remedy of opposing state paper to
extraneous paper, until a state is saturated with the tax. A country is saturated
with debt stock, when it can no longer pay its interests; and with bank stock,
when it can no longer pay its dividends. Whilst Virginia is able to pay the
dividends of her dynasties stock and the same contribution heretofore collected
from her by extraneous paper, one payment will not abolish the other, but both
will be made; and the creation of a bank tax, to expel bank tax only amounts to
the ingenious idea, that one lash will cause the small of another.

The real remedy against strange bank paper, is as visible as light' but it
would lead to discussions which native stock fears to encounter. If bank paper is
a tax gatherer, one state may prohibit the circulation of anothers paper, with as
much propriety, as it could expel tax gatherers in the shape of men,
commissioned by another. No disguise, change of shape, no new dress, can
bestow a right to tax, where no such right exists. But native stock felt its dilemma
an expulsion of strange paper by law, because it was a tax, would have told the
people by law, that native paper was also a tax It preferred therefore the delusion
of an opinion, that one tax would diminish another, as the basis of its own
existence, to an inquiry which might have terminated in the conclusion, that no
legislature in the United States have a better right to tax their constituents for the
benefit of banking corporations, than one state has to tax another state for the
same purpose.

Into this inquiry, let us proceed; beginning with the right of congress to tax
the union for the benefit of a bank corporation. Our arguments will be founded
upon an opinion, that the revenues collected by bank paper, is a tax; of what
species this tax may be, is not very important. But supposing it to be an
32
inevitable' and not a voluntary tax, an apportionment by the census ought to
have attended its infliction; or allotting to any other description of tax, a bank in
each state' or some distribution of stock, would have been necessary for the
sake of uniformity; and both these constitutional principles are violated by a bank
so located, as to enrich one state, and tax another. Considered as a non-descript
species of tax, no power to indict, apportion, or render it uniform, is given to
congress.

In the appropriation, as in the constitutional necessity, either for the

apportionment or uniformity of taxes, will be found a limitation of the power of
congress to tax. An unconstitutional mode of taxing, may inflict partial injuries
upon particular states, but an unconstitutional application of revenue, may be
ruinous to all. It is inconceivable that the Constitution, whilst so cautiously
providing against the first evil, should have overlooked the second. The loosest
security against it is deposited in a limitation of the revenue collected, to the
common defense and general welfare of the United States and the right of
congress to inflict and apply a tax or revenue by bank paper, for the defense or
welfare of a corporation, is visibly beyond the widest definition of its power.
Under the idea of carrying the powers given, into execution, could congress have
invested the parliament of England, with the privileges granted to the bank of the
United States? Such a charter would have bestowed the quality which defines
taxation - revenue. lt will not be contended, that the power to collect and bestow
a revenue upon Aliens is prohibited, but allowed as to citizens. It extends to both,
or neither, and to both it has been extended. And the construction necessary to
invest congress with a power to establish a bank, must open the constitution to
the extent of enabling it to reimburse the English parliament, for the loss of one
indirect mode of taxation, by the donation of another.

Testimony applicable to the question exists without, and within the

constitution. A rejection of a proposal for empowering congress to establish a
bank by the convention, is the evidence without the constitution; and a special
power to grant charters to authors and inventors, is the evidence within it, uniting
in a condemnation of the construction, which claims for congress an unlimited
power of bestowing revenue upon corporations' and literally forbidding that mode
of doing it, called banking. A special and limited power, which includes the
special one.

In most, or all of the state constitutions, diploma, charter, and corporations

are condemned as inimical to liberty, and as usurpations upon mans natural
rights. In none is a power given to the legislature to bestow a revenue, or tax of
any kind upon corporations.

The constitution of Massachusetts declares that "no man, corporation, or

association of men have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and
exclusive privileges distinct from those of the community, than what arises from
the consideration of services rendered the public;" and that of Virginia, "that no
33
man, or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments, or
privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services."

The words common defense, and general welfare twice used in the
constitution of the United States, contain the same principle advanced in the two
last quotations. They are the exact contraries to particular, exclusive or separate
privileges or welfare.

The constitution is quoted, having solemnly enrolled exclusive privileges

and emoluments in the list of tyrannies, proceed to expound the words public
services. These only admitted to possess a legitimate title to exclusive privileges
and emoluments. Had legislatures been left at liberty to extend these words to
whatever they should deem to be public service, they might have created one,
for introducing the aristocracy monarchy, or hierarchy, with equal right as they
have created one, for introducing the aristocracy of paper stock under the idea
that it would serve the public.

The exposition is unequivocal. The privileges and emoluments allowed to

public services, are neither inheritable, nor transmissible to children,
descendants, or relations because public services being in nature, neither
hereditary, nor transmissible, so exclusive transmissible privileges or
emoluments were incompatible with the principles of liberty. This construction of
the terms used, by the instruments in which they are used, restricts legislative
power by a definition far short of an unfettered, ambitious, or avaricious
imagination, licensed to pronounce whatever comports with its fancy, its interest,
or its plots' to be serviceable to the public. It unequivocally excludes from the
idea of public services' that may be sold, or transmitted to relations, like bank
stock; and exhibits the terms public services as well as their equivalents general
welfare in their original unsophisticated intention, as abridging and not enlarging
the power of government.

The governments of ____ _____Massachusetts and Virginia, have

granted banking charters, conveying salable, transferable and descendable
exclusive privileges & emoluments, & have thus opened by precedent a way to
all exclusive privileges & emoluments whatsoever. These may be granted to
foreigners, whether plebeians' nobles, or kings, & held both in peace & war, as
rewards for public service or for our common defense and general welfare, as in
the case with bank exclusive privileges and emoluments The word common
requires a membership with the community; and the king, nobility, clergy, and
paper aristocracy of England holding bank stock in America, in a war between
England and the United States' must therefore be considered as rendering public
services, and advancing our defense and welfare, to bring the appropriation of
money to their use by the bank law, within the intention of this expression. If such
fictions are able to overturn constitutional principles, in favor of inimical
foreigners, they will act in the same way as effectually in favor of native avarice
and ambition.
34
 It is admitted, that this fact of our reasoning is of little weight. If banking is
a public benefit constitutional prohibitions ought not to deprive the public of that
benefit; only the constitutions ought to have been amended to come at it.
Banking ought therefore to be considered as it effects nations morally and
politically; and not by any verbal test. But it cannot be omitted, that although
banking was rejected and excluded by the framers of the general constitution!
And although many eminent and learned men long denied to congress a power
to incorporate banks; yet the power has never been judicially questioned; and
state legislatures have discovered a power for themselves under the shelter of
the words public services to grant the exclusive privileges and emoluments of
banking, which was strenuously denied to congress, under the words general
welfare. Should this power really be unconstitutional, according to the opinion
once held by the party which claims the merit of having saved the best form of
government existing, it would be a strong memorial to nations, to look after the
preservation of their privileges themselves, and not as all other nations have
done, betray their own liberty by an excessive degree of confidence in parties or
individuals. Those who have demonstrated the existence of abuses, have
defended the same abuses, when useful to themselves. A party in power will
often avail itself of the precedents established by their predecessors, and
reprobated by themselves in opposition. The precedents of a funding, banking,
sedition, volunteer, and alien law remain; and instances may have happened of
persons' who clearly discerned the injustice and impolicy of enriching one party
by stock, and the justice and policy of enriching another by the same stock. In
short a power in the individuals who compose a legislature, to fish up wealth
from the people, by nests of their own weaving, whatever be the names of such
nests, will corrupt legislative, executive and judicial public servants, by whatever
systems constituted; and convert them from the best-friends, into the most
dangerous foes of free, equal and just principles of civil liberty.

Let us return more particularly to our subject. It will be remembered that

we have endeavored to prove, that a bank charter, composed a power to tax,
and that is paper collected this tax. Our knowledge of that currency, called paper
money will suggest new arguments to this point - Long experience has
demonstrated to America, that a paper currency will never retain its value, unless
it is attended by a tax adequate to its redemption. We will suppose, however
untrue it may be, that every bank contains coin to the amount of its capital. Yet
this is a sum inferior to the aggregate of its stock, its notes and its dividends. If
the coin is only mortgaged for the last two items, yet these greatly exceed its
amount, and this excess forms a mass of paper currencies to depreciate, its
credit must be supported by some other security. That security is the tax which
banking collects; a tax, not only sufficing for the redemption and credit of this
species of paper currency, but supplying a redundancy, sufficient in some cases
to add one half of its numerical value to the coin deposited as stock.

Of the correctness of this reasoning, and of the nature of banking, an

35
ancient practice in Pennsylvania furnishes a demonstration. That state, whilst a
province' became a banker. It made and loaned a paper currency, at a moderate
interest. The interest paid for it to the state, was a tax applied to public use. This
is banking striped of its ambiguity, - simply an indirect mode of taxation,
successfully used to raise national revenue. The idea that it was not a tax,
because individuals borrowed the money, and collected and paid the tax would
be an assertion in every view less tenable than that an impost upon ordinary
licenses was not a tax, because such licenses were voluntarily taken and
confined to a few persons; the reimbursement derived from the privilege in both
cases, transfers the tax from individuals to the public. The difference between
Pennsylvanian, and the present mode of banking, are that there the tax was paid
by individuals to the public; now it is paid by the public to individuals. Then it was
paid to assist industry, & defray public expenses; now to enrich idleness and
supply the means of luxury to a separate interest. - Then the public required a
knowledge of the amount paid, from its representatives; now it pays an amount
unknown to corporations in which it is not represented. Then the public received
five or six per centum of individuals for paper currency; now it pays ten or twelve,
to individuals for the same currency. That species of paper currency could not
corrupt legislatures, or nurture aristocracy, - This must do both. That being dealt
out by the public interest, and not by the interest monopoly, circulated thru a
nation like coin liable to no artificial fluctuation, and begat fair, useful, and honest
competition; this being regulated by a separate interest, is made to cause prices
to fluctuate with a view to personal and local emolument. That did not
monopolize and expel specie; this commences with the first measure, and
terminates with the second, so as to make itself indispensable necessary. |

But it is said that the Pennsylvania species of bank currency will fail in its
credit. It is never to be forgotten that credit is an allie of safety, and factions, and
not of peril and nations. That it is bold and flourishing in security & fearful and
withering in danger, A small degree of danger being about to assail the credit of
the bank of England, the corporation influenced government to protect it against
the payment of its debts to the nation; a protection which would not withstand the
shock of war, invasion, superior force and disaster, as long as did the currency of
national credit in France and America.

National credit includes the credit of every individual; a part cannot be

more solid than the whole; and if the whole is lost the parts must also be lost. A
calamity which threatens to overwhelm a nation, destroys confidence amongst
individuals. Bank credit depends upon bonds given by individuals. Pennsylvania
credit was supported by the same pledge, and by additional guarantees of
landed security and national faith, there sponsors for Pennsylvania bank
currency, will destroy the single sponsor for chartered bank currency. And a
nation will defend its own credit with more animation, whilst it diminishes their
taxes, by bringing the many revenue; than it will bank credit which increases their
taxes, without bringing them any revenue. National credit would arouse bravery,
interest and patriotism, like other property; but bank and _____ credit can not
36
inspire a nation with patriotism, because it is a tax gatherer, which zealously
engages in wars of ambition, avarice and orders, and flies from eminent national
danger. These cowards can not make nations brave. If the credit of a whole
nation is perfidious' the purchase of a portion of this perfidious credit, at an
enormous price, must be unthrifty and absurd; but an expectation of curing the
perfidiousness of national credit, by the temptations in treachery, arising from
exclusive privilege and separate interest, seams absolutely extravagant.
Exclusive privilege and separate interest never had any business in society, but
to corrupt governments and plunder nations. They are exactly the remedy
universally proposed by the enemies of the principle of self government, for the
imaginary evil of national perfidy to itself. - Resort therefore to corporation,
vendible, monopolized and successional credit as a much better shield for
liberty. Equally perfidious in their opinion, is national wisdom, and therefore they
recommend titled, hereditary and successional wisdom, as also a better shield
for liberty. These opinions are consistent. But how can those be reconciled which
assert, that treachery to liberty for ever lurks in hereditary, successional and
monopolized wisdom; & that here safety consists in vendible successional &
monopolized credit'

Essay on Banking
January 12, 1810

Let us more particularly estimate the political influence of the species of

separate interest called banking. We can at a glance discover, that a power to
give and receive charters - to draw from the people - to share in vast wealth, and
to obtain adherents without limitation at the public expense, is a great power. It is
that which I have called legislative patronage. This power, like all others will act
upon the moral qualities of human nature. Its pecuniary seductiveness is exactly
opposed to the policy, supposed to be most likely to awaken the good moral
qualities of human nature; and exactly such as have constantly awakened its
evil. Nations resorting to elective and representative forms of government
consider a strict similitude between the interest of the legislature, and of the
people as the chief security for fidelity. They have never divided these interests,
by establishing a difference, to the extent of five millions annually. No free
constitution has ever declared that a legislator ought to legislate wealth to
himself, and taxes to the people; that he ought to receive that which he imposes;
and no man in his senses ever thinks of securing the honesty of an agent, by a
powerful temptation to betray him. Even the King of England himself can not
pass a law to inflict the millions he receives; whilst the legislators of these states
might receive the five millions they inflict by banking, and do receive a
considerable portion of it. On the contrary, all our constitutions consider it as a
sacred principle, that legislators should really and not nominally, be affected by
the good or evil dispensed by law, as the nation is affected. As a majority of a
nation can not be bankers, the opening a subscription to all, is a formality; the
futility of which is demonstrable in the certain and necessary result of this
formality. That invariably places the legislator-stock-holder in a minority; and of
37
course he must be affected by every law which may affect stock, not as the
nations are affected. Executive patronage would become similar to legislative if
the President could both create offices and bestow them on himself, as the latter
does charters.

Whenever legislators or men in power of any denomination, can receive

charters' exclusive privileges or emoluments which they create, they will incline
to make them good gifts. The proof of this inclination is displayed in the fact, that
bank stock can be so manufactured as to sell at an advance, often as high as
fifty per centum. Thus a legislator who creates, subscribes for, and sells stock,
converts by his own legal magic, every dollar he can raise into nine shillings. This
is undoubtedly a good thing for himself; if a miracle can be performed; if
metaphysicks can be turned by law into hard money; if laws for enriching orders
without laborer or industry of any kind, will enrich the rest of the people; then it
may be a good thing also for his constituents.

If it is, let nations rejoice, and look for the speedy accomplishment of their
hitherto frustrated hopes, that oppression would cease. It will be both useless
and absurd, that avarice should any longer pursue its tyrannical measures, after
a mode is discovered of gratifying its lust, without putting the rest of a nation to
any expense. Still more wonderful is this discovery, better than cost-less; it is
said to enrich a nation, by enriching a paper interest. Oh happiness unlooked for!
No longer remains there a motive for that mass of patronage and taxation, by
which nations are enslaved..This beautiful system of banking enriches
stock-holders by dividends, and the people by bank notes. Patronage is received
and returned with mutual civility and profit, and avarice is at length converted into
a blessing for industry.

Every word of this reverie must be credited to justify banking. But although
we may wish that it was as true as it is pleasant, yet it requires a very strong faith
indeed, to believe, that this metaphysical alchemy is less fraudulent than the
chemical one, which proposes to make gold out of something; the other out of
nothing.

If England held all the bank stock of the union, the furnace of this new
species of alchemy would burst as if a bolt of thunder had been driven through
the states, & all its promises would vanish in fume, not before the satire of Ben
Johnson, but before plain truth. It would be instantly seen, that England, the
stockholder, was enriched by the dividends, and America taxed and
impoverished by the notes. By filling the place of England with three or four
thousand native and foreign stock-holders, the place of the people is not altered.
Such of them as are legislators will vote upon political questions exactly as
England would, if she held our stock and could legislate for us. The ground which
sustains this argument, is that upon which banking has spread from state to
state; namely, that taxes and not gold for public benefit, are forged in the furnace
of this new alchemy. Whether taxes are repealed by transferring their
38
appropriation from A to B, from a foreign King to a native legislator, is left to the
sagacity of the reader.

Patronage is a term well understood in the United States. It is an

instrument by which governments corrupt a faction to take part with them against
nations, and thus gradually acquire more power than the people ever gave. If this
instrument is In another view, the patronage created by banking, spreads out in
the United States, far beyond any influence capable of being produced by
creating offices of the value just mentioned. The general government may
influence the whole fabric, by means of a power to regulate the places of deposit
of the general taxes, and by regulations as to the paper which may be received
in payment. This influence may reach state legislatures as stock-holders, and
convert the best barrier devised by the principle of division, against usurpation &
consolidation, into an insidious and secret instrument' for the ends it was
intended to obstruct.

A slight interest is a bad mirror for reflecting justice, but a great one is a
camera obscura inverting right and wrong. Thru this medium, stock-holding
legislators will discover, that it is just to retain their annuities by any compliances
for which the people, not themselves, suffer; and a silent revolution which will
secure or increase these annuities, will appear to them to be necessary for the
public good. Against this obvious danger we are consoled; by being told, that the
separate banking interest is not a titled order; - that if titles were added to its
wealth, our constitutions, like the walls of Jericho, would be overset by the noise;
but that unless the aristocracy shall discover its progress by its shouts, they are
safe. 0n the contrary a separate interest is more dangerous, if it can create,
sustain, and enrich itself without being designated, than if it cannot; - if it assails
by mine and sap, than if it assails by sound of drums. If Lords could create and
enrich Lords, the government would soon become a feudal aristocracy. If
Bishops could create and enrich Bishops by law, the government would presently
become an hierarchical aristocracy. So if stock-holders can by law, make and
enrich stock-holders, the government of course becomes a paper aristocracy. It
was the title or badge of the hierarchical and feudal orders in England, which by
designating the members, afforded the means of limiting their progress. But if
aristocracy in these forms could have hidden itself in the English legislature, it
would have legislated itself into irresistible power. And if our constitutions
required that every stockholder should be clothed in a separate aristocratical
interest, he would, like the lord or bishop, be thereby rendered less dangerous,
than secret ones, and if nations erect these fictitious orders no better mode of
assuaging the calamities incident to the error, has yet been discovered than Mr.
Adamss system of checks and balances. Though checked and balanced, these
orders are considered by republicans as a bad political system; unchecked or
unbalanced, even monarchists allow them to be execrable. They admit of no
control without a title, or badge, and the paper interest is designated by neither.
That a separate, untitled interest, is more powerful and dangerous than a
separate titled interest, is a fact so notorious as to supersede an occasion for
39
argument. The untitled paper interest in England has made prisoners of the two
titled orders, uses them sometimes as clerks in its counting house, at others as
jackals to hunt its prey, and at all times to pronounce its will for law. This it has
gradually effected, because it could act secretly. It is a warrior invisible to the
crowd he defrauds.

In the history of our forefathers we recognize three political beasts,

feeding at different periods upon their lives, liberties, and properties. Those
called hierarchical and feudal aristocracy, to say the worst of them, are now the
instruments of the third. Protect us heaven! we exclaim, against these two
monsters, inert, subdued, and far away from us! Oh what a beautiful creature is
here! we add, upon beholding a whelp of the third, so strong as to have swam
into our country across the Atlantic, and the infatuation concludes with a sincere
commiseration of the people of England on account of the misery with which
they are loaded by the mother of this identical whelp.

ESSAY ON BANKING
January 16, 1810

OUR mistake in estimating titled nobility, and paper stock, is exactly that
of the mouse, terrified with the cock, and charmed with the cat.

Representation ceases to be an effect of election, whenever a

representative can draw wealth from his own laws, by means either of office,
sinecure, or monopoly. - His income under the law, being greater than his
expense, his interest is adverse to the interest of the people, who pay the tax or
income which he receives. A power to take from a nation, and give to itself, is a
strict definition of civilized tyranny. A legislator can not be guided, by the interest
to which he belongs; if he is a receiver of the tax, he will tax.

Established banks exclaim that others would be pernicious; - just as one

established, or chartered religion exclaims against chartering another; or as
patricians disapproved of ennobling plebeians. But tho the established bank
contends that others would be pernicious; an application for a new bank, as
loudly insists that the old one is a hateful monopoly which a new one will destroy.
- Destroy in the same manner, as a noble order of fifty members would be
destroyed, by creating fifty more. And as the oppression resulting from one titled
sect, would be destroyed by titling another. This falling out is managed with
mutual embarrassment; the parties are obliged to conceal the true cause of
quarrel, and to put it on the precedent partialities to individuals insuring bank
currency: as if the new bank was not as capable of partiality as the old. The evil
of bestowing on the quality - partiality, the distribution of national currency, is
proposed to be remedied by extending the power and partiality. Not this
partiality, but the dividends, or tax, the real object of dispute. The old bank knows
that its paper is a tax, subject like other taxes, to the limitation of national ability,
and it wishes to come in for a share of it; yet neither, even when under the
40
obligation of legislative responsibility, is ever heard to make to the people these
honest confessions.

This true ground of quarrel between established and proposed banks,

confesses the correctness of the opinion, which supposes that funded stock and
bank stock, are both national debt; and that interest and dividends, are both paid
by taxing the nation. By new stock, the evil in both cases is cured in the same
way. So long as national ability to pay interest or dividends suffices to meet the
new stock, it is an additional tax upon that ability. Whenever either species of
stock exceeds this ability, either will depreciate Both therefore, equally imply a
debtor and creditor. But in a legislature made up of old stockholders, end
intended stockholders, such an idea of the subject will be suppressed, and a
compromise effected between the parties upon grounds of mutual
accommodation, rather than of national interest

It is easy to comprehend the possibility of a form of government, capable

of being correctly denominated, an elective aristocracy; and to predict without
much foresight, that the decay of the principles of our policy, will commence with
that form. It is produced by whatever will defeat an honest and faithful sympathy
between a nation and its representatives. Such a case is illustrated by the house
of commons of England. That house gains a power by its paper system, which is
able to proclaim its corruption, and to defy reform. Such a case is the natural
offspring of the union between an elective legislature, and a separate interest.
Can a stronger cement for this union, than banking, be discovered? It gratifies
the avarice and ambition of the confederates, without expelling from the senate
house, disclosing acquisitions, or attracting punishment.

The distinction of powers is an essential quality of our policy and

constitutions. - That between the people and the government is destroyed, by a
power in the government to increase its share by its own laws; as is that also,
between the general and state governments, if either distributee can increase its
quota of power, by law. - By banks, governments may create fictions, which will
adhere to them against the people, or to one section of our policy, against
another. With these instruments, the general or state governments, might
disorder the distribution of power between themselves and the people and
between each other. To both, enlistments by lucrative charters will furnish
mercenary troops wielding
either stock, or words, were never considered as good guardians of
liberty. Charters and banks will become the chief objects of state legislation, and
if twenty legislatures can outstrip one in this manufacture, the general
government may lose its power, and the calamities of a dissolved union, will
follow. These will ravage the states, until they ripen the public mind, for the
introduction of a steady tyranny by some military adventurer, and the catastrophe
of the drama will be the effect of exchanging our system of genuine
representation, cautious division, and effectual responsibility, for the monopoly
and corruption of a system of banking, charters, and paper. There is utility in
41
these baneful auguries. They may induce nations to examine omens, and enable
them to defeat fulfillments. They deserve in this view, the indulgence of another
paragraph.

States may see an advantage in excluding the currency of banks erected

by congress. Large states may exclude that of small. Exclusions of this kind will
enhance the value of state stock. This will be just, because no equality in the
profit made by bank paper, can exist between states of an unequal size, with an
equal and unlimited right to send out this tax gatherer. The collections under the
laws of each state, ought at least to correspond with the domestic field for
circulation. - the same reason which induces a large state to omit rival paper,
may induce it to expel rivalry from its own dominion. - It would be evidently unjust
that Delaware should be enriched by taxing the union with a mass of bank paper;
therefore it will be prevented. Already have town banks to the eastward,
discouraged the circulation of country bank currency. - The bank tax of Virginia
had the same motive for driving away interloping bank tax; as for introducing
itself; money will be made by it. Can not you discern reader, stuff for weaving a
tissue of avarice, ambition, rivalry and hatred, which has no ingredient for
allaying human passions, restraining human vices, or prevented human
slaughter? View it steadily and you will behold our inestimable state governments
shrinking into charter traders; and contriving paper navigation acts to plunder or
repel plunder, by means of paper currency, with the same spirit and intention in
regard to other states, which the trade navigation act of England breathes, in
regard to other countries. To avoid these calamities, our hope rests upon the
moderation of charter and monopoly. The extent of this moderation is equivalent
to that exhibited by the invocation required of their subjects by Persian
monarchs. - Charters command their subjects to exclaim "oh monopoly live as
long as the law pleases." If the law can bestow existence for one year, it may for
a million. It may give perpetual life to whatever metaphysical being it can create,
and charter is so moderate as to claim a right, to live out the whole life allowed
by law. - Once created, it pretends to independence of its god - law; to
independence of laws god - constitutions; and to independence of constitutions
god - the nation.

These pretension are not extravagant; for if government is so contrived,

as that its members can make the charters which they make. These charters will
live as long as the government lives. A maker of laws to enrich himself, which
cannot be repealed, has a far greater power, than a maker of constitutions.
Constitutions are tenants at will; the tenure of charters, is not even limited by
good behavior, or liable to be annulled by impeachment and conviction of
treason. A legislature by charters here and charters there, can so wedge up
present or future ages, that the long possession of these tenants for years, will
become a settled right, and the remainder man will forget his reversion.

A power to make law charters, is above responsibility, and independent of

its constituent. The correction of a corrupt or ruinous measure, comprises all the
42
essence and benefit of responsibility. A change of representatives, without this
correction, is a barren formality. It is even impolitic unless followed by a
correction of the mischief which suggested the change. - New representatives
will be incited by the preservation of a pecuniary abuse, to repeat it for their own
emolument. If they are not permitted to destroy it, they will think it right to
reimburse themselves by a new charter, for their sufferings under the old. The
infatuation opposed to the reasoning, which discloses the destruction of
responsibility and legislative integrity, lurking in the system of charter and
banking, is an unexamined idea, that our constitutions contain some charm -
some magical influence, which will preserve liberty by the agency of avaricious
charter-making, and charter-taking representatives. History produces no instance
of national happiness, under constitutions otherwise defective; but the most
perfect constitutions otherwise, could not preserve liberty and happiness with
legislative corruption.

The ability of a corrupt legislature to make a form of government or

constitution worse, and finally to overturn it, is illustrated not only in England, but
in the history of Rome. Two of the means used by the patricians to effect this
end, were usury and an usurpation of national conquests. Compound usury, and
an usurpation of national credit, are two of the means used by the system of
banking. The dexterity of the present age, has sharpened the edges of these
patrician weapons, sad varnished and lengthened their blades, so as to dazzle
and to strike a whole nation. - The Patricians enslaved individuals with usury -
banking, nations. The Patricians usurped, and drew wealth from foreign
conquest; banking usurps national credit, and draws wealth from domestic
territory. - The Patricians by their means gained wealth so slowly, that it required
an operation of several centuries to corrupt and destroy the government.

Stock can collect wealth by credit so rapidly, as to shorten the process to

a few years. Five millions drawn annually from a nation itself, by a separate
interest, will with more certainty enervate and enslave it, than if the same sum
was drawn from their conquered enemies; because toiling for others, and
receiving the earnings of others without toil, is a double momentum toward these
results; whereas a tribute paid by foreigners, being only a gain and no loss, is a
single one. Sinecures will be preferred to losing-cures, or profit without labor, to
labor with loss, and to gain the profit without labor.

ESSAY ON BANKING
January 26, 1810

LORD SHEFFIELD lately observed in debate that money was the

medium of commerce in France, and credit its medium in England. And he
supposed, that hence arose the advantage possessed by English commerce
over French. It is true that this cause does constitute a portion of that advantage.
Specie, the national currency in France, allows labor a competition with
commerce in fixing prices; but paper currency or credit, guided by the spirit of the
43
monopoly in England, enables commerce to settle the prices of labor. Commerce
and productive labors are dealers, with a national currency, they bargain on
equal terms; with a corporation currency, governed by commerce, on unequal
terms. Hence the price of labor being higher in France than in England, France
shuts her ports against English manufactures. Yet English credit or paper, far
exceeds French coin; therefore less coin gives better prices, than more credit or
paper. If France and England should exchange situations, the prices of some
labor would be raised in England by a less amount of national currency; because
it would consist of specie, and force commerce to deal with labor on equal terms;
and in France these prices would be depressed by a greater amount of national
currency, because it would consist of corporation paper, and enable the
monopoly to regulate the prices between labor and commerce.

A circulating medium, measured out to a nation by corporations, or even

by the commercial interest, will certainly enrich and strengthen the measuring
interest. - But is there a single circumstance tending towards public happiness or
virtue in this effect? The acute bishop Tillotson has said "if the appearance of
any thing, be good for any thing, the reality must be better." The appearance of
virtue may be useful to the guilty, but is less useful than virtue itself, and is
frequently a snare to others. The appearance of money may be used to transfer
property, like the appearance of virtue; and to an interest which monopolizes this
appearance, it may be according to lord Sheffield more beneficial in a pecuniary
view, than the reality; but to a nation the money itself, on a national currency, will
in conformity to Tillotsons maxim be better than credit, or an appearance of
money.

The design and nature of money or currency, confirms the superiority of

coin to credit. Money is not intended to create wealth, or the objects of
commerce; nor is it able to do either. Its office is to represent and exchange
them. Such being the limited power of specie; paper, its shadow, can not do
more. Specie can transfer wealth from one country to another. - If the United
States could at pleasure create specie, they might by a prudent use of such a
monopoly, enrich themselves considerably at the expense of the world. It is not
the office of paper currency to transfer wealth from one nation to another,
because of its locality; but to transfer wealth from man to man, or from a nation
to a corporation. So long as it represents wealth, corporations able to create it
can more effectually draw wealth from the rest of a nation, by its means, than
one nation could from others, by a power to create specie; because it can
transfer land from man to man, whereas specie can only draw movable wealth
from country to country. Paper money or credit, within the sphere of its currency,
is therefore more able to transfer property, than specie within the sphere of
commerce. A monopoly will use it as a nation would an exclusive power to create
coin.

If a paper currency increased the price of exports, England could not

export. This idea is repeated for the sake of examining a difficulty which it
44
suggests. Although the price of English exportable labor is kept lower than the
exportable labor of other countries, by the means to which the United States
have resorted to raise the price of their exportable labor; how happens it that
England must moreover resort to war and fleets to force her commerce, and that
she shrunk from a competition with the United States, even when our currency
was specie, and the price of our labor higher? The fact shows, that a nation,
after having submitted to the evil and injustice of diminishing the price of its own
labor, by a paper currency, is not unable to rival a country without a paper
currency, and where the price of labor was higher; and therefore that its
commerce is in some way injured by the monopoly prescribed for its benefit. -
The solution of this enigma requires a profound knowledge of English
commerce, the want of which confines me to surmise. - Foreign nations and
colonies would as probably take advantages of the low price of labor in England,
as her commercial interest does, if they could enter into a competition with that
interest. This is prevented by a navigation act, contrived to secure the benefit of
the low price of labor to English commerce, and to exclude foreign participation.
And the spirit of monopoly which leveled this instrument against home labor,
levels it also against the world, to keep the money filched from labor in the hands
of commerce.

But the fact, without any explanation suffices for our argument. It proves
that bank currency will have the effect of diminishing the price of exportable labor
to the workman, and that it must be raised in favor of the merchant, by the
means used in England, namely, war, fleets, and navigation laws.

ESSAY ON BANKING
January 30, 1810

IT is, as a general position true, that the interest of commerce and

agriculture are the same; and we are seduced by the truth of this maxim, to
neglect an examination of our subject; concluding from the great opulence
evidently drawn from corporation currency, by commercial individuals, that
agriculture must be correspondingly enriched; the real opulence bestowed by
banking on one interest, we see with the eye of the body; the supposed
opulence bestowed on the other, we imagine it to be seen by the eye of the
mind, through the mirror of a general maxim. The might be greatly extended. -
All human interests are the same. Nothing which is vicious or wrong, can be
really beneficial to any. The interests of governments and nations is the same. -
Yet tyranny, mischievous as it is to both, is common. False and factitious
interests are eternally seducing men from true and natural interests; and
alliances intended by nature are often broken by law. A monopoly of commerce,
or of a branch of commerce, would enrich the monopolist, but injure the
agriculture or manufacture, which supplied the commodity. A monopoly of
commerce before the revolution, enriched Britain, the merchant of America; but it
was injurious to our agriculture. To bestow opulence upon an American city, by a
commercial or paper monopoly, would be nearly as oppressive to agriculture, as
45
to bestow it by the same means on Glasgow. And if commerce and agriculture
may commit hostilities against each other, it would be still more erroneous to
cover a monopoly of national currency, by a maxim, which only supposes that
commerce and agriculture have the same interest, whilst they pursue their true
interest.

Agriculture, formed into an aristocracy by the feudal system, though

guided by a false interest, became infinitely less beneficial to commerce, than it
would have been uninfluenced by the spirit of monopoly; and commerce molded
into a paper aristocracy will thence also become less beneficial to agriculture,
because it will be influenced by the same spirit.

That it can breathe its pernicious errors into one, wide as it is spread, is
evinced by its capacity to inspire the other, which spreads wider; unless the
monopoly of national currency is an organ of political respiration, less powerful
than feudal monopoly. A close affinity is perceivable between the operations of a
feudal and paper aristocracy; and if commerce could justly complain of the one,
agriculture must suffer by the other. Labor needs land to produce, and money to
transfer agricultural products. A monopoly of the necessity - land, or a monopoly
of the necessity - money, are equivalent modes of extortion from labor. A
vassalage inflicted by mesas of necessity, money, is not more voluntary, than a
vassalage inflicted by the means of the necessity, land. Borrowing is as
unavoidable, as leasing for rent, or services. The collection of the interest or
dividends by a stock aristocracy, rests upon the superiority of the sum collected.
This estimate is left to the reader.

We will proceed to another. As we all know that a regular influx of wealth

from a majority to a minority, is a regular influx of power, the United States ought
to estimate the quantity of each, they are pouring into a banking interest. If no
new banks should be erected after 1808, nor the acquisitions of the old
increased, the five millions annually collected by the existing banks, at
compound interest, carry from the public to the corporations in twenty years,
above one hundred and eighty-four millions of dollars. Here is already a vast
current of money and power running one way, will those check it, in whose favor
the current sets? Are the receivers, as regulators of power and wealth, of
undoubted confidence. If stock should cease to accumulate, such will be its
operation, but as history, both here and in England, fixes its fertility in devices for
its own increase, our calculation is probably too low. Let us however fix the
amount at three hundred million. The reader will recollect that in treating of debt
stock, we endeavored to show, that its interest was equivalent to the rent of land,
and of course that to borrow, was to sell. In that case, the nation is supposed to
receive a price for itself, or its land; in this it pays the rent, interest or dividend,
but receives no price: and it enhances the price of bank stock, for which it
receives nothing, by subjecting itself to pay double the interest paid for debt
stock.

46
 That a banking system does amount in several views to a national sale of
itself, the history of its infancy here, furnishes strong apprehensions. Church
stock, and feudal stock, formed parties, which trafficked in public rights; and
parties have grown up with paper stock here. It has been said in the public prints,
that banks have already become instruments for influencing elections; and that
the Manhattan bank could have defeated Mr. Jeffersons. If one bank could rob
the public to any degree of patriotism and talents, the whole system can sell the
public to any degree of vice and ignorance. Already are prices offered to
legislatures for charter. What can be sold for these prices but the people? What
else have legislatures to sell? It is admitted however that it is as well to sell them,
as to bestow them gratuitously. Men may be found to accept what others would
buy; and the gift is equivalent to a safe in its effects.

In Rhode Island bank stock to the amount of four millions is said to have
been created. She has nearly seventy thousand people. Allowing her eighteen
thousand actual laborers and her stock to collect in expenses, perquisites, and
dividends, ten per centum, her labor pays a capitation tax of above twenty-two
dollars annually to banks. If the union contains six millions of people, it can bear
the ratio of Rhode-Island, four hundred and twenty millions of bank stocks, which
would inflict upon the people an annual tax of forty-two millions. There is nothing
extravagant in this calculation; England has far outstripped it in stock
accumulation; Rhode-Island has already arrived to this goal. If the stock interest
in Rhode Island, draw more net profit from banking, than the Virginia masters do
from eighteen thousand Negro slaves, banking approaches in substance to a
mold of selling free men. Arthur Young calculates the profit of English West-India
slaves at five pounds each. The banking mode of converting the labor of one to
the use of another, is more profitable than this personal slavery.

We cannot omit here to remark a difference between the pecuniary

interest of wealthy classes. Where moneyed capitol or stock constitutes wealth,
its interest points to land and labor, as the objects to be assailed by every artifice
for the purposes of accumulation; but where land and labor constitute it, it is
obviously impossible, that it can make itself richer, by taxing land and labor
directly or indirectly. This is merely a question of what is emphatically termed
worldly wisdom. It is left to the reader to decide which is the dupe. The stock
interest in supposing that it enriches itself by banking at the expense of land and
labor, or the land and labor interest, in supposing that banking will enrich that.
One is inevitably mistaken.

ESSAY ON BANKING
February 2, 1810

The efficacy of stock, as a mode by which governments may sell or give

nations to minorities, of which they may constitute a portion themselves, is
capable of arithmetical certainty. A debt of four hundred and twenty millions
sterling, covers twelve millions of people at thirty-five pound sterling a head. All
47
the people in Britain, as we have observed, are then sold considerably beyond
their full value, and beyond the value of slaves, including every age and sex, by
means of stock; and pay to its holders a greater profit than the same number of
personal slaves are supposed capable of yielding. - It is the profit which
ascertains the value of slaves. Britain owes above a hundred million of debt
stock, beyond the sum equal to the value of all her people, considered as slaves,
besides her East India debt, and bank stock. Ireland has a debt of her own, to
cover her people. This enormous mass of stock for extracting the bread from the
mouth of labor, has been compiled with about twenty millions of specie; evincing
that governments can make stock out of stock; and that debt stock like bank
stock, is capable of being indefinitely multiplied without money. It has been often
said that poor laboring people in Britain, encounter more penury and distress,
than the Negro slave in the United States. The reason is now plain. Of the Negro
slave, a profit is only looked for equivalent to his price. It is limited also by the
interest of his master to preserve him. It is limited by the master's benevolence
and respect for his own reputation. But the slave of stock enjoys none of these
ameliorations, and therefore it is not surprising that he should be more miserable
than the personal slave. The several descriptions of stock in Britain, already
require a far greater profit from the people, than can be paid by twelve millions of
personal slaves. The paying class is also diminished by the receiving and
unproductive classes. Excessive labor, poor houses, penury, prisons, famine,
crimes, must follow. Let not the advocate for enslaving freemen by means of
stock, venture to compare his system with personal slavery. It will be found that
indirect slavery, like indirect taxation, is capable of being earned to greater
excess, than direct.

It is proper to examine arithmetically also, the progress of stock in

America. - Our supposed fifty millions of bank stock being a sum beyond the
deposited & existing coin, fixes the capacity of our stock, like the English, to
multiply, itself without Specie. It circulates, we will suppose, eighty millions of
paper, Costing the country above six per centum. Adding these eighty millions to
as much debt stock, to about thirty-two dollars a head, appear already to be
thrown over us. Shall we disentangle ourselves from them, whilst we have it in
our power, or defer the effort, until we are irretrievably entangled in the
intricacies of indirect slavery? A slavery in which the sufferer is ignorant of his
tyrant; and the tyrant is remorseless, because he is unconscious of his crime.

By bank stock, unless all our reasoning are erroneous, and our examples
inapplicable, government may subject a nation to the payment of a capitation
profit, to those to whom it shall be conveyed by charter, exceeding any profit
extracted from personal slaves; and political principle may be corrupted. Are
there any greater temporal calamities? Are there any temporal blessings capable
of balancing them? Weigh the terrific dumvirate, oppressive taxation, and a
corrupt government, against the benefit proposed by banking. All it proposes, its
total advantage, lies in the simple space of substituting some millions of bank
currency, for some millions of specie currency.
48
 We have endeavored already to prove, that the substitution is an evil,
supposing it to cost the nation neither money nor principle. If we have failed, it
may yet be an evil, on account of the money and principles it requires. We will
add several observations upon these points.

The freedom of our commerce, and the tendency of money to find a level in the
commercial world, furnishes a well founded belief that specie had arrived, or was
hastening from all parts of the commercial world, to render us all the commercial
services capable of being rendered by money, when banking checked its career.
- The sudden diminution of specie upon this event, is an evidence that we had
enough for our wants. Had we needed more currency, specie would have
continued in circulation with bank currency. But that currency, by producing a
redundancy of circulating medium, becomes an ostracism against the innocent
and patriotic specie. It follows that bank paper is an operative agent in the
adjustment Of the level of specie throughout the commercial world, though local
itself; because the specie it banishes from one country goes off to another. -
Hence a country by confirming her currency to specie will receive remittances in
coin from all others resorting to bank currency. By resorting to it, the same
country sends such remittances to other countries in coin also. Banking
therefore, effects two ends completely; it enriches other countries by the
expulsion of specie; and it enriches stock holders by the price paid for their
paper, to supply the place of the expelled specie. Do we incur the first
misfortune, for the sake of the second?

The disappearance of specie, ascertains that its quantity sufficed to render every
commercial service which currency can render, and no amount can render more
service than a sufficient amount. But tho no amount of currency can perform
services for a nation, beyond the national demand for such services, yet an
artificial bank currency may be thrown into circulation capable of taxing, but
incapable of serving a nation. Supposing that fifty million of specie have been
taken out of circulation by banking, and that this sum sufficed to meet all our
demands for a currency; we now give five millions annually to get too much of
that, of which we had enough for nothing; and with which we were regularly
supplied by the equalizing nature of universal currency; just as Virginia, by an
utter exclusion of paper, would have been supplied with specie. The single
quality of universal currency, possessed by bank paper, consists of a detrimental
capacity to expel specie, whilst it is unable to go abroad itself, to remove the
evils arising from a redundant currency. Of these qualities, a state of the union,
or the whole union may avail itself, as a means of turning the paper systems of
other states or of the commercial world to advantage. Their influence in adjusting
the distribution of money, would insure to the forbearing country its allotment in
specie; whilst the inability of paper currency to fly abroad condemns the banking
country to the two evils of a redundancy of currency, and of receiving its
allotment in local paper purchased by an annual tax.

49
 ESSAY ON BANKING
February 6, 1810

IT would be endless to enumerate all the effects of this condemnation; a few

serving to illustrate the scope of our reasoning, and the imbecility of all attempts
to regulate the national flux and re-flux of money, can not be omitted. There is
certainly a measure, beyond which a nation can not be benefited by money. Its
redundancy being an evil, the political or commercial body instinctively labors to
expel it, as the natural body does a disease. But if a nation entrusts to a college
of political Doctors, the power of doing it with money, whilst they are enriched in
proportion to the physic they administer, their fees will be their guide, and not the
health of the patient. A redundancy of local currency produced by doctors hired
to keep it up, can not be disgorged by the efforts of nature struggling for health.
Money, (like prices, trades and manufactures) regulates itself better than it can
be regulated by the Doctors, despotism, monopoly or banking. A regulation of
money, is always a regulation of prices, and an interposition by law, in the
economy of individuals. It covers effort and competition in every shape, and
combines in a mass, the several evils which would flow from distinct legal prices
for each separate object of human industry. - Such an interposition with a single
article of industry, has invariably terminated in mischief; it is therefore probable,
that the power of measuring out currency, placed in corporations, which is an
interposition with all prices, and all objects of human industry, will not produce
good. A prudential scarcity of the metals devoted to become the medium of
commerce, prevents the evils of pecuniary redundancy, and its utility is
destroyed by an unlimited power of multiplying paper currency. Overflowing
mines of these precious metals, would destroy their utility as a medium of
exchange; and confined to one nation, under the knowledge of the value of
money abroad, and an incapacity of parting with it, would diminish rather than
increase its happiness. Paper money enables avarice to inflict the redundancy,
whilst not even the refuge of forcing it into plough shares, is left to the nation.
Corporations are solicited by the most fascinating orator to deluge a nation with a
flood of currency, no part of which is subject to be drained off by the ebb natural
to specie. Is that commerce free, the currency of which is regulated by a
corporation?

It is because no single government is able to regulate universal currency, that it

cannot raise the value of exportable labor by local currency. It is however able to
diminish the value of this labor by quartering upon it the dividends of this local
currency, as we have endeavored to prove. Supposing that it may also produce
the effect insisted on for its defense; namely, that of enhancing local prices or
home subsistence; it then combines the two operations, of diminishing the value
of exportable labor to the laborer, and of enhancing his expenses. An effect
extremely similar to this, is produced in England by paper currency and excises.
The first keeps down in a degree the price of exportable labor or manufactures,
50
and the second enhances the expenses of subsistence. A redundancy of bank
paper here, which shall enhance expenses, operates as excises do in England;
except that the excise there goes to the government, and here to corporations.
And a consequence of placing the exportable labor of that country, under the
regimen of currency regulated by a corporation, illustrates both the mischief of
such a power, and our whole scope of reasoning, by a very striking fact. The
exportable labor of that country is deprived of a share in the government. The
manufactures are subject to capitalists, and regulated for their benefit.

We have endeavored to prove that the paper system would impoverish the
agricultural interest, which produces our exportable labor, worm it out of the
government, and reduce it to subjection. Let the fate of the English
manufactures, from a paper regimen, point to our agricultural fate under a similar
regimen. Let their fate also display the justice dispensed by a power to regulate
currency. It is the justice invariably dispensed under the seduction of avarice. But
seduction is unnecessary to produce an adherence to ones own interest. A
power to regulate currency for the agricultural or manufacturing interest, and to
enrich itself thereby, will rapidly acquire the weapon which governs the world. In
pursuance of its separate interest, it has usurpt the government in England,
under the name of the moneyed interest. Reader, which is the preferable
substitute for our constitutional policy; the consul of France or the moneyed
interest of England?

The power of substituting a factitious local currency, for one naturally universal,
is a handle stronger than superstition with which to manage nations. Allegiance
to the faction is secured by the fear of losing its artificial money. Specie is
independent of a faction, and able to become a patriot. It can attend us in our
flight from Tyranny, and travel over the world to feed, clothe and arm patriots; but
paper chains to the sod, and remains at home to administer to corporation
interests and not to cherish liberty. But let us leave the Goddess to take care of
herself, and look a little farther after our money. Although we have seen separate
interests enslaving nations from the beginning of the world, it is still a very
difficult thing to make mankind believe, that corporations for gathering money, do
really take that which they were instituted to take. - They are now convinced, that
the separate interests of superstition and title, had their money in view, under
other pretenses, and to save it, have expelled them. But they will not believe,
that a pecuniary order, which avows the design denied by these detected orders,
is in earnest. No, this order, unlike others, is to enrich nations, not itself. Let us
count these riches in other modes. Supposing about fifty millions of stock to exist
in the United States, and that about eighty millions of bank currency are
circulated, it follows, as before observed, that the nation pays at least five
millions annually for the bank currency, and loses the use of fifty millions specie,
worth annually three millions more. These eight millions are annually paid by the
nation, to gain thirty millions currency, more than it set out with. The price paid
for this additional currency, amounts to about twenty-seven per centum per
annum. - Which is the better policy; to give eight per centum for the purpose of
51
attacking France by land; or twenty-seven to raise up a separate interest to
attack our policy by paper?

But if the fifty millions specie performed more useful services, than the eighty
millions bank currency, the computation settles in the fact, that we pay a
difference of five millions annually in favor of an evil. This is an error still more
egregious. It is taking up sorrow upon interest. A nation which can count, will see
that indirect pecuniary orders, operate as their indirect predecessors have done.

Our calculation goes upon the favorable ground for banking, that the stock is in
specie, ready to meet the notes, or to come forth upon a national emergency; but
if this stock was never real, or if the specie is banished by a redundancy of
currency, so as gradually to reduce the supposed specie stock to paper credit;
the total loss of so much coin, and the possible misfortunes which may arise
from an inability to meet the debts of banking by real money, would constitute no
inconsiderable items of additional evil bought by the nation.

The evils bought with debt stock, have been often compared to those obtained
by banking. Compare also the riches they bestow on a nation. One does not
expel specie, the other does; one collects five or six per centum interest; the
other ten or twelve per centum, charges and dividends. Ah! but these dividends
cost no body a farthing. Well, let us call the interest of the national debt, a
dividend, and the debt is no more. Their political and physical multitude breaks in
upon us at every step obstructedly or experimentally considered. Funded stock,
when proposed for national consideration, was announced as a blessing; the
blessing was said to be comprised in its increase of capital and industry. The
same mantle striped by public sagacity from funded stock, has been with
wonderful ingenuity, thrown over bank stock.- That also is gravely announced by
its investors as a public blessing, and why? It will increase capital and industry.
The United States detected the shallow artifice under which the designs of
funded stock were hidden, because it was moreover defended by pretexts, said
to be necessities. They cannot see the same artifice spread over the design of
bank stock, because it has us auxiliary; or because we sometimes search in vain
for that which lies directly before our eyes. This common, and solitary refuge of
our twin name sakes, is simply that of all orders enriched by law and oppression.
"It is their opulence" say they "which gives employment to labor, and excites
industry." Thus have all such orders concealed the wealth they extract, and the
poverty they inflict. As a justification of banking also, this old mode of
concealment requires attention.

Does banking increase capital? It does, if real capital is increased, by increasing

paper currency; but if paper currency can at most be considered as capital, when
balanced by property and labor, an additional quantity can no more increase
capital, than blowing up mutton can increase meat. A redundancy of specie
would not form a stationary Capital. As birds of passage travel in search of food,
specie travels in search of employment; and if the food, or employment is
52
insufficient for either concourse, the overplus flies away. If specie could create
capital, it would find employment, and remain. From these facts we infer, that
money is not capital, but the representative of capital; and that it is inverting the
true and genuine relation between capital & money, to suppose that money
produces national capital, instead of national capital producing money. The value
of labor is real capital. If a nation had an hundred millions of money, but did not
labor, it would presently be without capital; but if its labor was worth five millions
annually, though it had no money, it would speedily have an hundred millions of
capital, which would soon attract money.

ESSAY ON BANKING
February 9, 1810

THE introduction of bank paper is uniformly the epoch from which the diminution
of specie is dated. If specie therefore, is capital, bank paper diminishes capital; if
not, neither can its representative be capital. It is by real capital that specie is
realized among commercial nations. As a representative, it is subordinate and
responsible to its principal. Bank paper can not possess as intrinsic value, if the
value of specie is representative; therefore it can not increase capital; and a
surplus beyond a necessary currency, far from falling within any idea of the term
capital, can only exist by finding a capital, the principal of currency. If bank paper
was new capital, so far from expelling the representative of the old, it would
require more representation, and attract specie, - the reverse being the effect,
banking simply comes out to be, a representative of capital by paper, in
preference to specie unable to increase or diminish national capital, however, it
may affect that of individuals. The advocates of Banking admit this doctrine, by
contending, that it is beneficial to a nation to expel specie by paper, as it causes
an exchange of the representative of capital; for the thing itself. - If the capital
thus gotten from foreign nations by the expelled specie, would produce a
permanent profit, superior to the annual cost of the substituted paper, this would
be true? but the difficulty of discovering any such profit, and the visibility of the
cost, are strong evidences that it is false. This stratagem for enriching a nation
can be practiced but once, whereas the cost of the bank paper, substituted for
expelled specie, is annually repeated. Besides, a redundancy of specie for
exportation, produced by the creation of bank paper for home use, diminishes
the value of that specie; and this depreciation both causes its flight, and
constitutes an actual loss to the stock-jobbing nation. Again, if an increase of
currency, was an increase of capital and industry, the stratagem of sending
abroad the specie or universal currency by the stock-jobbing nation, defeats the
end proposed, both by the amount of the money exported, and also by
increasing the capital and stimulating the industry of rival nations, to whom the
specie is exported.

When we see gold and silver fly away from a country because it is unable to
53
increase capital, and because capital can only retain a competent representation
in currency; an opinion that bank currency will create, undoubtedly contains more
of credulity, than one, that any other metal can create gold. It affords matter for
another alchemist. The drama might again exhibit cunning preying upon the
avarice it pretends to feed. But a stage would be two small to contain the two
orders of character; that of Epicure Mammon, Ananias and Tribulation on one
hand, & of Subtle & Face on the other.

Bank paper not being capital, not able to create capital, it is to be further
examined whether it encourages and creates labor and industry, as it also
pretends. - lf it did, the new created industry would retain the specie it expels.
This inquiry lies in a comparison, between a legal institution for acquiring wealth
to an enormous extent, without talents or industry; and leaving its acquisition to
the regulation of talents and industry. Wealth in both cases is supposed to be the
spur to exertion. By a laborious cultivation of my talents & persevering industry, I
acquire a moderate degree of wealth; by banking I acquire infinitely more,
without labor or talents. Why should I subject myself to the fatigue of becoming
learned and useful, to become the scoff of a rich, idle and voluptuous order, their
abundance, to which I must contribute, will diminish my competence in the eye of
comparison, almost to nothing; and of course in my own eyes. No, I will go into
the lottery, where there are no blanks; where every ticket draws annual prize,
and where as a stock-jobber, I may be as rich, as idle, as ignorant, and as
useless as a bishop, nobleman, or king. - What will the world say of our
experiment to establish a free government, if an epithet, considered as even
more humiliating than those of bishop, Nobleman, or king, should become the
title of a separate order or interest in the United States?

This mode of encouraging industry by creating rich and idle orders to give it
employment, has been practiced in various forms, but all contain the same
principle. Hereditary and hierarchical orders, encourage industry in the same
way, as stock orders do, by taxing it to maintain themselves in idleness and
affluence. The lash is applied to slaves, and taxation to freeman, to encourage
industry. Masters and orders procure this blessing by similar means and for
similar ends; to gain wealth and leisure for themselves. If one evil has been
imposed by a foreign nation on this country, should it therefore impose the other
on itself?

When debt stock boasts that it is an encourager of industry, it refers to the

stimulus of taxation; yet it attempts by every artifice to conceal from the people
the means of its vaunted effect. Bank stock also boasts of the same merit, but it
pretends that abundance of money, and not the good of taxation, is its means. -
The first by hiding the cause of the effect it claims, confesses its treachery not
more than the second, by pretending that it encourages industry, by a superfluity
of money. Are extortion, and donation - a robber and a prodigal, equally
encouragers of industry? "I (says bank stock) encourage industry, by pouring
money into your pockets." When, by theory, or experience, has it ever been said,
54
that either the redundancy of money, or the loss of earnings, was an
encouragement to industry? The inculcation of a false opinion, that industry
enjoys her own earnings, is the best mode to which all orders, titled, or stock can
resort for her encouragement; it is evident that the mode would be improved by
making it true. Fulfillment would be a stronger excitement to industry, than hope
disappointed.

Those who pretend that industry is quickened by orders, or by stock capital,

perceive not that this affectation is inconsistent with their other affectation,
namely a sacred regard for private property. The true sanction for private
property, consists in its effect to stimulate men to industry, and the improvement
of the understanding; from the consideration that they will enjoy whatever their
knowledge and industry may gain. Exactly the reverse of this sanction, and this,
effect, is the doctrine, that knowledge or industry will be excited and increased by
transferring a portion of their gains from themselves, to orders, hereditary, titled,
hierarchical, or stock. - Although all such orders profess themselves to be
encouragers of knowledge and industry, and friend to private property, it is hence
evident, that they either deceive themselves, or attempts to deceive others.

An idea heretofore suggested, seems of sufficient importance to be again

brought to mind, for the sake of arguments which have since occurred. It is that
which supposes the credit of nations to be property, of a species, as far beyond
the power of a government to give away to corporations, as to any other species.
Currency and credit are social rights, in a state of appropriation, and not a
species of wild social right, to be seized and bestowed by governments, any
more than other social rights. To protect, not to invade, such rights, constitutes
the utmost power of free governments. To bestow on corporations by charters an
exclusive right of credit, or uttering currency, is more exceptionable than to give
or sell to them an exclusive right of printing or uttering books, because every
individual owns a share on national credit, which is a species of property, both in
a state of greater divisibility than land itself, and also held by the nation in an
indivisible mass, as land is, under the name of territory. The term "national"
applied to currency and credit are appropriated. All property is under the sanction
of a two fold species of appropriation in a society. - It is appropriated to the use
of the nation, for public defense and the administration of the government. After
this object is satisfied, it is appropriated to the use of the individuals composing
the nation. But, there is not in free countries, any appropriation to the use of the
government, called administration, territory, commerce or credit, to be chartered
by it, to individuals or factions. This third kind of appropriation constitutes a
violation of public and private property, & difference between free and despotic
governments.

This right and property of national credit, territory and commerce, are of the
same nature, and it equally violates a policy founded in the principles of liberty
for a government to charter away notions of one, as portions of another. Those
minor appropriations of credit, territory or commerce, produced by the talents,
55
labor, or industry of individuals, or the municipal law which embraces every
member of a society, are of the second species of appropriation and distinct from
the third.

The principles of political morality admit only of the appropriation of property in

the two first modes, and reject the third as unnecessary for a government,
inconsistent with the ends of its institution, and the ground work of civilized
tyranny.

ESSAY ON BANKING
February 14, 1810

A transfer of private, or public property, or both, from individuals and nations, to

orders, corporation, or other individuals, is the evil moral principle in which all
hereditary, and hierarchical orders have been founded; and constitutes the
essence of despotism.

That could not by its laws, or its power, enrich corporations at the public
expense, nor touch property, except for public use, was so well understood as a
principle, essential to liberty, as to have been unequivocally expressed in most of
our constitutions, by inhibitions of exclusive emoluments except for such public
services as were not transmissible. Our governments are not allowed to invade
that appropriation of property called private, by bestowing emoluments which
some portion of it must pay, upon any occasion, except such as is covered by
that appropriation called public. They are therefore prohibited by the written rule,
as well as by the moral principle, essential to free forms of government, from
invading or transferring property for private or corporation emolument. And lest a
government might call a violation of private property, a public benefit, as it has
uniformly done in every species of monopoly, the constitutions quoted, have
provided against this evasion, by limiting a power in the governments to bestow
emoluments, to the compensation of personal, and unalienable public services.

That credit and currency are in society, property, both public and private is
demonstrable from other considerations. - Talents and industry will divide and
distribute credit and currency, as they do land. A species of wealth which talents
and industry can distribute is property. What is the distinction allowing our
governments to take away, the whole, or any portion of this species of property,
and to give it to corporations. which must not admit a power of chartering away
the lands of individuals, and the national territory? If both land and credit, or cur-
rency, are distributable by talents and industry, then to distribute either by law, is
fraudulent and oppressive. If it be said that credit and currency can not be
considered as property, public, or private, because they cannot be divided by
metes and bounds, like land; it answered, that an incapacity for a similar division,
is common to sundry social rights - such as freedom of religion, and of the press:
56
and that the sanction of the right, not the marks of the division, being the basis of
property, this sanction composed of industry and talents, must be equally strong
in relation to land and credit, or currency, if it can reach both, and must be
equally violated by distributing either by law.

Commerce is called national, like credit and currency. It is less capable of a

division among the people than credit, or currency. Is it not a species of property
both public and private? As public, it is an object of taxation; as private and
public, our government cannot charter it entirely, or in positions to corporations;
because in our society there exist only two appropriations of property - public
and private, and so appropriation of it to corporations is considered as
inconsistent with either.

There is no distinguishing between commerce, credit, and currency, as objects of

social property. This indelible similarity admits to two inferences; either that our
constitutions have surrendered both to be appropriated, to individuals or
corporations, by the charters of our governments, or that they have surrendered
neither. - Knowledge seems to possess at first view, less of the nature of
property, than lands, commerce, credit, or currency; yet the legal monopoly of
knowledge is inconsistent with our principles. The compulsion to buy corporation
currency, produced by banishing national currency, greatly resembles the
compulsion to buy hereditary knowledge, by banishing national knowledge. To
buy corporation currency to carry on trade, seems as absurd as to buy hereditary
knowledge to carry on government. The Chinese monopoly of knowledge is an
illustration still stronger than the hereditary. An order, by prohibiting the use of an
alphabet, (the coin of knowledge) produces national ignorance, and thence
draws with its exclusive knowledge, exclusive wealth and power. If this Chinese
monopoly of knowledge, sensibly affects private property, is it inconceivable that
a monopoly of credit, or currency, will also sensibly affect it! Credit or currency, is
unquestionably of the nature of private property, that it only furnished the
instrument for taking it way, the charge would be acknowledged. There this be
no honest difference between transferring property from private people, to a
corporation, directly or indirectly. The moral and constitutional principles which
condemn the one, condemn the other. Not the process, but the injury, constitutes
the violation of these principles. Will it be said that although our governments
can not directly take away public or private property, and give it to corporations,
that they may give them the power of expelling specie, and transferring property
indirectly by corporation currency? Any portion of bank paper thrown into
circulation, represents and transfers some portion of private property, from
individuals to corporations or to other individuals. If it becomes the only currency,
its effect in this operation, is constant and great. And the limitation of this
transfer, depends on the will of the corporation. Although we have avoided the
details of banking as much as possible, it cannot be overlooked, that the liability
of the stock only, the unlimited power to issue notes1 and the capacity of those
notes to transfer property, constitute temptations to which no system ought to be
exposed.
57
The nation possessed a national currency, after the complete introduction of a
corporate currency; it no longer possesses this species of property. If the
national territory was as effectually thrown into the form of a feudal monopoly, as
its currency is thrown into that of banking monopoly, the national territory would
be covered by the term - seigniory as the national currency is now covered by
the terms bank notes; and the suppression of the term national in both cases, is
an equal evidence that an order had obtained, what was previously the public
property.

Let us suppose that a legislature had in the public treasury half a million of
dollars. Could it make a bank by charter, and give it this money? Why not? The
money belongs to the nation; and it would be a transfer from the nation to a
corporation of so much public property, for no public object.

If national currency is suppressed, and corporation currency interpolated, it will

have the effect of transferring from the nation to the corporation, a much larger
portion of private property, than this unjust and unconstitutional donation of half a
million of the public money. Is a small transfer of public and private property to a
corporation, contrary to our policy, but a great one consistent with it? This
argument cannot be eluded by the fact, that bank corporations supply their own
stock or capital. It is not the property covered by that capital, supposing it to be
specie, which is transferred by the governments, from nations to banks. That
capital covers as much of the property of others, are the holders of this specie
capital, justly or constitutionally entitled.

But the law steps in, unites the holders into a bank and empowers this bank to
issue four times as much currency as its capital. Thus the effect of transferring
property from the people at large to the bank, must inevitably follow, by
deranging so egregiously the fair and equitable value or level of national
currency, as to make a portion of it in the hands of corporations, four times as
valuable, as that which remains in the hands of the nation. And this enormous
and exclusive appropriation of the value of specie or national currency is gained
by the privileged sect; whilst the money held by all, not of the corporation
receives no additional value.

Let us throw this argument into figures, as the only mode of making it perfectly
plain. Suppose a bank capital to consist of half a million. This half million, in a fair
and just state of the partnership, called society, represents and entitles the
holders to only half a million worth of property; and those who hold the property
of the partnership, owe to the holders of the currency, and must relinquish so
much of their property, as the currency represents; that is to the value of half a
million and no more. But a few individuals of this partnership or society, have
prevailed upon government to grant them an exclusive charter to issue two
millions of currency, which will represent and transfer four times as much
property, as their half million could before do. Is it not evident that these partners
58
have gained an advantage over those not sharing in the privilege; and that so
much of the property of the rest of society, as the two millions of bank currency
will cover, beyond what the half million of specie would have transferred, is
thereby inevitably taken from the partnership called national or social, and
transferred to the minor partnership called corporation or banking? If so, the
principle of an equality of rights is violated, by making the money of a few men,
more valuable than the money of the people at large; and by the indirect, but
certain mode thence arising, of transferring the property of those possessing the
most valuable. Nor can a species of exclusive privileges be conceived, capable
of producing greater pecuniary loss or gain. Accordingly banking in gathering
wealth, travels with a rapidity, un-attempted by the most able hierarchical
collector.

We have supposed, merely to simplify the argument, that specie stock emits four
times its amount in bank currency. This is precarious and fluctuating, and
therefore the reader is reminded, that although a precise sum is mentioned for
the sake of perspicuity, yet that the argument applies to the surplus of bank
currency issued, whatever it be beyond the actual specie deposited in the bank.

The portion of society privileged to issue two, three or four dollars for one,
becomes one order & impriviledged, another. The dollar which can multiply itself,
is more puissant, than the dollar which cannot. One is a patrician, the other a
plebeian. These dollars will represent their owners, or their owners their dollars.

But to prevent any mistake, it is necessary more particularly to explain the mode
or process, by which the enhancement of the value of an incorporated dollar
beyond an Unincorporated one is effected. - The reader is warned to observe,
however the arguments may have induced him to imagine, that a bank could
convert into property its own bank notes, exceeding its capital four fold; that it
was not our intention to assert such an opinion. It is notorious that these notes
are a debt which the bank must pay. It cannot buy property with them, without
having other funds to redeem them, or disposing of the purchased property for
that purpose.

ESSAY ON BANKING
February 16, 1810

THE real process, by which the exclusive privilege of appreciation is bestowed

on bank capital, is not so simple and direct, but equally certain. It consists chiefly
of two items. First, the surplus of notes circulated, beyond the amount of stock or
capital, produces a surplus of interest beyond what the stock or capital could
produce, the whole of which is an exclusive enhancement of the value of such
stock, beyond the same amount Unincorporated of specie; and will transfer a
correspondent surplus of property. For instance, if a capital of half a million of
stock, can circulate two millions of paper, at six per centum only; one fourth of
the paper produces the whole interest which unincorporated specie can produce:
59
therefore the other three fourths are additional value given to the incorporated
specie by law, arising from exclusive privilege, destroying an equality of rights in
the pecuniary national or social partnership, and transferring unjustly all the
property covered by such additional value. - The second important item of this
process of appreciation, consists of the artifice of taking out a portion of the stock
or capital, and acquiring with it the whole property it represents, and ought in
justice to transfer; and of circulating paper currency upon the credit of an
opinion, that the stock thus used remains deposited. It [is] obvious, that the
interest of the whole of the paper, circulated upon the basis of ideal stock, is an
addition to the value of the specie, which has in person transferred all the
property it ought justly to transfer; and that this unjust enhancement arises from
the exclusive privilege. If it is recollected that there are about fifty millions bank
stock in the United States, and that even a moiety of it, could not possibly have
been deposited in specie, the great effect of artificial stock in transferring
property, will at a glance be conspicuous. The example of a commercial
partnership consisting of one thousand persons, supplying different quotas of
stock, will still illustrate the argument. We will suppose that the stock of the
wealthiest individual of the partnership, amounted to one thousand dollars, and
of the poorest to one; and that the intermediate space was occupied by a great
variety of sums, constituting the stock of other partners. The profits are the
property of the partnership, and ought to be proportioned according to the stock
of each individual. The partner entitled to one thousand dollars, ought to have
one thousand times as much of this property, as that partner entitled to one
dollar stock. If you give him two then, or four thousand times more than you give
to the partner entitled to one dollar stock, you rob this poor partner and all the
others of a portion of their property, and give it to the rich partner. By suffering
the rich partner to take his thousand dollars out of the partnership and leave only
his credit behind, he acquires its full value in property, besides retaining the
treble profit, to acquire more property than their money, or that of the others
represents: cunning and rich bankers, those who take away their stock or a
portion of it, and continue to draw this overplus of property; and the poor partner
represents those, not bankers, and limited to draw property in strict proportion to
the amount of their money.

National currency is the stock representing national property, as mercantile

capital represents partnership profit. This stock is unequally divided, but it is
entitled to a proportional value in property, as mercantile capital is in profit.
Banking enables about one in a thousand of a nation, to draw out of the national
funds considerably more property, than his share of national currency entitled
him to, which unjust overplus is a deduction from the property of the rest of the
nation; just as any mode, direct or indirect, by which one partner could get more
than his proportional share of mercantile profit, transfers to him the property of
others. And as the acquisitions of banking, from the nature of the institution,
must settle in the hands of the wealthy class, it is of course a mode of adding to
the wealth of that class, by taking from all the others; similar to enrichment of the
rich mercantile partner, and analogous in its effects to every exclusive order,
60
which has heretofore deluded and enslaved nations.

The injustice of appreciating partially and exclusively the money of a minor order,
or of any portion of society, is yet further illustrated by recollecting, that
appreciation is necessarily attended by its correlative depreciation; and that the
effects of the one in moral geometry, are an exact mensuration of the effects of
the other. Value is relative. If the money or property of one portion of the society,
is made by law to be worthless, the money or property of those not thus
oppressed, will consequently be worth more; if the law adds partially to the value
of the money or property of some, it correspondingly diminishes their value as to
others; the funding system illustrates both positions. First, by funding without
providing for the interest, the certificates were depreciated, because, two
shillings of it would buy twenty shillings of the certificate. Secondly, by providing
for the payment of the interest, after the depreciated property, had been
purchased by the appreciated property, an appreciation of certificates took place,
which lessened the value of all property subjected to make the appreciation
good, even of those who had suffered the depreciation. This appreciation of
certificates ten fold beyond their current value, is the literal case of appreciating
specie by banking, beyond its current value: except that the appreciation of
specie does not visibly appear to be so exorbitant. Although, if banks have
resorted to paper to make up capital, as is unquestionable; the difference
between the legal appreciation of monopolized certificates, and of bank stock in
point of exorbitancy, will be inconsiderable. Whether it is the moral injustice of
making a currency worth only twenty shillings in the pound, of the value of eighty,
or forty shillings in favor of a few corporations, is founded in the same principle of
monopoly, partiality and violation of property, in which the depreciation and
appreciation of the certificates was founded; except that for this, no pretext or
nominal reason existed. It is a plain continuation of that system. The depreciation
of certificates, enabled a few to get them at one tenth of that nominal amount. -
Their appreciation invested the holders with an enormous pecuniary
advantage. Banking appreciates money incomputably, especially where bank
paper has made bank stock. It is the second great movement of an enormous
and crushing monopoly.

ESSAY ON BANKING
February 20, 1810

TO display and compare with our policy and constitutions, the abuses which
have successively destroyed liberty and happiness, it was necessary to prove
the distinction between the abuses and our political principles; and their
irreconcilable enmity to each other. This part of the essay is devoted to the
consideration of a system of partiality and monopoly, introduced by law; because
we conceive it to be as inimical to our policy and constitutions, and more
dangerous than Mr. Adams system or orders; or than the aristocracies of nobility
61
or hierarchy.

Aristocracy is forever adapting itself to the temper of the times. In those of

ignorance and superstition, it pretended to be the sanctified Herald of the Gods.
In warlike times, it glittered in armor, and boasted of its prowess. And now it
dazzles avarice with such riches as we see in dreams; whilst it is building up for
itself a tower with cent per cent, from whence it can scale and conquer our
constitutions.

Against that portion of the system of paper and patronage called funding, or
anticipation, none of the American constitutions have provided a check. If
borrowing and funding can enslave nations, our governments possess a despotic
power, without any control, that of election excepted. It ought therefore, if it can
be effected, to be placed in a state of division between the general and state
governments, to prevent either from destroying the other by this instrument; or
subjected to some other check.

Armies will enslave their country after they have bled for it; therefore they must
be checked by an armed nation. Funding systems bleed their country, and then
enslave it; and unless they are more patriotic than armies, they seem to be an
object of equal danger. The army mode of enslaving the nation, is not left to the
exclusive control of election. Military men are excluded from legislatures, and
whilst the general government may raise an army, the states may arm, officer
and discipline the militia. The funding mode is not provided against.

If banking is inconsistent with the positive rules of our constitutions, or adverse

to their general principles, the laws upon the subject are void. But, supposing it
only transfers property unfairly, and is as dangerous to liberty as funding; it can
not plead national necessity as a subterfuge against annihilation; and what friend
to free government would hesitate, to annihilate the power of

borrowing if there was a certainty that the national defense would never render it
necessary. But it can plead charters; the Lord deliver us from charters! Admit
that the banking system ought not to have existed, yet these sanctions for evil,
say it shall continue to exist. A history of charters would afford vast
amusement and instruction to nations. It would terminate in ascertaining that
orders have practiced as insidiously behind these, as behind alters. Such as are
improvidently granted by nations, or corruptly by governments, are said, like the
oracles, to be sacred; but those obtained by nations, or individuals from orders,
are disregarded or destroyed, as interest or ambition dictates. English municipal
law applies to the charters to be annulled in favor of orders, the term -
obreptitions; implying, that they were obtained by surprise, or by a concealment
of their effects; in which cases they are to be vacated. But it has no term, or
process, recognizing a right in nations to resume improvident grants, or to annul
those made by the government contrary to national rights, or public good.
Admitting however, that the people of our union, have no right to save their
62
liberties against a host of charters, unless a precedent to justify it can be found
(a doctrine as correct, as that they have no right to the union, or their policy,
because they are unjustified by precedent) this English law furnishes such a
precedent.

Orders in England constitute the sovereignty; the people, in the United States.
The sovereignty of orders annuls charters for sundry causes; the sovereignty of
the people may therefore, even according to precedent, annul them for the same
causes. No cause could be more completely within the reason and scope of the
English doctrine, than one which would tend to destruction of the sovereignty of
orders in that country; whatever tends to the destruction of the sovereignty of the
people, is equally within its scope and meaning. And the right of the sovereignty
here to annul obreptitious charters, is stronger than it is in England, because
there the charter may be the act of the sovereignty itself: here it can only be the
act of agents of the sovereignty - responsible - of limited powers - and having no
power directly or indirectly to change the nature of the government by
obreptitious charters.

Bank charters, in a vast variety of views, fall within this English law doctrine,
unless the reasoning of this essay are incorrect. Who, for instance, on beholding
a city, or an individual enriched by banking, was aware that this was effected by
taxation? And who believed, that at this moment, the United States were paying
five millions worth of their property annually, to a small portion of their people, for
a factitious currency?

These law charters, however sanctioned by legal forms, are never genuine
National law. National will, and nation interest in free governments, are the only
true sanctions of law. The will of the legislature is only considered as a sanction
for law, as representing and uttering the national will; but if a legislature are
induced to pass a law-charter for advancing the exclusive interest of the
legislative body or of some other combination of men, by violating the other,
national will: instead of representing and uttering which, it unquestionably
represents, and utters the will of the combination, in favor of whose exclusive
interest it legislates. Without leaving our subject to consider the device of
consecrating these spurious laws, beyond constitutional law itself; it falls within it
to consider the character of a separate or exclusive interest, which invariably
dictates them.

It is happily hit off, unintentionally by Mr. Addison in his third Spectator, where he
personifies public credit, by a virgin, enthroned on gold in the hall of the bank of
England; surrounded by funding laws; delighted with contemplating them;
timorous; a valetudinarian; suddenly withering; suddenly reviving; converting
whatever she touched into gold, which would suddenly vanish, or become tallies.
if she was afflicted; fainting and dying at the sight of a commonwealth; and
revived by monarchy.

63
By mistaking the exclusive interest called funding for public credit, Mr. Addison
has described the character of paper stock. Gold, and not virtue, is the terrestrial
deity of this allegorical being, so improperly represented as a virgin. She admits
promiscuous and loathsome embraces to acquire it. Wealth rises as if by magic
around her, as around fraud, and theft. It disappears upon the least rustling of
danger; as a robber hides his booty. She is timorous from conscious guilt. She is
a sickly moral being, because she is formed of bad moral principles. She faints
and dies under a commonwealth, because she cannot live within the pale of
common interest, and can only subsist on its destruction; and she is revived by
monarchy, a congenial being, which aids this fearful, sickly, fainting, reviving,
magical and wicked being, by surrounding her with consecrated law charters.

Contrast genuine and honest public credit with this thievish Specter, & assign the
privilege of consecrating law, to general or exclusive interest, as the result shall
indicate which of the two is the purest legislator? Genuine public credit is
enthroned, not upon gold gathered by law into a bank, but upon property
distributed by industry. It is greatest, where national debt is least. It flows from
national wealth and prosperity; not from the wealth of corporations enriched by
exclusive privileges. It creates gold by industry not by magic; and saves it by
valor, not by hiding. It is a healthy moral being, because it is formed of good
moral principles; and bold, because it is honest. It flourishes under a
commonwealth, and dies under a monarchy. Hostile principles cannot live in
union and friendship: national credit, and corporation credit, must consort each
with its like. They are respectively killed and revived by monarchy &
commonwealth; because a government founded on the principle of minority
accords with one, and that founded on the principle of majority, with the other.
Corporation credit, artificially created by law, and orders, unite and cohere, from
an identity of origin and nature. National credit arising from fair industry and
national wealth, can only unite with a free and equal government.
ESSAY ON BANKING
February 23, 1810

ALL partial interests, capable of influencing the passage of, or sustaining a law,
belonging to the family of this virgin, described by Mr. Addison. Of the two sisters
of this family which have appeared in the U. States - funding and banking, one
only is now heaping up gold by magic, and figuring in legislatures. She is adored
as a beauty, and the other execrated as a hag; although the family likeness is so
strong, that they frequently pass for twins. As the fate of the general interest
depends upon this amour between the government and the twin sister of Mr.
Addisons virgin, the consequence of endowing her with the privilege of passing
consecrated laws, or law-charters, as her English sister has been endowed, are
referred to the readers consideration. Liberty was nearly smothered in the
embraces between our government, and Mr. Addisons virgin; the amour going
on with her sister will hardly revive it. But let us return from the political features
of the subject to calculation.

64
The annual exports of the products of the United States, have been supposed to
amount to about forty millions of dollars; and the bank capital to about fifty; and
we have endeavored to prove, that the five millions paid annually for bank paper,
cannot be reimbursed by any additional price bestowed by it on our exports. This
glimpse of the manner in which banking, in its infancy, enriches agriculture and
manufactures, in its maturity becomes a clear light. By the return of 1803 to the
British parliament, the official value of British manufacture or exports, was less
than twenty-four millions sterling; but their real value was estimated by the
minister at forty millions. Suppose the quantity of bank paper, public and private
circulating in England, to be about five hundred millions: it receives between
twenty and thirty millions for enriching those, who export forty millions worth. The
agriculture and manufactures of England are enriched also in the same mode, by
the sister of banking, so recently eulogized in this country for possessing these
qualities. Above five hundred millions of debt stock, receives annually nearly as
much as bank stock. Of what is paid to two other members of the same family,
named patronage and hierarchy, we have no account; but exclusive of the sum
paid to hierarchy, and banking, by manufactures and agriculture, to get rich by
the bounty of this generous family, the supplies of the same year exceeded
seventy millions sterling: so that the scheme of paper and patronage, when
matured takes from a nation about one hundred million sterling, to enrich
agriculture and manufactures, by enhancing the price of forty million worth of
their commodities. And after paying all this money, it remains a question,
whether back currency, does not moreover diminish prices, to enrich capitalists,
at the expense of agriculture and manufactures. In 1803 the United States
contained something more than one third of the people of Britain, and exported
much more than one third of her official exports, and nearly that proportion of her
estimated exports. The exports of Great Britain were swelled by the estimate of
the minister very far beyond the official returns, & those of the United States are
rigidly confined to them; therefore it is highly probable, that the value of exports
from the two countries in relation to the number of people, did not fall short on
the part of the United States. Britain then, with a vastly greater proportion of this
stimulating & enriching stock, exported the same or a less value of commodities,
in relation to the number of people than the U. States. This is only to be
accounted for by balancing the exclusive advantages she possesses in fertility of
soil, in manufactured perfection, in machinery, and in rich provinces; with a draw
arising from paper currency. Except for some draw back, these immense
advantages, ought to have been accounted for in the comparison, by an
immense superiority of exports in relation to the numbers of people in the two
countries. As they are lost, it affords the strongest evidence, against the
assertion, that paper currency will excite industry, enrich manufactures or
agriculture, or even benefit commerce.

How can it do either, when paper stock draws from the national labor, more than
the whole value of what it exports? How can it fail to be the most oppressive tax
gatherer, when it is able to take from a nation, more than it sells? If it is admitted
to be a tax, when it takes all, does it cease to be a tax when it takes a part? The
65
ten hundred millions of bank and debt stock, has made every soul in England
worth to paper alone, eighty pounds sterling. Adding to their drafts of paper,
those of patronage, civil, military and religious, the value of each soul to the
system of paper and patronage, is about one hundred and fifty pounds sterling.
The American and West India slave owners, are not task masters, of this
system, which has made free born Englishmen, of three fold value to itself,
beyond African slaves, to their masters, is not a task master.

This stupendous mass of paper has been raised from a foundation as imaginary
as that of the earth in Indian cosmography. A rich man by becoming a law
maker, contrives to make the reputation of his wealth more profitable to him,
than his wealth itself. Not content with enjoying his property in security, he makes
it absorb the earnings of the poor. If a true opinion as to ones wealth, ought not
to plunder a nation, a false one is doubly a knave. The means used by the rich in
England to lay industry under contribution, is used by the rich of the United
States; to lay themselves under contribution. The richest interest in the United
States is the Agricultural. It holds however, but a small portion of the credit
which sustains banking, and draws but little of the profit. And as it mortgaged
itself to enrich a poor speculating interest by the funding system, under the
delusion of supporting a false national credit; it again mortgages itself to enrich a
banking interest, under the delusion that it receives, and does not pay the
interest or dividend. In other countries, if the rich are knaves, they are not blind to
their own interest. They inflict taxes direct, indirect, and intricate, of which they
pay a part; but they take care to receive most or all. If these taxes are paid to
armies, churches, navies, pensions, or sinecures, they are received by the rich,
or their children. The paper interest in England is willing to pay a small part of the
enormous tax, drawn from the nation by paper stock, because it receives all; and
the landed interest of the United States is willing to introduce this fathomless
mode of taxation here, because it pays nearly all, and receives a small part.

In the United States the civil offices cost but little, and do not exceed the
legitimate necessities of civil government. We have no armies, churches,
navies, pensions, or sinecures, contrived for the purpose of conveying to the
richest class of citizens, the money drawn directly or indirectly from the nation.
Stock, banking and funding are the only modes hitherto used for drawing money
from the many for the few; and the rich have most unskillfully suffered the money
thus drawn to pass into the pockets of speculators and bankers of fallacious
wealth, and real avarice. It is nearly true that the rich class in England pay some
and receive all; and that the rich class to the United States pay all and receive
some. The first, fleece labor and industry for themselves; the other, fleece
themselves for paper craft. Had the landed interest of the United States, laid out
the nine millions a year, which it gives to bankers and certificate buyers, in a
church, an army and a navy, it would have made provision for its sons, like the
rich classes of other countries. According to the wisdom of this world, all other
rich classes combine their own prosperity with high taxes; but to combine its own
decay and ruin with taxation, by paying to paper stock nine millions a year, of
66
which it receives but a trivial proportion, is a species of acuteness in the landed
interest of the United States, according to the wisdom of no world that I know of.
It is true, that if the landed interest in creating this annuity, had kept it for itself;
corruption, oppression and party spirit, would have been the consequencesuch
being the unavoidable effect of giving away by law, a sum of money annually,
eighteen times more valuable than the Yazoo speculation. But as the landed
interest pays the best part of this annuity, it had the best right to receive it; and
its sons crowned with miters, or with laurel, have often cultivated virtues which
adorn, and benefit society. In how many revolutions of Mercury, would stock
beget subjects for a Plutarch?

ESSAY ON BANKING
February 27, 1810

HAD the nine millions been laid out in official patronage, instead of stock
patronage, the amount paid by the nation might have terminated there. But
banking, besides its dividends, possesses a power of causing the quantity, and
of course the value of currency to fluctuate, by which it may impoverish, and
enrich, or tax, and patronize to a vast amount beyond its dividends: of this the
nation can get no account. It is a power equivalent to incessant adulterations and
purifications of specie by an absolute monarch. Coin adulterated, or paper
multiplied, buy less. Coin purified, or paper diminished buy more. It would be
dangerous for the strongest despotism to gather wealth, by causing gold to
fluctuate between twelve and twenty-four carats, several times a year. If this
despotism was a merchant, it could by such a power buy and sell the
commodities of its subjects, at what gain it pleases. The carat of paper money
fluctuates with its quality, and this fluctuation is at all times within the power of
banking, and frequently produced. Being capable of greater repetition, it can
enrich and impoverish beyond any practicable alternate adulteration and
purification of coin, for the benefit of a corporation or despotism. Paper currency
can be made better and worse, more frequently by the magic of a bank, than
specie by the furnace of a monarch: but although the banking adulterations can
do so much more work, yet we do not believe it, because we do not see the
process, & only see the effect in their amassing wealth with a rapidity & duration,
far beyond adulterations of coin in any mode hitherto discovered. If a king of
England should call in forty millions of specie, and pay it back in unadulterated
money, so as to rob the nation of twenty; that free born people would probably
cut of his head: and the same wise born people are quite contented to be robbed
of a larger sum annually, by the same principle.

To illustrate the facility with which this may be done with paper in a mercantile
way, better than with specie in a despotic way, (as a chemical process in the
moist and dry way can produce the same result) let us suppose the managers of
banking to be buyers of the staple of a country, wheat for instance. When the
crop comes in, the price will be kept down, by appreciating or purifying paper
67
currency, by lessening the quantity. Under this influence, those who work the
furnace, buy. The loss, like adulterations of specie, falls upon ignorance and
industry. It is a law of maximum, or for fixing prices, except that an interested
party regulates them, instead of an impartial government.

This incessant fluctuation to the intrinsic value of bank currency, is at least more
likely to favor cunning, knavish, calculating speculation, than simple, honest,
thoughtless industry. Those who settle the carat of this currency are buyers;
upon what principle to be found in human nature by the grossest credulity, can
they be possibly induced to use this power, for the purpose of enhancing the
value of the commodities they buy?

If the government of the fluctuation, or carat of bank currency, was in the hands
of a native mercantile interest, such an interest would undoubtedly endeavor to
gratify the love of gain, by using it to buy as cheap, and to sell as dear as it
could; and it would be to a considerable extent successful. But although it would
appropriate to its own use, the whole mass of gain transferred by this fluctuation,
from the interests of society, yet the nation would possess the consolation of
reflecting, that its loss remained at home, and would return to it the species of
retribution arising from individual splendor, munificence, and luxury. But if a
foreign capital should acquire an influence over the quantity, fluctuation or carat
of bank paper, the wealth collected by it, will be drawn to a foreign country. This
is not all the calamity. If such a foreign Capital or interest should be the buyer of
our exports, a power over the quantity or carat of the bank paper, will enable it to
diminish their exportation price, for the benefit of itself, and its own country. The
degree of influence held by British Capital over American Banks, can not be
estimated. Whatever it is, a correspondent degree of effect must follow. It can
diminish the prices of our exports both here and in Britain, and increase the
English profit on re-exportation. The whole diminution it can cause in the price of
any article, is its gain, and our loss. If in the articles of tobacco, for instance, this
gain is made on re-exportation to other countries; if on that of cotton, on its
return in a manufactured state, in a large amount, to this.

A variation in the value or carat of money, defeats its genuine end and
usefulness. It is the measure of all property, as the bushel is a measure of grain.
Permanency makes measures the vehicles of justice; & fluctuation of fraud. If a
fixed measure for some articles of property, must dispense justice & discourage
fraud; a fluctuating measure for all articles of property, must dispense fraud, &
discourage justice. False weights and measures will corrupt morals, and
corruption of morals, will overturn governments founded in good principles. If
such is the effect of a fraudulent mode of weighing and measuring property, by
scales and measures capable of being examined by the senses, and easy of
detection; what will be the effect of measuring property by a fraudulent mode,
beyond the reach of the eye, and only to be detected by patient and deep
investigation? Fluctuating money makes all weights and measures false. It finally
weighs and measures everything by price. By extending, and diminishing this
68
alternately, the utmost evil of false weights and measures is produced. A few
men, whose interest it is to do so, can cause the carat of bank currency, to
fluctuate without control, account, or punishment. When it diminishes the price of
property (wheat for instance) twenty-five per centum, the effect to the seller is the
same, as if the buyer had secretly added one fourth to the capacity of the bushel;
when it increases the price co-extensively, the effect to this buyer, now the seller,
is like cutting off one fourth of the same capacity. And the managers of the
fluctuation, or carat of the measure, may thus gain twenty-five per centum
unjustly, by each operation.

ESSAY ON BANKING
March 2, 1810

A fluctuation between the two steadiest measures of property, gold and silver,
had at some periods, reached considerably upon fair dealing, and produced
oppressive consequences. Adulterations of coin, are [next line folded under and
not readable] consequences, which are never long endured, because the
process is physical, and easy to detect; and fluctuations of bank paper though
from perpetual alteration, the same effects in their utmost malignancy, and
permanency must follow, are endured, because the process of detection is
metaphysical

If the senses cannot perceive that the same moral cause, will produce similar
effects; and that if a fluctuation in the measure of property, by the two first
modes, brings oppression, its fluctuation by the third will also bring it; let the mind
reflect upon the following supposition, congenial with this third mode. Suppose a
corporation exclusively possessed of the knowledge of assaying metals, to be
endowed she with the right of coinage, without check, or control; or any
knowledge in the nation, as to the quantity of money made, or what it was made
of. This corporation would resemble banking in all aspects but one. A banking
coinage, by managing fluctuation, or frequently changing in measure of property,
may sell dear, and buy cheap: it can throw alloy into paper by the medium of
quantity, and take it out by the medium of scarcity, at the national expense. But
the coining corporation having no means of extracting the alloy thrown into gold
or silver, without altering themselves: herein the cases differ. The coinage
corporation can only fleece the nation by the alloy; but the paper corporation can
fleece a nation by frequently putting in and taking out the alloy, as its interest
dictates. This power is an invisible agent, who pares, clips, and sweats property
at every contact, by making its measure contract or dilate according to his
interest. A nation must have permanent standards for measuring power and
property, and perfectly understand their capacity, or cease to be free. If a
legislature, though annually elected, can invent a measure for transferring other
to themselves and their faction, they will make it as capricious as they please.
The office of our constitutions, is to prevent our legislatures from dealing out
power to themselves or others. Are they at liberty to deal out property? A bushel
69
of money absorbs power, as a bushel of sand does water. The idea is
capable of several aspects. Perhaps the following aspects may be equally
important. By fraudulent modes of measuring property, nations are universally
enslaved: thus the feudal system enslaved. The fraud consisted in accumulating
land in the hands of a few, under pretense of compensating these few for
defending a multitude. The Popish hierarchy became a tyranny from a fraudulent
mode of measuring property, by the artifice of selling heaven. Patronage
generates despotism, simply from being a fraudulent mode of measuring
property; it is not an empty office, but the wealth which it transfers measures out
from the many to the few, in which its tyranny consists. All these are modes of
oppression, only because they are fraudulent modes of measuring property.
They may be called indirect, as money is the direct mode of this mensuration. -
Though money is limited to specie, and should possess the steady value of a
known and fixed carat, yet these indirect modes enslave nations, by measuring
out property unfairly. But if money, the direct mode of measuring all property, can
be made to fluctuate in value or capacity, by a few corporations, the operation in
transferring and accumulating property, must be infinitely more rapid, than the
operation of any indirect mode: and the effect infinitely more certain. It is this
operation which terminates in tyranny, whether it is produced directly, or
indirectly, by fraud, accident, or pretended necessity. By ending in accumulation,
sufficient to beget a separate interest, the tyranny follows of course. Whether
banking therefore, is founded in fraud, or honesty, in deception or sincerity, is
unimportant to the inquiry. So long as it is a mode of measuring property
unequally by law, and not by industry, capable of begetting a separate interest in
a nation, it must produce the effect, produced by the feudal, hierarchical, and
patronage systems; because the effect of all three flowed from their being modes
of measuring out property unequally by law, so as to beget a separate interest in
a nation. Throughout the history of the civilized world, the admeasurement of
property by industry has bred patriots;by law, traitors to the liberty and
happiness of nations. Will the form of a caliber render a ball propelled by the
same force harmless? Principle is the power which produces the effects of moral
artillery. The powder of banking is precisely the same, with that used by the
feudal system, hierarchy, and patronage to batter human liberty, namely a
distribution of property not by industry, but by law. Wherein consists the
oppression of monarchy and aristocracy, except in being such modes of
measuring property? Wherein consists the fraud of these modes, except in
making this distribution by the false measure of law, and fluctuating adulterated
money instead of leaving it to be made by the true measures, industry and
money of a steady and known carat?

We have supposed the case of one state, erected by congress into a

corporation, with the exclusive power of supplying the others with bank currency.
Let us subjoin to the supposition, the idea of the incorporated state being
mercantile, the others agricultural. How forcible are the effects illustrated, of a
power in one dealer, to regulate the value of the currency, or the capacity of the
measure, by which the price of property is regulated for both? The whole
70
agricultural interest unadulterated by any commixture with the banking interest,
occupies the precise place of the unprivileged states. In the case supposed, the
oppression would not be borne for a moment is because the suffering being
would be equal in union, sagacity and power, to the inflicting being. It is borne in
the case existing, because the suffering beings are unequal in union, sagacity
and power to the inflicting beings. Individual ignorance, passion and folly, are no
match for corporate knowledge, calmness and cunning. To let loose upon a
nation, a faction disciplined by charters, and avarice, for the purpose of gathering
money of individuals, is a project equivalent to letting loose a veteran army upon
captain Bobadil. He only, who believes that captain Bobadil could beat the army,
can believe the nation safe in the hands of such a faction. Johnsons
braggadocio, and nations, have in these contests been equally successful.

Banking exclaims, let individuals shift for themselves. Such precisely, is the only
advantage required by every species of fraud and force. An association of
conjurers or robbers, only asks that individuals may shift for themselves. But the
design of government is to protect individuals, against these very associations.
The tyranny of fraud is not less oppressive than that of force. All national
grievances act upon individuals. A redundancy of circulating paper stock
collecting an enormous tax, must act upon individuals, like other national
grievances. If the ten hundred millions of such stock in England, was suddenly
connected into specie, whatever would fly away to other countries, would be the
portion of currency, useless, and therefore oppressive to the extent of the tax it
gathered. The specie expelled by bank paper from the United States, was made
by that paper, a redundancy, which cannot follow the specie, is an oppression
similar to the English. We see in the example of England, the error of an opinion
that the quantity of a paper currency will be regulated by national wants; we see
in America that bank currency soon expels, as redundant, a sum of specie
currency, and takes its place to a far greater amount. We see that this
redundancy, though unnecessary and pernicious, can gather wealth for a
separate interest; to what amount England has labored in vain to discover, for a
whole century. What expedient can individuals use to avoid these calamities?

ESSAY ON BANKING
March 9, 1810

1T has been contended, that according to our policy, the people alone are
capable of pronouncing political law, or bestowing political power, by their organ
for that special purpose appointed. Herein consists their sovereignty. And that
the utmost power of legislatures, is limited to the imposition of something short of
political law, which has been called civil law. If a legislature can convey or create
political power, by calling their act civil law, then the sovereignty of the people is
dependent on the legislature, because they may thus mold our government by
laws into what shape they please. All our constitutions recognize, and labor to
fortify the sovereignty of the people; therefore an indirect legislative mode of
destroying it, would be equally unconstitutional, with a positive law for that
71
purpose.

If banking charters do convey power, or political influence with the money they
bestow, and will like all other modes for measuring wealth by law, gradually
change the nature and principles of governments; they are equally
unconstitutional, and as subversive of the sovereignty of the people, as a law for
creating a king, or an order of nobles. They are an instrument for changing a
government without the authority of the people. The five millions, at this time
dissected annually from the people, by these instruments, have already
disclosed a political power able to influence governments. This vast magnet for
attracting power, grows daily. Anticipate its effects, by contrasting the
accumulation it may end in, with an equal division of property. Would the political
effects of these measures be the same? Would these contraries generate
contrary forms of government? If they would, then both belong to the class of
political, or constitutional law, and can only be pronounced by the people or their
organ deputed for the purpose. And the legislatures have as little right to pass
banking laws for the accumulation, as agrarian laws, for the division of property.

If it is contended, both that the state, and general legislatures, can not pass laws
for dividing property, but that they may pass laws for its accumulation in the
bands of a chartered interest; or that laws either for the division and
accumulation of property, are of an honest and genuine civil or municipal nature,
without possessing a capacity to model power, and change governments; and if
these assertions can be proved, then banking charters, however oppressive,
must be admitted to be constitutional, unless the argument should be made yet
stronger by the following complexion.

The formation of society, and the alteration of its constituent rules, are admitted
by our policy to be rights exclusively lodged in the people, in which rights the
government they establish, have no share. It is also admitted that the rights
subsisting previous to the compacts, called constitutions, all remain except those
relinquished for the sake of forming this society. Banking diminishes these
remaining rights in transferring a portion of them to a new society, not formed by
the people. It was lately stated, that if a legislature can by law, form a new
society, to draw money artificially from the rest of the nation, that the residue of
the old society was no longer in a social state. By the association of the people,
the natural principle of equality among the citizens, is asserted and established.
Property, by the association of the people, is placed under the protection of the
first principle; by the association of the government, it is exposed to the
depredations of the second. The first association makes an entire nation; the
second divides that nation into two privileged and unprivileged, or receivers
and payers. One forms a great nation upon the basis of equal rights; the other
takes out a few of this great nation, and forms it into a little nation, upon the
basis of unequal rights. One proposes to dispense general good; the other to
make the general good subservient to private avarice. Both the ends and their
principles, are precisely opposite. Suppose the new formed little nation, had
72
been invested by government with a power of waging war indirectly, against the
lives of the associates under the old compact, would this charter also have been
unconstitutional, and would the old society have still continued? Between
charters to a few, for waging war against the lives and against the property of the
rest, I see no difference. Money and the sword, are the instruments of usurped
and tyrannical governments. Where is the difference between taking away the
arms, or the wealth of the great nation, and giving them to the little nation. Is it
not obvious, that the new association by which either is effected, whether it is
called a standing army, religion, credit or law charter, overturns the old
association? From that moment no association, but the charter exists, because
its operation, makes the old association inoperative. The government which
contrives will adhere to the new compact, against the old, contrived by the
nation. Those, without the new society, to which the government has gone over,
belong to no society; and those within it, belong not to the old society from which
they were taken by the charter, but to the new one, in which that charter places
them. The question therefore is, whether the legal chartered nation, or the
constitutional nation shall exist.

ESSAY ON BANKING
March 13, 1810

THE project of erecting a banking fabric by a law of the general government, in

which the states should receive allotments of stock, brings more visibly into view,
the idea of a chartered nation capable of superseding the constitutional nation.

The constitutional nation has bestowed specified portions of power on the

general and state governments, a pecuniary independence of either on the
other, and a pecuniary dependence of both on the people. The project proposes
to disorder these portions; to humiliate the state governments into a pecuniary
dependence on the general government, and to make them partly, or completely
independent of their constituents, for revenue. The recital of the project suffices
to disclose instantly to common sense, that it will create a legal corporation,
which must supplant the constitutional. If the state governments receive money
or supplies from congressional charters, the sympathy between them and their
constituents will cease, and revive between them and congress. The disuse of
the people to supply a revenue to the state governments, will, like poison
disguised with honey, indispose them to do so, and add to their dependence on
the charter which does supply it. Congress will see and use the influence thence
arising, and the state governments will become such a check upon the
usurpations of the general government, as those receiving salaries at the will of
the president, are upon his. If no such check was necessary, why was it created,
and wherefore is it continued? It would be more conformable to the principles of
our policy to remove it openly by an amendment to the constitution, than
covertly, by stratagem of a financier.

73
The general and the state governments are the chartered creatures of grantors
who alone had a right to make that species of charter, and the project proposed,
that one of these chartered governments should charter money to the other, and
power to itself, to come out of the pockets and rights of the people, and thus alter
essentially, the charters constituting both. If Bonaparte was to make an
equivalent pecuniary proposal to toe state governments, the people would
discern the destruction of their liberty in its acceptance. Is there less danger that
the state governments may merge into the general, than into the French
government? If such a proposal would awaken human nature to a remote, why
does an equivalent proposal cause it to sleep over a near danger? Let the
project be reversed. Let the general government be made dependent for its
revenue on charters to be granted by the state governments, and the people
trained to paying little or nothing for its support. Would it not rapidly change the
principles of our policy, and terminate in the disunion of the states, and the
destruction of the general government? If such would be the issue of the
converse of the project, the project itself must be calculated to operate
conversely to this issue. If a division of the union, and the destruction of the
general government would result from one political prescription, a consolidation
of it, the destruction of the state governments results unavoidably from the other.
It would be less dangerous to the state governments to make them dependent
on a foreign potentate's charter for revenue, than on the charter of the general
government, because no political or pecuniary privity would exist between him
and the people. He would have to bribe state legislatures, not with money taxed
or filched from the people, but with his own; and he would not by the operation
increase his own power over the people, nor spread a corrupted faction without,
to sustain the corruption within the legislatures. Of this powerful combination a
foreign potentate would be destitute, and the general government possessed. If
the charter raised the enemy by force, fear would favor it; if by fraud, shares in
the fraud would be its advocate; and the whole mass of power and patronage
possessed by the general government would be its ally.

But suppose neither fraud nor force is used by the general government to
procure money from the people, to be bestowed on state governments, and
admit also that no part of this money should be diverted into the pockets of
individuals by the machinery of banking, or the circuity of coining. Let the general
government have a power of raising or not raising, and appropriating annually
among the states, a sum of money to be divided by the census. Is the influence
which adheres to the imposition, collection, and appropriation of revenue, and
the dependencies it creates any secret? It was well illustrated under the old
confederation.

The consequences of admitting stock aliens into the legislatures of the nation of
people, have been heretofore noticed, but these will disappear, like a disease
from death, after the entire legislatures, and their successors are converted into
stockholders under the charter of a chartered government. By this instrument
congress may instantly form a minority nation, and kill politically the majority
74
nation. A minority nation in alliance with the general government, which created
it; with state governments bribed to support it; and a stock and moneyed interest
aggrandized and enriched by it:such a minority must become the government,
and will by a thousand ways plunder the nation of people, and force it to be
obedient by mercenary fleets and armies, like the English paper and patronage
faction. The president and directors of this bank, scattered throughout the states,
and sprinkled in legislative bodies, will grow into the influence of an  East India
company, which was too strong for a ministry, stronger than a king. Whilst all the
power or support reaped by the general government from its own charter will
destroy so much of its federal complexion and dependence on the people, and
deviate from all the principles of our policy, recognizing national will as the basis,
and national interest as the end of government, by supplanting them with
chartered will and interest

ESSAY ON BANKING
March 16, 1810

GOVERNMENTS which do not admit themselves to be chartered creatures with

limited power, have frequently created political power; but if chartered beings can
in virtue of these precedents, increase their own power, the limitations both of
their own charters, and of those by which they exist, are easily evaded and
destroyed; as the right of the corporation of bankers to extend their power, is as
sound as the right of Congress to extend theirs. No political power is stronger
than one fixed in pecuniary patronage: it enslaves England. The Bank and East
India charters are considerable items of its despotism. But against a mighty
banking patronage, dispensing to states, and individuals, five, fifty, or an hundred
millions annually, there can be no social resistance. Banking rivalry itself will be
abolished by an infusion of stock interest, and by the receipt of taxes exclusively
in the political currency; and wealth or poverty will so greatly depend on the
power which can continue, renew, or abolish the charter, that the nation must
become dependent on the men in power, and the men in power independent of
the will of the nation, which is a definition of despotism according to the policy
and principles of the United States.

But despotism is administered successfully in this form, by sweetening the pill as

to individuals, with a share of the despotism, and by making nations believe, that
they also get a share of it. The profits, or tax collected by the machine contrived
for the collection, constitute the oppression. The greater part falls to the lot of
individuals, and an inconsiderable portion bestowed on the nation, which pays
the whole, cajoles it into a similar admiration: just as the English nation were
deceived by the premiums for renewing bank and East India charters, to court
these engines of oppression.

 East India Trading Corporation was the company. They had the monopoly on
the opium trade world wide at that time. Today the enemy is Wall Street.
75
The sale of titles by kings and their ministers to raise money for national
purposes has never been defended by any historian moralist or philosopher. The
sale of bank charters fixes a tax on the nation; of titles produces money without a
tax. The money raised by the bank tax upon the nation goes chiefly to
individuals; that raised of individuals by the sale of titles, may be applied to the
use of the nation. The sale of a Bank charter is unexceptionably a sale of more
money for less money; of titles, a sale of nothing, for something. One is the
practice of a madman exchanging two dollars for one; the other of a priest
receiving good fees for making Christians of infants. The nations which sell these
money machines to collect money from themselves, resemble this madman; the
governments which gain money and power for themselves by selling titles,
resemble this priest. The sale of both tittles and charters, is however, always
resorted to for ends which a nation would condemn. Kings have assumed one
power, and governments the other, to diminish their dependence on nations. The
fountain of honor in one case, is converted into a fountain of infamy; and
legislation which ought to be the fountain of justice, is in the other converted into
a machine for huckstering off national rights and individual property by the secret
 Venue of law charter at prices always under value. The course of reasoning
pursued in this essay results in the definition, that a transfer of property in any
form by law, is aristocracy, and that aristocracy is only a transfer of property in
some form of law. The essential quality of titled aristocracy consisted in an
operation on property, which naturally involved an operation on power. The
essential quality of banking consists in the same operation. Mr. Adams book is
eminently instructive to proving, that aristocracy has every where generated
calamitous struggles between those who lost, and those who gained the property
it transferred. By creating the cause of the miseries detailed by Mr. Adams, the
miseries will follow. We must either banish the alien which has crept into our
policy, namely a transfer of wealth by law, or prepare for the atrocities which Mr.
Adams undoubtedly shows must occur, between the enriched and impoverished
parties. He proves that we must prepare for more. For the refuge which one
party will take under a single despot, as more tolerable than a faction enriched
by laws; or the other, to obtain in that despot an ally. Banking it is true, like the
balances, will tell mankind that the mischiefs it produces, and the frauds it
commits, are not the effects of the principle itself, but of its in-artificial texture;
and that if we weave the principle properly, it would come out a beautiful
manufacture. But it will not gain credit, as long as other forms of aristocracy
have, because its superior rapacity will hasten us towards the catastrophe
generated by all political frauds. It will also use the old adage like hierarchical
aristocracy, that it is good, if not abused, but otherwise bad; or to speak plainly,
that it is good to pilfer a nation moderately, or secretly, but bad to push the
imposition far enough to disclose it.-

( CONCLUDED. )


 David Dodge spelled vendue.
76
Note: The Editor of "The Spirit of Seventy-six", Edward C. Standard, departed
this life shortly after this series of Essays on Banking was published. Without his
guidance, his newspaper perished as well. The Spirit of 76 lives on . The
following comments appeared in the paper following that in which the final essay
was printed.

-D.M.D.-

__________________________

Having at length, finished the essays on banking, although it is

neither our custom, nor our wish, to obtrude our sentiments on the
public; yet on so highly interesting a subject, we hope to be
excused for offering a few comments.

The author of these essays, we presume, will readily be

conjectured. During a very active life, a large portion of which has
been devoted to public services, he has attracted a good deal of
the public attention. At a very early period, he entered into our
revolutionary army, where he performed many gallant feats, and
after the war, in the capacity of a representative of the people, both
in our state and general government he rendered signal benefits to
the republican cause, that ought and must long be remembered.
The decided and zealous part which he took in that cause,
appeared to the jealousy of ancient federalism then in possession
of the government, as nothing more than the exertions of culpable
ambition and party bigotry, seeking their own gratification at the
expense of the best and dearest interests of the country. And it was
not until a different order of things took place, that he head an
opportunity of manifesting both the injustice and cruelty of such
suspicions. Ever true to his principles, and coveting none of the
honors or emoluments which governments have to bestow; no
sooner had those whom his labors had largely contributed to place
at the head of the government, forgotten, abused, and violated, in
the intoxication of power, the doctrines which they had avowed, as
the rule of their conduct, than he evinced the same determined
spirit of opposition to them, as he had done to his predecessors.
Hence it has happened, that be has been alternately stigmatized as
a Jacobean by the federalists, and as a federalist and Tory by the
self-created republicans of the present day. But in the various
fluctuations of party, where it is the misfortune of the people, that
their government usually falls into the hands of men who make
their own and not the general interest, the object of pursuit,
denunciation must ever be the fate of any man who devotes
himself to principles, rather than to party. Thus much as we have
deemed it proper to say in strict justice to the author of the Essays
77
 on Banking; a gentleman, who, we know, has been, & we are
persuaded, ever will be, a subject of proscription to all parties,
whatever designations they may receive or assume, who consider
the business of government, as merely an affair of ins and outs, to
the total neglect and injury of all general interests; rather than as a
scheme for maintaining and securing the liberties and happiness of
a nation. Where personal aggrandizement usurps the place of the
good of the whole, those who think it their duty and make it their
business to detect and expose, both the usurpation and the
usurpers, may always calculate upon the lasting hostility - the
illimitable hatred and vengeance of all those concerned in the plot.

With regard to the essays themselves, we are conscious of our

inability to say as much in their praise, as they deserve. Topics,
such as they discuss, require a depth of research, and a degree of
laborious investigation, which few have science and capacity
sufficient, and fewer still, the industry to encounter. The author, in
our opinion has displayed all those qualities and attainments
requisite for such an undertaking, in a very high degree. And if his
essays, either fail to be read with great interest, or should not
succeed in checking, the banking mania amongst us, it must be,
because it is one of those diseases, which has run on so long, and
so extensively pervade the body politick, as at once to defy the skill
of the physician and to annihilate all prospect of relief, but from the
forlorn hopes of its working its own cure. One of the principle
causes, we believe, why banking has become so prevalent in our
country, is, that the mode in which it operates as a tax, as well as
the fact of its doing so, upon all those not enjoying a share in it, has
been most carefully and artfully concealed from the sufferers.
Both the fact and the mode of its accomplishment, we conceive,
our author has incontestably demonstrated. He has proved too that
the system originated in that spirit, which directly or indirectly, has
invariably marked the destruction of all free governments - to wit,
the spirit of monopoly: that this system is nurtured at the expense
and fostered by the property of the great mass of the community,
without any adequate return: that it is not only incompatible with our
own republican institutions, but expressly prohibited by them, as far
as paper and parchment can guard against the artifices of avarice,
ambition, and all other exclusive interest, to elude the vigilance,
and prey upon the substance, of the common interest. And what is
of still more serious importance we think he has demonstrated that
it is as chimerical to expect, either our state governments or the
general government long to exist, free and independent according
to their respective forms, with such institutions constantly sapping
their vital principles, as to calculate upon a mans living under the
operation of the depleting system, after all the blood has been
78
 drawn out of his body, or to look for human life being supported by
eating poison, instead of such nutritious aliment as bountiful nature
has provided for the use of man.

The great misfortune is, that all evils in government require to be

made tangible {if we may use such an expression} before the great
body of the community can be made to pay sufficient attention to
them, to apply in due season, the proper corrective. And hence it
is, that they often acquire such strength, such extension, and such
virulence, before the contagion becomes universal, and the
mischief almost irretrievable, the efficacy of any prescription
whatever, is rendered at least, very doubtful, if not hopeless. Such
in our estimation, is the nature of banking; and although our author
has done every thing that well could be done in so desperate a
case, we wish it may not be found, when it comes to the test, that
those in whose hands are the proper remedies, will exclaim, {as a
great example has done before them} video meliora proboque;
deteriora sequor I see, and approve better things, but pursue
33
those which are worse.

33
From David M. Dodges book Titles of Nobilityand other
userpations.
79
 V
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AMENDMENT OF 1819?

After reading David Dodge's book, Titles Of Nobility...and other

usurpations, and working with him, there is no doubt in my mind that the 13th
Amendment, Titles of Nobility, was passed. Thus far, the team of David Dodge
has been able to document over 100 separate publications from the law codes of
24 states, as well as history and school texts, which contain this amendment.

From reading the past pages, it should have became apparent that this
banking thing oppresses the people it serves; that it is the route of all the evils
we suffer. It is institutionalized deceit, whose operation only the banksters, or
the very learned, are privy to.

So why wouldn't our banker representatives in Congress explain this evil

to the delegates in Philadelphia? Answer: because those people were not
fighting a war to end tyranny, but one for their own personal advancement.
While most were fighting to enrich our lives, they were trying to enrich their
wallets.

The banksters didn't care who won the war - as long as they kept control
of the money.

Mayer Amschel Bauer, (alias Rothschild/Head Bloodsucker) The

Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe stated, "Give me control of
a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

To insure for themselves a victory at either end, they would have to place agents
on the inside of the Congress to look after their clandestine interests. If ever
they had, it was in the team of Clymer and Morris.

George Clymer and Robert Morris, both there on behalf of Pennsylvania,

were the two financial industry's representatives who signed our U.S. Con-
stitution. It's funny/strange too, because they both also signed the Declaration of
Independence. There were only four other men who also signed both
documents. One was Ben Franklin, the other three were lawyers.

Speaking of bankers and lawyers is like speaking of generals and majors.

Of the three lawyers, one went on to become a Chief Justice of Delaware, the
other a Senator from Connecticut, and the last, James Wilson, an Associate

 From Operation Vampire Killer 2000, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona,
85066.
80
justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Morris was born in England. He also signed the Articles of Confederation.

Along with Robert Morris, representing New York at the signing of the Articles of
Confederation, was Robert Morris' son, Gouverneur; a lawyer/financier.
Gouverneur Morris also signed the U.S. Constitution, only this time it was along
side his dad as a delegate for Pennsylvania.

Robert Morris was present at the signings of all three revolutionary

documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and
the Constitution of the United States. Only one other man has had the privilege
of guiding us through all three major developments of U.S. Government; Roger
Sherman, the lawyer who subsequently became the U.S. Senator from
Connecticut.

It's all too convenient. Coincidence? I don't think so. While our boys
were in the fields fighting for sovereignty, these guys were behind doors trying to
make a buck. And they knew it.

I feel the conspiracy between the bankers and lawyers to rid themselves
of Article I, section 9, and the proposed and ratified Amendment of 1819, along
with the common law of the land, spanned generations, beginning as early as
with the drafting of the Federalist Papers, to later with the war of 1812, then
finally finishing with the War For Southern Independence.

The Rat Pack

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the authors of
the Federalist Papers. I call these three the rat pack because these were the
rats who sold us out. However, Madison later came over to Jefferson's side.
The work was written in an effort for persuading the people of the states which
these three represented (Hamilton and Jay from New York, Madison from
Virginia) to go along with the forming of a national government.
_______

Alexander Hamilton was born, illegitimately, in 1757 on the British Island

of Nevis in the West Indies. He didn't even come to this land until 1772 after
some friends, impressed with his ideas and writing abilities, took up a collection
to send him here for schooling. But I'll fathom to guess that they just wanted to
get rid of him.

Hamilton was a young man with stars in his eyes. Like John Jay, he
attended Kings College (get it...Kings). However, he left for a while to join in the
Revolutionary War. Early on, he become one of Washington's boys - being his
81
personal secretary for four years. During that time he met many men of
influence. After the war, and passing the "bar", and only at the age of 23, he
began writing those men of influence calling for the establishment of a new
government. The Articles of Confederation didn't provide for a king...I mean
president. He wanted a strong national government based on the British model
of a strong central figurehead. (Why?) He finally got his Constitutional
Convention and was one of three delegates sent from New York, however, even
though New York had four signers at the Declaration Of Independence and at
the Articles of Confederation, he was the only New York delegate to sign the
Con-stitution.

The Federalist Papers were probably what persuaded many of the

undecided and open minded people to go along with the "revolutionary" idea of
this new constitution. It is probably a given that one major concern the People
had was to how powerful this new "federal" government would be. In Number
31, while writing about the general power of taxation, Hamilton either stuck his
foot in his mouth or slapped everyone in the face when he answered that
consideration with:

"It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to

encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the
Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments. What side would
be likely to prevail in such a conflict must depend on the means which the
contending parties could employ towards insuring success. As in republics
strength is always on the side of the people, and as there are weighty reasons to
induce a belief that the State governments will commonly possess most
influence over them, the natural conclusion is that such contests will be most apt
to end to the disadvantage of the Union; and that there is greater probability of
encroachments by the members upon the federal head, than by the federal head
upon the members."

Is this guy for real? Shays' Rebellion already taught that lesson. Did he
forget, or was he just trying to make the People forget? It is a known fact
throughout the history of this government what the truth is in above quote.
Madison saw to that. In Federalist Paper No. 43, Madison explains the powers
conferred by the Con-stitution in jurisdiction over treason and the "'guarantee to
every State in the Union a republican form of government; to protect each of
them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive
(when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.'" Of
these he has a lot to say and hints to Shays' when he wrote:

"Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety...A

recent and well-known event among ourselves has warned us to be prepared for
emergencies of a like nature."

Yet, further along in No. 43, while trying to justify Article VII of the new Con-
82
stitution outweighing the meaning in Article XIII of the Confederation, Madison
contradicts his above notion of the Massachusetts "uprising" and quotes
Jefferson by stating:

"...to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of

nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of
society are the objects at which all political institutions must be sacrificed."

Hamilton's contributions to the forming of "Big Brother and the

Constitutional Monarchy" were great. He was another one of those lawYEaRns
who thrived on the use of money. So much so that he became the first
Secretary of the Treasury.

"Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, had the task of placing
the new government on a sound financial basis. He initiated this work by a
series of three reports submitted to Congress. The first, on public credit, called
for the full assumption by the national government of the war debts of the old
Confederation and the states. The second provided for the establishment of a
national bank. The third, on manufactures, called for government protection of
manufactures by means of duties. Although this last proposal was defeated by
Congress, it has been called the 'first great revolt from Adam Smith.'"

Look at this guy...Right away he calls for the creation of a national bank -
no doubt one which would collect taxes for paying off the war debt and be
enforced by LAWS. Then he calls for this new government to get into the
protection racket, a business practice today only inflicted upon legitimate
merchants and dealers of illegal contraband by the police and Mafia. Adam
Smith, you might remember, wrote The Wealth Of Nations. He said the
government should have a "laissez-faire" (hands off) policy when it came to
dealing with peoples businesses. This Hamilton was some piece of work.

Hamilton's strong monarchist views "ticked-off" a lot of people. He always

seemed to know how to cause dissension. His:

"...last years were rent by political strife. After retiring to the private
practice of law, he continued to be the active leader of the Federalist Party. His
influence was so great during the Adams administration that Cabinet members
often consulted with him about official policy, even behind the President's back.
This led to a break between the two men. Hamilton made the break irreparable
by writing a pamphlet attacking Adams, which split the Federalist Party and led to

 For a further description of this see page 80.

 Great Books of the Western World. Volume 43. Encyclopedia Britannica,
Inc. 1952.
83
its disintegration."

Aaron Burr was another one who "couldn't stand" the guy. In 1804, the
Vice President of the United States under Jefferson, Aaron Burr, a long time
political foe of Hamilton's, challenged him to a duel. Hamilton lost and later died
from the shot received from Burr's pistol; better known today as "hand gun".

The Vice President of the United States kills one of our "founding fathers"
with a handgun and no one makes a stink of it. Perhaps he was just exercising
his second amendment guarantee to protect himself from a tyrannical
government.
_______

James Madison was known as "The Father of the Constitution". Born

wealthy, he represented the interests of the Southern Aristocracy.

This guy was there from the get-go. At the age of 20 he graduated from
Princeton. By the age of 25 he helped write the Virginia state constitution and
was a member of the Virginia legislature. At 27 he was a member of the Virginia
governor's advisory council. Madison was a "member of" this, or a "delegate to"
that, to seven different functions over a ten year span. When he signed the
Constitution he listed his Profession as "politician".

Like the other two authors, Madison had to write the Federalists Papers to
sway popular belief the public held towards the federalists and the forming of this
new government. He teamed up with James Wilson, that Scottish born
lawYEaRn who represented the colony of Pennsylvania and was to become an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (having already signed the Declaration
of Independence), and together were responsible for the Con-stitution's final
form. However, just like the other two authors, he didn't think it gave a strong
enough national government. In Federalist Paper Number 44, Madison gives an
explanation as to what the meaning is in wording of the yet to become Article I,
section 10, which states:

"No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but
gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex
post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of
nobility."

Madison does a great song and dance routine for winning the People's
attention. With regards to the bills of credit he wrote:

"The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give


 Ibid.
84
 pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his
knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which
America has sustained since the peace from the pestilent effects of
paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man,
on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry
and morals of the people and on the character of republican
government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States
chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain
unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be
expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the alter of
justice of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition
to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed that the
same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States
the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought
not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of
coin...The power to make anything but gold and silver a tender in
payment of debts is withdrawn from the States, on the same
principle with that of issuing a paper currency."

Madison goes through each point of the above mentioned Article 10

clause with the zest of a used car salesman. Only, when he gets to the last point
he quickly states;

"The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles
of Confederation, and needs no comment."

What is he talking about? The average Joe I teach the titles of nobility
amendment to doesn't have a clue at first as to what a title of nobility is. I find
the fact that all three totally blew by the subject to be highly suspicious. What
was it they didn't want to explain to the masses?

Thankfully, Madison's views soon came to pass, and he parted company

with his two compatriots over the measures, which they advocated for securing
the supremacy of the national government.

"Madison, elected a member of the House of Representatives, became

the leader of the opposition in Congress against Hamilton's proposals. He led
the move for a Bill of Rights, the lack of which had been one of the main issues
in the fight for ratification. With his friend, Jefferson, who had been appointed
the first Secretary of State, he advised the President that Hamilton's measures
could not be reconciled with the Constitution."

He had come to Jefferson's side, becoming his Secretary of State for two terms
and then President following him.

 Ibid.
85
 _______

Now, the Bill of Rights is an interesting topic. So many people assert that
it is the U.S. Con-stitution that gives us this right or that right. But it is not.
Remember, the Con-stitution is the corporate charter of the United States. It
gives the parameters for which its members could operate. The Bill of Rights is
the compilation of the first ten amendments under their Article V provisions.
Madison and Jefferson must have foreseen the possibility of a tyrannical
government due to the fact that the U.S. Constitution leaves very little mention of
the people it would govern only briefly in Article IV, sections 1 and 2. However,
there were remarks at the convention that all these rights were so fundamental
there ought be no need to mention them. That's what the 9th Amendment is all
about! And even with that allusion, others had to be added - re-affirming basic
human rights forgotten. But Madison wanted complete basic fundamental rights
re-affirmation. The government, or the Bill of Rights, along with the other
amendments and original provisions, did not give us any rights at all; they re-
affirmed them.

"The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental

agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the
Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of
the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and
restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily
surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The
people's rights are not derived from the government, but the
government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but
states again these rights already existing, and when legislative
encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these
original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare,
and to afford the necessary relief."

The "theory" of the three-branch government (Executive, Legislative,

Judicial) is that it creates a system of "checks and balances", wherein each
branch of the government is able to keep a watchful eye on the others. This
would ensure no usurpations from any one of the three branches. But when you
have all three branches conspiring together to usurp the powers delegated to
them, the peoples last hope, the courts, becomes a three ring circus where
you're the kangaroo on display and the judge is the ring announcer. Then you
find the meanings are not as they are written and you realize, you've been
hoodwinked.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

 City of Dallas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex-1922).
86
 "Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in
that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from
legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to
the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and
property should be liberally sonstrued...It is the duty of the courts to
be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S.
616,635; Ex parte Rhodes, 202 Ala. 68, 71.

The "government" can't give us rights. It can't give us a thing. It can only
receive. In order for it to even begin to receive anything it must first receive the
consent of the people it will govern. The people are its sovereign. We can give
to it, and then only by our choosing. Any "government" which would continue to
impose its "will" upon anyone who chooses not to give consent of its form is not
a government, but a gang of thugs.
_______

John Jay is one name we have already heard about. He was another son
of a you know what. That's right; a well-to-do merchant family, serving in the
Continental Congress since the first one in 1774 and later becoming its
president. He was said to be second in service to his country (which one) only to
Washington. I hope not. He was the author of New York's first Con-stitution and
its first Chief Justice. This guy loved playing the ruler.

Jay never really practiced law except for a very short while before his
public life. He became a diplomat; going to Europe. After failing to secure a
treaty with Spain, he was sent to Paris to join with Ben Franklin and John Adams
in the negotiations of the terms of peace with Great Britain.

"Described by Adams as 'the Washington of the negotiations, he was

instrumental in obtaining recognition of the independence of the United States
which ended the Revolutionary War. He was rewarded for his role by being
made the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for the Continental Congress, a post he
continued to fill until Jefferson took over as Secretary of State under the new
government. Because of his strongly national views, he was turned down as a
delegate to the Constitutional Convention."

What was really said at the negotiations? What did Adams exactly mean
by "the Washington of the negotiations"? Did Jay tell the old boys from England
that they were planning to do away with the Articles of Confederation and maybe
show them some of the works him and his fellow federalist authors might have
been working on? Did he mentioned the new $y$tem they were going to install
and how they would control each branch from its beginning? The war was
undoubtedly hurting the English. France was supporting the American

 Ibid.
87
insurgency. They were, by no doubt, at odds with England. Did Jay perhaps
assure the Crown's delegates that if after the treaty, and the forming of the new
government, England was to go to war with France, the new government would
claim neutrality and not return France the favor? Was there maybe a pay-off?

Jay, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison, all wanted a $y$tem like Great
Britain. They wanted to keep that form of corruption and take money off the
peasants. The war ended, the new government was installed, and England did
go to war with France. So not to look to France like too much of a back-stabber,
Jay, no doubt having made a deal in Paris with Great Britain, and having to do
what he was no doubt paid-off to do, had Hamilton write "a series letters
published in the papers under the signature of Pacificus." These works
"defended England and the American policy of neutrality," which were probably
put in place at Paris. Jay's pay-off by England was returned with the Jay Treaty.
That incident, and those which ensued, would be the backbone to the
destruction of the Federalist Party. Or am I trippin'?

In 1789 the new government came into "being". But is the United States
Constitution the lawful "law of the land"? Allow me to play devil's advocate.
Fifty-six men from the original thirteen states signed the Declaration Of
Independence. Forty-nine men on behalf of the original thirteen signed the
Articles of Confederation. However, only thirty-eight signatures from only twelve
of the original thirteen are found on the U.S. Constitution. No one signed on
behalf of Rhode Island. They were not even admitted into the new union until
1791. Also, the Articles of Confederation states in Article XIII, "...the Articles of
this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall
be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of
them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and
be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." So why wasn't this
followed? The Constitution of the United States got around all that by stating in
Article VII, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same."

So, in 1787 this new group comes along and says no, we don't have to
have unanimous consent from all the thirteen original states to effect change in
the Articles of Confederation, we just have to get the consent from the
legislatures of 3/4, or 9 of the 12 states "in" on this new charter. About the
above Article VII, James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 43:

"This article speaks for itself. The express authority of the people
alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the
unanimous ratification of the thirteen States would have subjected the
essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single

 Ibid.
88
 member."

Do you suppose it was Rhode Island he was speaking about being that single
member? In 1789 they reached that percentage needed and a new government
was born.

While Jefferson may have became the first Secretary of State, President
Washington appointed John Jay to become the first Chief Justice to the
Supreme Court of the United States; thus securing for Jay, and the rat pack, the
top dog position of the judicial branch of the government. Jay's "rulings" would
guarantee a strong national government. James Madison, meanwhile, became a
"representative" (formally known as "delegate to" or "member of") in congress.
That gave the pack influence within the legislative branch of government. John
Adams, Jay's hailer about the peace talks, became the first Vice President and
second President of the new government, consequently achieving 12 years of
executive branch manipulation. All they needed now was the money for bringing
us back to a land of laws, and courts, and kings. Alexander Hamilton, the last rat
in the pack, Washington's boy during the war, was appointed first Secretary of
the Treasury. The entire rat pack had created a new "kingdom"; and they were
all on top.

The Court and King of England were replaced. The House of Lords was
to be called the Senate; the House of Commons-Congress; and the King was to
be a figurehead called President. The bar cronies of the Judicial branch were to
go from being known as barristers to lawyers while the English bar association
controlling them by charter of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain, which handed
down their esquireships, franchised into what became the American Bar
Association.
_______

And what about that other thing all these federalist authors had in
common; George Washington, the first President of the United States? This was
42
a guy who left school (dropped out ) at the age of 14 or 15 to become a
surveyor. (So much for telling a child they will never amount to anything if they
drop out of school.) He later joined the Virginia militia and made a career of
being a solider. On July 4, 1754, he surrendered Fort Necessity, to the French.
That still being the case, he became very good at killing British. And, ironically, it
was now the French supporting him in the War For Independence. I would
fathom to guess that it was because of his lack of schooling, that Hamilton, Jay,
and Madison, wrote most of his speeches. They all might have gone in different
directions after the forming of the Con-stitution, but all came together again to
write Washington's farewell address.

42
The Con-stitution has three requirements to be president; they must be at
least 35 years of age, born in this country and have a high school diploma.
89
 There are a few more points of interest I would like to mention here. The
new Con-stitution gave congress the power to rule over a piece of land not more
then ten miles square and being donated. It was Virginia which gave this group
the piece of land know today as Washington D.C.. Of the first five presidents,
all, but for John Adams, were from Virginia. Also it was during Adams'
presidency that he and Hamilton parted as colleagues and it was that break
which split the Federalist party and lead to it's end. Jefferson, though from
Virginia, was not a Federalist. Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826.

The Banksters and the War of 1812

If you don't know who the Rothschilds are you should make yourself well
acquainted. They, along with maybe eight or nine other "families", claim to own
most of the gold (if not all of it). They ARE "the bank". The Rothschilds didn't
like the fact that the United States of America was founded on common law. The
common law is based on substance, and this substance is mentioned in the
Constitution as gold or silver. That was the only substance congress could
borrow under the provisions of the Constitution. But the Rothschild's banks
didn't loan gold or silver. Naturally, they did not like this. Nor did they probably
not like the fact that in 1812 the 13th (Titles of Nobility) Amendment was just a
couple of states away from becoming law of the land. The Rothschilds had a
deal with the King of England. He would borrow paper, and agree to repay in
gold. However, the United States Constitution didn't allow for that. That became
an obstacle to them, so it was much to the Rothschild's advantage to get the ex-
colonies back under the king. Thus the Rothschilds financed the war of 1812 in
an effort to bring America back under the rule of England. They, of course,
failed. And so too failed all their attempts at destroying the ratification of the 13th
(1819) amendment.

By the start of the War of 1812, Virginia had yet to respond as to whether
or not they acted upon the 13th Amendment. Most of the other states had
already acted by then and they ratified. And, oddly enough, President Madison's
letters, from almost the entire year of 1811, are missing. During the war the
British had burned down most of Washington, D.C. and Richmond. That might
have slowed down governmental "business", and no doubt a lot of information
regarding the 13th Amendment burned in those fires, but it didn't stop the
process. On March 12, 1819, the Virginia State Legislature showed it ratified,
and the new amendment, already having been resolved by two-thirds of both
houses, had the three-fourths vote needed by the state legislatures for it to
become the law of the land.

In 1819, the same year as the passage of the Titles of Nobility Amendment,
John Marshall, then still the chief-justice of the supreme court of the United
States, a position [or is that possession], he held for 34 years, wrote the opinion
90
in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in which he held that chartering
corporations was an implied power of the government; just the "ruling" the pro
monarchist boys needed on their side. This is the same John Marshall whom
President John Adams appointed Secretary of State in 1800 and Chief Justice in
1801 (just weeks before Thomas Jefferson took the office of the President) and
who helped Adams stack the judiciary with federalists [the pro monarchists]. This
is the same John Marshall who, following an altercation which occurred with the
transferring of power from the Adams administration to the new Jefferson one,
ruled, in the celebrated Supreme Court decision of Marbury v. Madison (James
Madison was Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State at that time having left the
federalist party), that the judicial branch of the government was more equal than
Congress, thus coining the phrase, and giving meaning to the words, The U.S.
Constitution: void where prohibited by law. And, this is the same John Marshall
who, for the year 1833, was listed as the second greatest foreign shareholder in
the second Bank of the United States; and, over-all, its fourth greatest
shareholder. Oh, those lawyers and bankers.

The Titles of Nobility amendment remained on the books. Since it was

then to be construed, from Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, that the
judicial branch of the government outweighed Congress, his ruling in McCulloch
v. Maryland, outweighed Congress' meaning in Article 1, section 9, and the 13th,
Titles of Nobility Amendment. Slowly, it began to disappear. And by slowly, I
mean slowly.

The Disappearance

First, we must understand that the War For Southern Independence was
not fought to free the slaves. In fact, it was quite the contrary. Washington D.C.
had never done anything about slavery. There was no proposed amendment to
end it. This war was fought, by the federal boys, to subdue the states into a
stronger central control (a.k.a. federal government); one with all its corporations.
The founding fathers of the Confederate States Constitution were able to look
back at the past 72 years of the U.S. Constitution and see where abuse was
practiced, or could be, and instituted reform. Their position was for stronger
state's rights and a more limited central control. They were all independent
states. If they didn't want to give consent to the corporate charter of the United
States then it was well within their rights not to. The Constitution of The United
States succeeded from the Articles of Confederation, so why not the Constitution
of the Confederate States succeed from the U.S. Constitution? Over and done,
and without a gun.

 The American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge, for the
year 1833. Page 139. Note from Gnome: Why he is listed as "foreign" I could
only speculate.
91
 Well, the new "federal" boys weren't going to have that. They were
growing stronger and wanted to keep it that way. Not only that, but Lincoln had
introduced the first federal paper money, called green backs, thus sending the
demise even further. They may have revolted against England, but no one was
going to rise up against them. Just like back in 1786, when an attempt at self
government was made by Massachusetts, it too was to be destroyed by force.

The Confederate States of America was invaded, and defeated, by the

United States of America, and the known 13th (slavery) Amendment was passed
(and printed as the 14th Amendment) to "justify" a war fought for a stronger
central control. But that didn't outlaw slavery; it legalized it as a form of
punishment for a crime. In any case, they now had a totally different class of
people living in the United States. The known 14th Amendment (then the 15th
Amendment ) was inserted in order to guarantee the former slaves the same
due process of law. But rather than keeping it at that, they used this amendment
to establish martial law and make "citizens" and "'subject' to the jurisdiction", of
the United States, of everyone born on this land. And, in section 4 of the same
amendment, contradict Article I, section 9, clause 7 which states, "No money
shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by
law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all
public money shall be published from time to time," and made themselves
unaccountable for their tax and spend practices by writing, "The validity of the
public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned." Do you think we would have a trillion dollar
debt today if they were?

Congress must have noticed that this new 15th (due process) Amendment
was in conflict with Article I, section 9 and the then 13th (titles of nobility)
amendment. They were claiming eminent domain over all the people while at
the same time holding themselves unaccountable for their tax and spend
practices; therefore, claiming a title of nobility. It was time to make sure that all
references to the titles of nobility amendment was removed and hidden forever.
And this was done without any formal amendment annulment much like the
known 21st Amendment repealed the known 18th Amendment. The 13th (1819)
Amendment disappeared, the 14th (1865) Amendment became the 13th, the
15th (due process) Amendment becomes the known 14th, and the known 15th

 See, The South Was Right, James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald
Kennedy, Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, 1994.
 For more information on the evolution of government notes, see article by
Garyn Pekarsky in The Patriot Primer. Jeff Ganaposki. Living word, c/o P.O.
671567, Marietta, Georgia Republic, United States of America.
 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 15th Edition, vol. I. (1885) lists the due process
amendments as V and XV on p. 571.
92
appears.

In the 1868 Revised Statutes of Colorado, the titles of nobility amendment

is listed as the 13th and the slavery amendment is listed as the 14th; not the
13th as it is known today. It was also published in the same manner as the
state's 1866 edition. However, Colorado's law book for 1870 shows a different
picture. In that one, the titles of nobility amendment disappears, the slavery
amendment becomes the new 13th amendment, and the known 14th and 15th
amendments appear for the first time. It is like that in many of the instances.

Wyoming is another interesting case. In 1870 they had the 13th "titles of
nobility", the 14th "involuntary servitude", and the 15th "right of citizens to vote"
amendments listed as such. However, when a later edition was published, the
13th titles of nobility amendment disappears, the 14th becomes the 13th
amendment, the 15th remains as is, and the now known 14th Amendment is
inserted. Go figure.

We must remember that the amount of time between the ratification of the
13th (titles of nobility) and the 13th (slavery) amendments was 46 years. That's
a long time to have on the books if it were a mistake. But it's ample time to allow
the corporate strings to place new people on the inside for the purpose of
rewriting the laws. This time frame is also the average amount of time those
people wait before making any major change, especially with the way they define
the terms.

It is interesting to note here that, even though the first twelve amendments of
the U.S. Constitution are contained in the Confederate States Constitution, there
is no mention as to punishment for accepting a title of nobility much like the
Amendment of 1819. Why? Was it because the boys from the old "company",
who were resigning to form their own new "company", much like a group of auto
executives would leave a well established auto maker to form a new auto making
company, were also looking after the interests of the banks, or even, them-
selves? Being the Master of a slave was also claiming a title of nobility. To omit
Article 1, section 9, from their constitution, would have certainly raised some
brows. Could this be?

The knowledge of the 13th (1819) Amendment is even contained in the

Vatican library. A letter written to a "Mr. Keith", by someone only referring to
himself as JMJ, a member of the Franciscan order, about information Mr. Keith
wanted in regards to a supposed takeover of the Vatican by Royal Arch Masons,
makes mention of this fact when he wrote:

"The two factions went to war, with the northerners emerging

victorious in 1865. In 1866, the 14th amendment was added to the
North American clique's constitution, allowing for enslavement of
anyone, so long as the "due process of law" was followed; fearing the
93
 possibility of someone from outside their number actually achieving
high office, in 1867 the "Tenure of Office" act was passed, limiting the
scope of power allowed to elected figureheads."

The 14th (slavery) Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865, and

appeared on the books in 1866. No doubt it is this amendment which is referred
to in the above quote. Today's known 14th Amendment first showed up on the
books in 1870. It was supposedly ratified on July 9, 1868, one year after the
"Tenure of Office" act, and also gives restrictions on elected officials.

The addition of the known 14th Amendment changed the way our
government would enforce its long arm of the law. It did, in essence, reverse the
meaning in Article 1, section 9 and the suppressed 13th Amendment of 1819.
"It" granted itself a title of nobility over the people and made them all "subjects".

The process for making economic slaves out of everyone was in full
swing. Paper money was everywhere and a tighter grip by the federal
government was now upon the nation. After the signing of one more southern
slave reform amendment (the known 15th, right to vote), the new order sat on
everything for 43 years. It was then that they really flexed their muscle with the
creation of the Federal Reserve note, and an appearance that they now had the
power to directly tax individuals through the 16th Amendment.

_____________________

THE FED AND THE IRS

Now comes the big slam. "On the night of December 23, 1913, while
most members were away for the holidays, the U.S. Congress committed
perhaps the greatest act of treason in history. It surrendered the nation's
sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of bankers who
proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer the nation with a money swindle."

Congressman Lewis McFaddin said this about those international financial

conspirators, during the very time they were taking over the monetary control of
America:

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the
world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the
Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the FED. They are not
government institutions. They are private monopolies which pray

 From a book only known as Secret & Suppressed.
 From an unknown author.
94
 upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves
and their foreign customers..."

The Federal Reserve

One great story about the Federal Reserve Banks is told by Garyn
Pekarski. In his essay entitled The Trouble With Money, Garyn takes us
through the history of paper money on this land. In the section called The
Game's Afoot, he has this to say about the forming of the FED:

..Riding in on the last hurrah of Populism, the Federal Reserve Act passed
the Congress in the first year of the newly elected Wilson administration. Unable
to get past the staunch Constitutionalist Calvin Coolidge , the Federal Reserve
Act was an attempt to resurrect the central banking scheme that had been all but
run out of town by the fiery Andrew Jackson. Believing such private banking
schemes to be a stench in the nose of the Constitution, Jackson refused to
renew the charter of Alexander Hamilton's private monopoly, and central banking
had remained entombed ever since.
The cry for monetary reform that was raised by the recently settled plains
states would ironically be the instrument of their demise. The Federal Reserve
Act of 1913 would set the stage for the nation's greatest financial crash and the
loss of most of the land owned by those same farmers. The Federal Reserve
Banks had been set up as a private chain of competitors for the National and
State banks. The Fed banks would not however, engage in any of the reckless
lending that their competitors were practicing. They had a much sounder and
much more sinister scheme. Private bankers, largely European and without
loyalty to the U.S. were allowed to set up a position in the midst of the nation that
would eventually bankrupt not only their competitors, but the national
government as well. The Act itself was literally snuck through the Congress late
on the evening of December 23, with many of its members gone home for the
holiday recess.
The Fed Banks, 12 in their original number, were allowed to import large
amounts of gold from Europe and lend it to the U.S. government. There are
many who say that the same interests were agitation in Europe to force the U.S.
to enter WW I, which had exploded 1 year after the passage of the Federal
Reserve Act, in 1914. Coincidentally, the notes issued by the original 12 Fed
Banks bore a legend that did not appear on any other notes of that day, including

 Ibid. P. 16.
 From Patriot Primer #1, by Jeff Ganaposki. Published by Living Word, c/o
P.O. 671567, Marietta, Georgia Republic, United States of America, Price: 20
Federal Reserve Notes or 3 silver dollars, U.S.
 Note from Gnome: the author of this piece made a slight error and meant to
say Taft, the president before Wilson.
95
that of the member banks who had joined the Federal Reserve system in
voluntary agreements. The legend read "Secured by United States certificates
of indebtedness or United States one year gold notes deposited with the
Treasurer of the United States of America". The curious sentence speaks
volumes about the goings on behind this relationship.
The term "United States" without the suffix "of America" means that the
deal was struck by the U.S. as a corporate entity engaging in a commercial
contract, not as a sovereign state among nations. The term "Certificate of
Indebtedness" appears for the first time ever here, and further hints at the
commercial nature of this relationship with a private, foreign interest. Finally, we
learned that the government was on the hook for payments in gold with a due
date of 1 year: a dangerous float of short term notes against gold borrowed in
the first place. We also see that these notes were made to look like National
Currency notes issued by the National Banks. They were even able to be
redeemed in (foreign) gold, although the promise to pay was made by the Fed
bank and not the United States. In effect, this private bank would pay gold to
customers on behalf the U.S., who was borrowing it from abroad. This
arrangement was exactly the one that Lincoln had sought to avoid by issuing
Federal Greenbacks.
The member banks who later joined the original 12 issued entirely
different notes. Labelled simply "Federal Reserve Notes", these notes also
showed some remarkable first. The seal of the Federal Reserve appears for the
first time opposite that of the United States Treasury. There is another first in the
signature area, where the Secretary of the Treasury has signed opposite the
Treasurer of the United States. This form is exactly how commercial promissory
notes are signed whereon the lender and borrower both sign at the bottom.
Also, these notes do not contain any specific certification attesting that anything
had been deposited anywhere to secure the note, whereas all other notes we
have examined bore explicit language. Finally, unlike the notes of the 12 main
Fed Banks, member bank Federal Reserve Notes co-obligated the United States
Treasury in their promise to pay; and while the Fed Banks could pay either in
gold or other lawful money, the United States Treasury was obligated to pay only
in gold on demand!
The implications of these issues for the liability of the United States
Treasury were staggering. If these unsecured demand notes against United
States gold reserves were called in large numbers, the Treasury could be
rendered insolvent overnight. All other forms of currency were backed only by
general obligations and other securities, while all obligations to Fed banks were
payable only in gold. Not even silver or other lawful money would satisfy these
notes when called against the United States Treasury. If redeemed by the Fed
banks, they automatically accrued to the total debt of the United States to the
Federal Reserve, payable in gold on demand within one year.
The obvious conclusion that should now have been reached by the
reader is that the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express, and
that there is no reserve whatsoever. This was nothing more than a sophisticated
check kiting scheme enacted without collateral of any kind. The nation was
96
borrowing its own currency form a foreign cartel. Furthermore, this scheme
placed the United States in a beggarly position; recklessly exposed to
bankruptcy, while its creditor was secured by the entire stock of U.S. gold
reserves and foreign holdings.
It is nearly impossible to imagine how such colossal foolishness could
have become law under the noses of a vigilant Congress, President and
Supreme Court. Indeed, a plan that could so completely and quickly impoverish
the nation almost could not have passed without con- spiracy and collusion in a
number of high places. In a country that had for so long maintained rock-solid
integrity in its money, and that had been warned against and had outlawed such
schemes for over a century, one cannot reasonably conclude that somebody just
slipped-up or forgot the facts. On the contrary, a number of staunch
Congressman including the great Louis McFadden argued passionately against
it, but to no avail. A Plan had been placed in motion, and as we shall now see,
succeeded with the most devastating results.
_______

"The 'money' the banks issue is merely by their wealth, efforts, property,
or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve
Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless
'notes' backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to
compelled performance for the 'privilege'".

"Since paper money first began circulating, the situation has changed
little. When the federal government wants more money it borrows it from and
through the private banking system, The Federal Reserve.
The owners of the Federal Reserve are in no need of gold or silver to
back up their loans to the government. Their money is legal tender. Unlike
Paterson's time, there is no gold or silver in the system. The bankers are still
receiving "something for nothing." And you, as a subject, give the bankers one-
third of your time when you pay federal and social security taxes.
Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned and operated for profit.
They are no more a part of the government than Federal Express.
Because one-third of your income and one-third of your time is controlled
by a bookkeeping entry, you are enslaved by the owners of the Federal
Reserve."
_______

During the 1920's, Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England,
gave an informal talk to professors at the University of Texas. He stated:

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of

nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight

 From an unknown author.
 Barrie Konicov. Issue 21, Connecting Link magazine.
97
 of hand that was ever invented.
Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin...Bankers own
the world. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create
money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to
buy it back again... Take this great power away from them and all
great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear,
for then this would be a better and happier world to live in...But, if you
want to continue to be the slaves of bankers continue to create money
and control credit." [Stamp was said to be the second richest man in
England.]

-- from Charles Walters, Editor of Acres, U.S.A.

Expressing his opinion on the subject about what went on with the
international financial conspirators at the time of the take over, George W.
Malone, U.S. Senator from Nevada, speaking before Congress in 1957, alluded
to the families that secretly own the "Federal" Reserve Bank and control the
finances of the U.S. when he stated:

"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress
has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they
would not wait for an election... It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the
economic and social independence of the United States!"

Even Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company had something to say
about this privately owned "Federal" Reserve System scam:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not

understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I
believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Taxes

But wait, there's more. That last feat was nothing compared to what they
did during their first few weeks in office. Now that you have an idea of what
paper money is and where it and the players are coming from, you will learn how
It, our government, began enslaving the masses to the bank crony. This next
selection is taken from an essay written by Albert E. Carter, and is published in
issue #20 of Connecting Link magazine. It has been shortened for editing

 Operation Vampire Killer 2000, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Airzona, 85066.
P. 15.
 Ibid. P. 15.
98
purposes.

IRS Taxes Are Voluntary

Albert E. Carter

Albert E. Carter is an author, lecturer, inventor and Investigative

Journalist. He has lectured in hospitals on Cancer and at NASA on exercise,
and to many financial organizations on the illegal activities of the IRS. Many of
his lectures are on "things people would like to know if they knew the right
questions to ask." This is his story.

...I was in the library reading up on the Internal Revenue Service, and what I
found just made me more angry. I was mostly angry at myself for being so
vulnerable and gullible.

The Internal Revenue Service would like you to believe that it consists of
an honest group of civil servants just doing their duty--to pay the bills of the
United States Government. They'd like you to believe that it is your patriotic duty
to pay your Federal income taxes; and if you don't you will be locked up in some
Federal prison somewhere. The truth is not one nickel you pay into the IRS ever
goes towards the financing of your government. The money only makes it as
far as the Federal Reserve System, a privately owned banking system that is
completely out of the control of the government, and controls every aspect of
finance in the United States. That includes everything from dictating the prime
interest rate to issuing the worthless paper money we use as a medium of
exchange.

I did research in libraries, called experts and wrote letters to the Freedom
of Information Reading Room, in Washington, D.C.

After I finished my preliminary investigation, I began writing to the IRS,

demanding information from them. I challenged their jurisdiction, their authority.
I pointed out some of their fraudulent acts. Two months latter, I received a letter
from J.M. Wood, Chief, Collection Branch, saying,

 President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (Grace Commission),
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Jan. 15, '84: pp 12
"...100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by Federal Government
contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax
revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which
taxpayers expect from their Government."
 The Hats the Federal Reserve Wears, Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia, page 13 "Congress created the Federal reserve back in 1913 but
Congress doesn't run it. Neither does the President of the United States."
99
 "Based on the information you have provided, the account specified
above is resolved. We may contact you in the future, if further issues arise
requiring clarification. At present, no further response is needed on the above
account."

How did we get into this mess? It wasn't by accident. Woodrow Wilson
was voted into office in 1909 when the International Bankers determined that it
was time they control the money of the United States. If you remember your
history lessons, you remember that Colonel House was Wilson's right hand man.
Actually, he ran the White House, but he was not really working for President
Wilson or the people of the United States. He was a pawn of the International
Bankers, and they decided two things had to be accomplished while Wilson was
president. They both happened in 1913: the creation of the Federal Reserve
System, the accelerator of the economy; and the passing of the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America, (known as the
Federal income tax amendment) the decelerator of the economy.

When the International Bankers secured complete control of both the

accelerator and the decelerator of the nations's economy, they had positive
control of America's economic growth.

Watch. When the economy grows too fast, taxes increase. When the
economy is too slow, the FRB creates more money.

The Federal Reserve System was railroaded through Congress by

allowing the Congressmen to believe that it was AGAINST economic control by
Wall Street financiers. But the passing of the 16th Amendment was another
story. Filander Knox, Secretary of the State had an uphill battle. Three-fourths
of the States were supposed to ratify an amendment, but that was not
happening. The State Legislators were not cooperating. The proposed 16th
Amendment kept coming back to Knox with unacceptable changes by most state
legislators. In fact, only two of the required thirty-six states properly ratified the
16th Amendment! So, when Knox knew that there was no hope of the 16th
being ratified what did he do? He committed fraud by stating, on the floor of the
House, on February 3, 1913, "It appears the 16th Amendment has been
Ratified." That statement went unchallenged from 1913 to 1985. Seventy-two
years!

 Note from Gnome: This date is inaccurate. Taft became president in 1909.
Wilson was voted president in 1912 and took office in 1913; making all this even
scarier.
 "...under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to
alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the
legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed
amendment." How Our Laws Are Made Doc.97-120, 97th Con., 1st Session.
100
 Red Beckman, a Montana rancher, and Bill Benson, a revenue officer for
the State of Illinois, determined by their own investigation that most of the states
did not ratify the 16th Amendment. They convinced several men to fund a
private but thorough investigation that sent Bill Benson to each of the forty-eight
states in question to secure certified copies of the legislative procedures showing
whether or not that state had actually ratified the 16th Amendment. The result of
that investigation was the publication of the book, The Law That Never Was
backed by 17,000 documents of certified documentation! The first 500 copies of
The Law That Never Was were autographed by the authors and sent to the
congressmen, including President Reagan, and Vice President Bush. The
immediate reaction ranged from, "so what? I already knew it," to "Oh no. What's
going to happen to our country?"

What did the IRS have to say when this evidence was brought to light in a
court of law? (See the letter below.)

Internal Revenue Service

Department of the Treasury

TO ALL DISTRICT DIRECTORS

APRIL 4, 1985

On March 5, 1985, a charge of tax evasion was filed in U.S. DISTRICT

COURT in Indianapolis, Indiana by U.S. Attorney George Duncan. The charges
were dismissed! The defense attorney, Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama
presented irrefutable evidence that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
was never properly ratified. This amendment which established the "income
tax", was signed into law despite serious defects. In reality only two States
ratified the amendment and ratification requires 36 states to be valid. The effect
of this is such that every tax paid into the Treasury since 1913, is due and
refundable to every citizen and business.
The official position of the service is, as it has always been to aid and
assist the citizens of the United States. We will not publish or advertise this
finding as a total immediate refund would cause a serious drain on the resources
of the Treasury. For those citizens who become aware of this finding and apply
for a total refund, expedite their refund documents as quickly and as quietly as
possible. A simple 1040X form will suffice until a new form is designed and
printed. Advise each of your managers that they are not to discuss this situation
with anyone. There will be no written communications and you are to destroy
this memorandum.
The Secretary of the Treasury assures me that there will be no reduction
in the work force as this refunding activity will take a minimum of 5 years to

 Bill Benson; Constitutional Research Assoc, Box 550, South Holland, Il
60473
101
complete. Further directions will be forwarded as the need arises.

(signed)
Roscoe L. Egger, Jr.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

So, they know the 16th Amendment has never been ratified, and so does
everybody who is anybody in politics. But has anything been done about it? No.

The Delegation of Authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue produced April 22, 1955, was never signed
and never published in the Federal Register, so the Commissioner does not
have the authority to do his job.

All important Delegation Orders rely on that order being valid, so all other
IRS agents do not have the authority to act as agents.

All IRS "Liens and Levies" are not legal liens and levies, but are "Notices
of Liens" and "Notices of Levies." They have not been properly executed.

Numerous court decisions have established that certain illegal demands

normally made by the IRS upon citizens cannot be entered if the citizen claims
his rights under the Constitution.

Some are as follows:

You do not have to answer questions asked by the IRS.

You do not have to produce your private records.

You do not have to obey a summons issued by the IRS.

The IRS has even admitted the above in senate hearings but strives
desperately to prevent this from becoming widely known.

Today there are many books written by authors who have been on the
front lines fighting this cancer. Find one and read it. It will make you angry.
Then find another so that you will become fighting mad. Do not expect to find
these books in your local library. If you do not know where to get these books,

 Document in Author's possession.
 IRS Delegation Order 150-10. You can get your own copy by writing to the
FOIA Reading Room, Washington D.C.
 The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
 The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America.
 Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
102
call us.

We can help you. I suggest watching our video, "The IRS Investigated."
Get yourself a copy. Watch it several times. When you become convinced that
you do not qualify as a TAXPAYER and want to be among the
NONTAXPAYERS, we will be here to help you.

THE BANKRUPTCY

"From 1913 until 1933, the U.S. paid the 'interest' on these new notes
with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired: the
Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the U.S. bankers who
create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in
substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources--life) in ever-increasing
amounts. This may be the greatest heist and fraud of all time.
"Once the gold ran out, the United States Government had nothing to
pay the interest with. It was then that they declared bankruptcy. When a
government goes bankrupt, it looses its sovereignty. In 1933 the U.S. declared
bankruptcy. The bankrupt U.S. went in to receivership, reorganized in favor of its
creditors and new owners. 1913 turned America over to a handful of criminals
whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and
enslave the people of the United States of America and eliminate the nation from
the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world
private commercial government, a 'New World Order'."

The next section, entitled Lawyers' Secret Oath?, will walk you through
and explain how the Federal Government went bankrupt and what ensued after.
This is where "the Law" really gets down. It is presented as found and is taken
from an "edited, altered & enhanced significantly audio tape by a private non-
resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual pursuant to any real or
imaginary statutory regulations". You may decide its weight.
_______

LAWYERS' SECRET OATH?

AN EXPOSE' ON THE LEGAL FRAUD PERPETRATED ON ALL AMERICANS

Let's get right to the point. The courts recognize only two classes of
people in the United States today:

 You can contact Al Carter at The American Institute For The Republic 80
East, 100 North, Suite 100, Provo Utah 84606 (801) 377-0570
 From an unidentified author.
103
 DEBTORS AND CREDITORS
The concept and status of DEBTORS AND CREDITORS is very
important for you to understand. Every legal action where you are brought
before the courts e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit
cards, bank loans, or anything else they might dream up to charge you where
you find yourself in front of a court-It is an equity court; administrating
commercial law having a debtor creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we
have an equity court but not an equity court, as referred to in the Constitution of
the U.S. or any of the legal documents before 1938.

All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the
Supreme Court decision of 1938 in Erie vs. Thompkins. I'll give you background
which led to this decision. Some of this information is from the Ben Freeman
tapes of 1989. They are excellent tapes if you have them. Ben used to talk
about "legislative democracy". I couldn't find a definition for legislative
democracy. It bothered me. However, by listening to his tapes as well as other
tapes, I began to see the fraud that is being perpetrated on all of us Americans.
Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 day a weak, year after year
continuous fraud. It doesn't happen just once in awhile. This fraud is constantly
upon you all your life. Whether you are aware of it or not, this fraud is
perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.

U.S. Inc. Goes to Geneva 1930's

In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know
the history of its inception. It goes like this: From 1928 - 1932 there were five
years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva,
Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of
all the participating countries. During the year of 1930, the U.S., Great Britain,
France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try
to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don't publish
this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the
minutes of what happened, you will not find it. This volume has been pulled out
of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume
contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932,they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932, Franklin

Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt's job
was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two
years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision.
The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books
to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy.
Now, this doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the
Erie vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started 1930-1931. The
bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in
104
during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with
what is known as "The Banking Holiday", and proceeded in pulling the gold coin
out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public
Policy for bankruptcy.

Roosevelt Stacks Supreme Court

It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937-1938, there was a
big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices, Roosevelt tried to
enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices.
The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would
support the bankruptcy problem.

There was resistance to Roosevelt's court stacking efforts. Some of the

justices tried to warn us that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the
courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were
overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of
the land.

The "Mother Corporation"

Goes Bankrupt

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the
corporate U.S. had already bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by
compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government
(Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the
corporate several states to corporate Washington, D.C., (the headquarters of the
corporation called "The United States"). Since the United States Corporation,
having established its headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared
itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all
its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who
happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate
state governments didn't have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy
automatically became effective by reason of a Compact/Agreement between
each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION.
(Note: The writer has taken the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation" to
communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government
relative to her associated corporate States. It is my understanding that the
States Created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the
Federal government has taken control of her "Creators", the States.) She has
become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the
following: "United States", U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America",
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, Feds., Federal Government. She has her
own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office, etc., etc., etc.
Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel,
and the money she steals from the Americans via the I.R.S. and her state
105
corporations, to the United Nations and the International Banksters as payment
for her debt. The UN projects to include war. War is an extremely lucrative
business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans
for re-construction. Loans for controlling people on her world property.

U.S. Inc. Declares Bankruptcy

The Corporate U.S., then, is the head corporate member, who met at
Geneva, to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate
representatives of corporate several states were not in attendance. If the states
had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington
D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been
represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented.
Consequently, whatever Washington, D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on
automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group,
association, corporation, or as a club member, they all agreed and declared
bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only
needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington, D.C. The
delegates of the corporate states as well as for the mother corporation located in
Washington, D.C., the seat and headquarters of the Federal Corporate
Government. And, presto BANKRUPTCY was declared for all!

From 1930 to 1938, the states could not enact any law or decide any case
that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down
from the Federal level so that the states could then rely on the Federal decision
and use this decision within the states as justification for the bankruptcy process
within in the states.

Uniform Commercial Code

Emerges as Law of Land

By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case
they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in
1930 could be up-held and administrated. That's why the Supreme Court had to
be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme
Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been
established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to
destroy all precedence, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That
is, the Statues at Large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie vs.
Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the
front of the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote
directly from preface of the 1990 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code
12th edition:

"The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the

106
American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a
number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision
Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed
desirable in the light of experience under the Code were approved by the
Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966."

The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together
and start working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere
between 1938 and 1940, I don't recall, but by the early 40's and during the war,
this committee was working to form the UCC and got it ready to put on the
market. The UCC is the law merchant's code for the administration of the
bankruptcy. The UCC is now the new law of the land as far as the courts are
concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable
Instruments, Security, Sales, Contract, and the whole mess under the UCC.
That's where the "Uniform" word comes from. It means it was uniform from state
to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia. It doesn't mean
you didn't have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It
means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960's,
every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt
newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the law of the land. The states fully
understood they had to administrate bankruptcy. Washington, D.C. adopted the
Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks or so after Kennedy was
killed.

Your Lawyer's Secret Oath?

What was the effect and the significance of the Erie vs. Thompkins case
decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie decision, no cases are
allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939. There can be no mixing of the old law
with the new law. The lawyers (who were members of the American Bar
Association were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer's Guild of
Great Britain) created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The
American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain.
Since the Erie vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this
country was never again to be the same.

It has been reported (source unknown to writer) that every lawyer in

existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a secret oath to support the
bankruptcy. This seems to make sense after you read about Mr. Sweet's case
file disappearance discussed below. There is more to it. Not only do they
promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise
never to reveal who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings. In
court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and
principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for not making an
appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action,
than there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND THE
107
CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND THE
CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is
forbidden to tell you that information. That's way, if you question the true nature
and cause, the judge will say, "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining
me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest
you hire a lawyer."

Hire A Lawyer?

The problem here is, if you hire a lawyer, who is pledged not to reveal the
true nature and the cause. How well you ever find out the nature and the cause?
You won't! Why? If the true nature and the cause of the action against you is
revealed, it will expose the real creditor from whom this action and cause came.
In other words, they will have to name the TRUE creditor. The true creditor will
have to state the nature and the cause. The true creditor will have to say, "It's a
bankrupt proceeding". The true creditor would have to say "I'm the creditor and
he's the debtor". That declaration then opens the door for you to question, "Who
the hell are you? How did you get attached to my back and by what vehicle did I
promise to become a debtor to you?" In this country, the courts on every level
from the justice of the peace level all the way - even into the International law
arena (called the World Court), are administrating the bankruptcy and are
pledged not to reveal who the true creditors really are and how you personally
became pledged as a party or participant to the corporate United States debt.

What would really kill these people off, would be to compel the
International Bankers to send a lawyer to the courtroom and present himself as
the attorney for the true creditor (the International Bankers). Then have the
attorney to put into the record the true nature and the cause of the proceedings
against you on that particular day.

The International Banksters told these various countries that they were
now in a state of bankruptcy. The countries had been taken over by the
creditor/bankers. And there was no choice, but for all these participation
countries to declare bankruptcy. If they didn't agree to declare bankruptcy, the
banksters threatened to collapse the economies and thereby put the countries
back into the depression like the one from which they were just emerging. The
banksters made an offer they couldn't refuse!

To review and elaborate. In 1930 there was a worldwide depression. The

bankers said, "Look. You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard
way." "You just accept the bankruptcy and we'll let you out of the depression. If
you don't, you're on you're own." So all the countries involved agreed, because
they realized that the International banksters had them by the throat. The
countries therefore agreed that over a period of several years they would pass
statutes and legislation for the implantation of the bankruptcy in favor of the
International banksters.
108
 Now, I would say that the key banksters were Rothschild and family, and
their agents by way of Rockefeller, by way of the Federal Reserve Banksters.
Who were more specifically involved as key banksters and their agents is pure
conjure on my part, but it really doesn't matter at this point. The point is, there
was an international bankruptcy and an international conspiracy to cover it up.
There was a banking creditor who made the offer. The countries accepted the
offer in order to enable the representative countries to continue without
revolution and to allow the politicians to remain comfortably in place under a
delusion of solvency, while in fact, the representative countries were bankrupt.

The Snare

The Bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan.

How did they possibly pull this scheme off in the area of real estate? The
banksters did it with real estate, the same way they did it in the area of Federal
Income Taxes. These Foreign banksters simply and deceptively devised ways
and means to con you into declaring yourself as a "CITIZEN" OR A "RESIDENT"
of the corporate U.S. Remember, the corporate United States is bankrupt per
agreement and public policy. After you have been tricked into claiming you are
one of their corporate United States Citizens, you are given a social security
number which ties you to certain meager "benefits" and "privileges". Then, the
banksters con your employer to function as an unpaid tax collector to con you
into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040 voluntary
agreements. These slick paper agreement establishes your "voluntary"
indebtedness to the bankster creditor.

If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme, because you don't like it,
the real creditor never has to make an appearance in court to list the true nature
and cause of the action which is being brought against you. You end up dealing
with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from
prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is
administrating the bankruptcy which the government agreed per the Geneva
meetings. The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the
courtroom stand, so you can ask him how he got attached to your back. The
system is set up in such a way that the true creditor is protected and never has
to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or
produce documents. Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law
that gives him the right to pledge you (your body and labor) into indebtedness
(bondage/ servitude). Why? Because the Geneva agreement in 1930 was done
by treaty. The bankruptcy was not done by legislation. The agreement came
first; signed in secrecy, THEN congress began to pass legislation to fulfill the
bankruptcy obligation required by the treaty. Legislation being passed by
Congress was henceforth and is thereby bankruptcy legislation. When cases
came before the courts, the courts could make decisions based on the new
controlling law of bankruptcy. It had nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
109
Now, any case brought in is under the new bankruptcy law and is not considered
as a true constitutional case. It is now a bankruptcy case as distinct from, but
cleverly disguised as, a constitutional case.

The Fraud

The members of the Supreme Court, of course, realized what was

happening to them and the system of law. The court was being asked to
perform in a creditor, debtor bankrupt proceeding to the benefit of the bankster
creditors. The members of the Supreme Court said, "No. We will not give you a
bankrupt proceeding decision that you can then enforce against everybody"; a
decision not only effecting corporate Washington, D.C., but also having effect
within the corporate state governments. This, by the way, is fraud. It wouldn't be
fraud if the government of the several corporate states declared bankruptcy then
let the people know about the bankruptcy. (Notice: when I say corporate
"government" I don't mean you and me. You and I are not the corporate
government. The corporate government is the corporate capital of the corporate
states. The government is a neutral government zone known as the corporate
capital of the corporate state. The government is where the corporate state is. It
is corporate headquarters, just like corporate Washington, D.C. is the seat of the
corporate Federal Government. If the corporate Federal Government and her
subsidiary corporate state government want to join forces and declare
bankruptcy that's not fraud. This is their corporate business.

However, it is fraud when those two corporate entities declare bankruptcy

but do not disclose to you, me, and every other American, that they have so
declared bankruptcy. Further they have not and do not disclose that their
intention is to get you and every other American in this country to pledge to pay
off their corporate debt to their corporate creditors. The corporate bankruptcy is
the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of Americans.
The PEOPLE.

U.S. Inc. is Distinct & Separate

From Private Americans

"We the People" who created and signed the

contract/compact/agreement/charter of, by and for the Constitutional Corporation
(U.S.); using the trade name of the "United States of America", is a corporate
entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the
unenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not
create the corporation of the United States. The United States Inc. did not create
the private natural American people. America and Americans were in existence
prior to the creation of the United States Corporation. The United States
Corporation has located its U.S. headquarters in Washington, D.C. Virginia state
(state territory) gave land to the newly formed United States Corporation. Notice,
here, we have a state giving something of value (land) to the United States. The
110
United States Corporation agreed in the Constitutional contract, to protect the
states. Instead, because of their bankruptcy (Corporate U.S. Bankruptcy) this
particular U.S. corporation has enslaved the states and the people by deception
and at the will of their foreign banksters with whom they have been doing
business. Our forefathers gave their lives and property to prevent enslavement.
Today, we are again enslaved.

Private natural American people have been tricked, deceived, and set-up
to carry the U.S. Inc. perpetual corporate debt under bankruptcy laws. Every
time Americans appear in court, the corporate U.S. bankruptcy is being
administrated against them without their knowledge and lawful consent. That is
FRAUD. All corporate bankruptcy administration is done by "Public Policy" of by
and for the Mother Corporation (U.S. Inc.).

The Mother Corporation's

"Public Policy"

The corporate bankruptcy is carried out under the corporate public policy
of the corporate Federal Government in corporate Washington, D.C. The states
use state public policy to carry out Federal public policy of Washington, D.C.
Public policy and only public policy is being administered against you in the
corporate courts today. The public policy that is dictated by all the courts from
the smallest to the most powerful courts in the world, is public policy. This is why
I said, in another tape, that the Russian people would be enslaved into
indebtedness. What will happen is that it will become public policy in Russia to
have the people go into joint corporate debt. The Russians will be forced to
promise to pay those debts. They will be forced to pay off on those corporate
debts. Corporate Public policy is the crux of the whole bankruptcy
implementation. Corporate Public policy is forever a Corporate public policy and
the laws that have been passed since 1938 are all corporate public policy laws
dealing only with corporate public policy. Understand that U.S. corporate public
policy is not an American public policy. The public policy is OF (belonging to) the
United States corporation. This U.S. corporate bankruptcy public policy is not
OF (belonging to) America, The Republic.

The Erie vs. Tompkins 1938 case was a decision based upon public
policy. All decisions at any level since 1938, have been public policy decisions.
All statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures that have been passed, whether
civil or criminal, whether it is Federal or State, have all been passed to
implement the public policy of bankruptcy. Since 1933, when F.D.R. came in
office, he brought in public policy, He established that it was the public policy of
the government to call in all the gold. It was the public policy of the government
to declare banking holiday. It was the public policy of the Government in
Washington, D.C. (the Federal Government) to give out government assistance.
Public policy operates the same within the states. All Federal court decisions
can only be handed down if the states support Federal public policy. The state
111
legal system must be compatible with the Federal legal system.

The Monkey-Wrench

This is why, when people like us go to court without being represented by

a lawyer, we throw a monkey-wrench into their corporate administrative
proceedings. Why? Because all public policy corporate lawyers are pledged to
up-hold public policy, which is the corporate U.S. administration of their
corporate bankruptcy. That's why you'll find stamped on many if not all our
briefs: "THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED IN ANY OTHER CASE AND IS NOT
TO BE REPORTED IN ANY COURTS" The reason for this notation is that
when we go in to defend ourselves or file a claim we're not supporting the
corporate bankruptcy administration and procedure. The arguments we put forth
predate 1938. We come in with Constitutional law, etc. All these early cases
support our rights not to be in bankruptcy. However, the corporate courts,
lawyers, and judges have promised to give no judicial recognition of any case
before 1938.

The International Banksters'

Corporate Plantation
U.S.A. Style

Before 1938, the law was not a public policy law. All these old cases were
not public law deciding cases. Today, the cases are all decided under corporate
public policy. The public policy exists in order to administer the bankruptcy for
the benefit of the bankster creditors and to protect the bankster creditor.
Corporate public policy can allow the creditors to say to the corporate
legislatures, "I want a law passed requiring my debtors to wear seat belts. Why?
Because I want to be able to milk my debtors for the longest period possible." It
doesn't behoove the creditor to allow all of his labor producing debtors to die at
an average age of 30 years. What would happen to the bankster's lending,
interest, penalties, increase, repayment, etc., on the entire funding and lending
process if the average American life span was only 30 years? Why the bankers
would have to have 2 1/2 times the current consumer population to equal their
current take. The banksters would need (instead of 250 million Americans) 600
million or even more. Maybe the banksters would need 2 billion Americans
because the individual can't contract for debt until he/she is 18 or 21 years of
age. Therefore, if the average life span is only a 30 year period, the creditor
could collect on the debt for only 12 years.

Now, if the banksters can just get people to live an average of 70 years,
you are talking a whopping 50 years of indebtedness for which they contract and
for which they are forced to pay back with usury/interest. With this situation, the
bankster creditor can now float loans worth 50 years of potential indebtedness
and its payoff with interest in the name of the people, as opposed to 9 or 12
years. The creditors and their property and their people are well taken care of.
112
The creditor doesn't want the population to decrease per say, unless, it is
convenient for the debtor to run up debts in another's name and then liquidate
that debtor or that group of debtor people.

For example, let's consider the aids problem today among the black
people. What better group to inject aids into than the black people? Read the
Strecker Memorandum on aids and the World Health Organization connection.
This documents their tainted vaccination program in Africa and elsewhere. Why
not kill them off? Don't you understand that the blacks as a whole have
absorbed all the debt that they can? The blacks have reached the max of the
debt that they can carry. In fact, they have gone over their limit to pay back.
They are now heavily into welfare, public housing, medicaid, medicare, food
stamps, etc.. Now, the situation is that instead of paying off the creditor, they
have become a drain on the creditor. The creditor must now pay them to live
and take care of them. What creditor in his right mind wants to spend money on
a bunch of people from whom he can't collect any revenue?

The corporate public policy of the corporate United States and the states
and the county and of the cities are that YOU must take care of these people.
You must provide them with welfare, etc.. Why? Because when you, as a
member of the corporate body politic, allow laws to be passed which says the
minorities must be taken care of; then the corporate legislature can say the
public policy is that the people want these people taken care of and given a
chance, therefore, we must raise taxes to fund all these benefits, privileges, and
opportunities. This is what these people need to make them socially, politically,
and economically equal with every one else. The legislatures have passed all
kinds of statutes providing for huge indebtedness and they float the
indebtedness off your backs because you have never gone in to challenge them;
telling them that it is not your policy to assume the debts of other people.

On the contrary, all the court decisions coming out indicate it is the
corporate public policy and it is your willingness to support the corporate public
policy to pay off these debts. Remember, "public" means of and for the
corporate Government. It does not mean of and for private people. "Public"
means corporate government. It is corporate government policy. When they talk
about public debt, they are talking about corporate government debt and your
presumed pledge against this corporate created debt.

The Real Estate Snare

How do they work this scheme in the area of real estate? These bankster
creeps have made an agreement that it is corporate public policy, that all land
(property) be pledged to the creditor to satisfy the debt of the bankruptcy, which

 Note from Gnome: Doesn't this sound a lot like the new "contract with
America". Here's why.
113
the creditor claims under bankruptcy. They get away with this the same way they
get away with any other case that is brought before the court, whether it is a
traffic ticket, IRS, or whatever. Here is how it works. You have signed
instruments giving information and jurisdiction to the banksters through their
agents. The instruments (forms) you signed include, but are not limited to the
following: social security registration, use of the social security number, IRS
forms, driver license, traffic citation, jury duty, voter registration, using their
address, zip code, U.S. postal service, a deed, a mortgage application, etc., etc..
The banksters then use that instrument (document) under the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) as a contract/agreement. These documents are
considered promissory contract where you promise to perform. This scheme
involves you, without you ever becoming directly in contact or in contract with the
true creditor. What's more, you are never informed as to whom the true creditor
is and it is never divulged to you the true nature and the true cause of the
paperwork that you are filling out.

If you will examine your real estate deed, you will find that you promised to
pay taxes to the corporate government. On property you originally acquired
through a mortgage, you will notice that the bank never promised to pay taxes.
You did. In tax and collection problems relating to real estate being enforced
against you, you will notice that there is no mention in the mortgage or the deed
stating the true nature and cause of the action.

Since you have made the promise to perform, you get a bill every year for
property taxes. You don't realize that the only way they can bill you for taxes is
through your own stupidity of agreeing to pay the tax. You volunteered. They
took advantage of you, conning you to promise to pay property taxes. When
they send you their bill, they are coming against you for the collection of the
promise you made to the creditor. Now the creditor on the paperwork appears
that it is the local bank. The bank has loaned you credit. But the bank hasn't
loaned you anything. It was not their credit to loan. This is why the bank can't
loan credit. There is a credit involved, but not the bank's credit. It is the credit of
the International banksters. The international banksters are making you the loan
based upon their operation of bankruptcy claim which they presume to have
against you personally as well as your property.

Now, let's say you get the tax bill and you decide "I'm not going to pay it".
You will find that the courts and the lawyers and the county agencies are set up
to protect the true creditor simply by not identifying the creditor. By not being
identified as the true creditor, the international bankster can make you a credit
loan that has no value in reality. In the case of real property, he claims to loan
you the use of your own property for which you presumed by statutory law and
the bankster to be in bankruptcy. This fraud is not revealed because he does
not have to make an appearance in court to present and defend his claim. His
name is not mentioned in the case.

114
 Let's say you are not aware of your remedies provided for you within the
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC provides or allows you to dishonor
the county's presentment of the tax bill. You didn't pay your tax bill. You,
therefore, just sit on it and don't do or say anything. A couple of years go by and
all of a sudden you are being sent letters to pay up what is owed or else, in a
certain period of time, your property will be taken from you and put up for tax
sale. Now here is what is interesting - IF you don't pay your tax bill, and they
contact you asking you to pay it and you don't pay it, they will declare that you
are in default. It is based on that default, as provided for in the UCC, that they
sell your property for the tax (rent).

However, the county never goes into court to put into record the
identification of the real creditor. And the county does not state the true nature
and cause of the action against you (bankruptcy action disguised as a tax
action). Why? Because, under bankruptcy implementation, they have
developed a legal procedure which is based upon your promise to pay. This
procedure provides that they don't have to come to the court to get a court order
authorizing the sale of your property. Therefore, the real creditor never makes
an appearance in court. The reality is, you are denied any possibility of
appearing in court to exercise your right to challenge the creditor. To ask if he
became the creditor under "public policy". To ask if it is under "public policy",
just what is the "public policy"? And how did you (as an international banker)
become "creditor" to me and everyone else in this country (American people).
They don't want you to ask the real creditor (the International Banksters), to
produce the documents upon which your personal debt is established. If they
were forced to go into court, they would have to produce the deed or mortgage
showing you knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promised to pay the corporate
public debt. You did not knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promise to pay any
U.S. Corporate Bankruptcy obligation made in the 1930's. This would, or course,
expose their racket. The fact is, that, there was absolutely no debt connected to
you until you agreed to it through their deception and fraud. The deception in a
broader sense, permeates the education system and the new media, etc., to sell
you on the idea that you are a statutory "U.S. citizen" and "resident of the United
States" (INCORPORATED).

Your Signature Is
Your Most Valuable Property

Your property is pledged for the rest of your life upon your signature and
your promise to perform is pledged into perpetual debt. The banksters didn't
even bother to go to court. They leave it up to the agencies to administer the
agency corporate public policy. It is the public policy of that agency to bill you on
your promise to perform. If you don't pay, they follow up on the public policy on
notice of default and give you one more chance to pay. Then they proceed to
sell the property at a tax auction. They never go to court or appear in court to
back up their claim against you. Did any of your government licensed and
115
controlled teachers ever stress that your signature is your most valuable
personal property? Did your government teachers ever tell you, that any time
you sign any document, you should sign it "without prejudice", or with "All Rights
Reserved" above your signature. This means you are reserving your God given
unalienable rights (rights which cannot be transferred) and all other rights for
which your forefathers died. The Corporate U.S. Government provides, or at
least pretends to provide, for this reservation of rights under the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) 1-207 and 1-103. You need more information in this
area. It is not in the best interest of the United States Corporate "Public" schools
to teach you about their bankruptcy proceedings and how they have set the
snare to compel you into paying their debt. The Corporate "Public" schools are
strictly designed for their Corporate citizens/subjects. That is, the Corporate U.S.
Public School citizens. Notice all the emphases on being a "good" citizen.

Basically all their teachers and their students are trained to produce labor
and material in exchange for valueless green paper called "money". It is not
money, it functions "AS" money. Lawful money must be backed by something of
value. Banksters take your labor, services, and materials (homes, cars, farms,
etc.) in exchange for their valueless corporate paper. This paper is backed only
by the "full faith and confidence of the United States Government" (THE
MOTHER CORPORATION). I do not have faith or confidence in the U.S.
BANKRUPT CORPORATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE
PERVERTED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER, enslaving the sovereign
American people into their bankruptcy obligations. Their fraudulent money
laundering process promotes your payment on the corporate government's
bankruptcy debt. This debt is mathematically impossible to pay off. You and
your family are in continual financial bondage to the international banksters.
They love it so! Blacks' Law Dictionary 1990, defines "Money changers" as:
"...business of a banker...today handled by the international departments of
banks".

Let's return to the subject of your property, and the tax sale for not paying
property taxes. In this situation under a standard deed (not common law deed)
you are actually in default. Not because you understand the default or you like
being in default, you just are in default of the tax payment. So they put your
property up for sale. At the tax sale, Joe Doe, average American, bids on your
property and gets it. Now, there is a procedure he must go through. He is
required to give you another chance. You have six months and a day to pay off
the penalties, interest, fines, etc., then your property is taken off default status
and it is yours to continue to pay taxes on the next year.

The Brother's Case

In my brother's case, he was never in default as he never made the

promise in the common law deed to pay taxes, therefore, the man who bought
the property is moving against my brother through an attorney who is claiming
116
that my brother never redeemed the property. His attorney had followed
procedure by publishing the property tax notice in the newspaper for three
printings. Now they show up in court to get the court to declare default. After a
default judgement, the attorney's client then has right to the property.

Now, my brother comes in and challenges this action. The problem is, the
man who bought the property, is trying to claim the property when in fact he is
not the original creditor. He is not the person who said my brother was in default
or that he owed a tax in the first place. Now when my brother comes in and
challenges the new buyer, the court rules that the new buyer is not required to
produce any documents in support of his cause. The only documents they are
required to produce are the documents related to procedure of foreclosure. Do
you understand? There is no court case where the true creditor has to make an
appearance. You cannot question or challenge the true creditor.
When you do go to court, the person you are allowed to question is the
person who bought the property. The buyer is not required to produce
documents because the only one who would be required to do so, is the true
creditor. Now you are in the position of fighting yourself in court. This is a very
clever way for the creditor to avoid the courts in order to settle the dispute for his
claim against you. This is also a very clever way to avoid naming the true
claimant; true plaintiff. The true plaintiff is the international bankster. The
international banksters claim they have a claim against my brother's property
because my brother's property has been pledged by the state as collateral for
the corporate debts under bankruptcy to the international bankers.

Once my brother removed his property from their jurisdiction and venue by
claiming back all his rights, titles and interest, the only way that they would be
able to stand a chance, would be for the original claimant (international
banksters) to make an appearance through their attorney. Then, for my brother
to require their attorney to place in the record, a statement, identifying the true
nature and cause for their actions. The courts and the attorneys have cleverly
avoided this process.

Remember, when you are dealing in bankruptcy, slight of hand, lies, and
deception, you have to protest to the head man in all of this action, just like the
Watergate tapes. Everybody tried to protect Nixon, the head dog. It is the same
in this bankruptcy scam, they all have to protect the International Banksters. The
proof that this is true is that my brother is now in front of the court of appeals.
The attorney for the people who bought the property has already said the buyers
should not be required to present the authority establishing the State of
Maryland's authority to tax property and to collect these taxes. This statement is
the tip-off for how they are attempting to protect the International Banksters.
Since the International Banksters never had to appear everybody's property into
the United States corporate debt, the buyer's attorney says his client should not
have to produce; and this court should not demand, that he has to produce.
Guess what. The court will agree with the buyer's attorney. They don't have to
117
do it. They have to protect everybody's butt.

The attorney never cited one case before 1953. The attorney put a lot of
cases in his paper work but nothing is cited before 1938. Most of the cites are
since 1963, when the State of Maryland passed the UCC. All of the cites were in
the 70's & 80's. A few cites were in the 60's and one in the 50's. This lawyer
knew what was going on. That's why, no matter what happens, someone in the
court will stamp on the paperwork that this case cannot be cited in other cases.
This case is not to be reported in the legal reports.

The Cover-up

There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn't have a lawyer to
bring a case before the courts, and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the
truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not allow the case to be cited
or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely
available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. This is
why you can't hire an attorney. An attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.

"Trust Me"
"I'm Here To Help You."
"I Have The Governments Permission To Practice Law."
"I'm A Member of the Bar."

The attorney is there for one reason; to make sure the bankruptcy scam
(established by the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government)
is upheld. The Lawyer's will cite no cases for you that will go against the
bankruptcy in corporate public policy. Whatever the lawyers do for you is a
bunch of Bull Shit. The lawyers have to support the bankruptcy and public policy
by supporting it, ever at your expense. The lawyers can't go against the
corporate Federal Government statutes implementing, protecting and
administrating the bankruptcy.

For all cases cited, those in the U.S. Code or the state annotated code or
any other source, you may be sure that they are only those selected cases that
support the public policy of bankruptcy. The legal system has to work that way.
After the last 30-40-50-years of cases after cases having been decided based
upon upholding the bankruptcy, how could the legal system possibly allow
someone to come into court and put in the record substantial information and
argument to prove the fraud?

Blood In The Streets?

Can you imagine how damaging it be, if they allowed your case to be cited
in another case, or if they allowed the public to examine a copy of your brief, that
discloses evidence of the fraud? This exposure would render null and void
118
everything for which they have worked so hard. Wouldn't this exposure make
the people mad? Wouldn't this exposure mean there would be blood running in
the streets? Especially in the cities where the poor people have been really
taken by this diabolical system. What they are concerned about is that the case
never be cited. That goes against the bankruptcy for fear of exposing the
bankruptcy and the people will then pick up their guns and shoot the SOB's.

Mr. Sweet's Case Disappeared!

There is a man, let's say his name is Sweet. He has been investigating
the corporate government activities for over 12 years on a full time basis. Now,
let's look at Sweet's recent case. He won his case. He went into court and
defended his common law lien on his property so as to be compatible with
statutory law. The judge said, "However, since you presented me with a lien on
your property, I will stipulate that the county is the owner of your property with the
provision that all liens be satisfied." Sweet was very happy about the judgment.
Sweet doesn't care if the county is the owner of the property because the county
can't take the property for the next 90 years. The county can't take the property
away from him because of his common law lien on the property. Sweet is free to
use it, rent it, whatever. If the county really wants the property, they have to
satisfy the lien first. Sweet went back a couple of weeks later and asked them to
punch up his case number. Guess what? The case number had disappeared!
The reason the case number disappeared is that after the judge ruled the county
owned the property, subject to the lien, it became a case that goes against the
corporate county bankruptcy public policy.

Since Sweet placed a lien on his own property, he is the one who has to
be paid off first - not the county! The county is now required to satisfy the lien
before the county is allowed to take possession of the property. The property is
probably not worth the price of the lien. This would not satisfy the true creditors,
the International Banksters. If the county pays Sweet off first, the city has to put
on their records a $75,000.00 deficit. The true creditors wouldn't like that deficit.
They certainly would not like the fact that Sweet's clever maneuver had out foxed
the foxes.

What if one hundred, two hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand, people in

this state would just put a common law lien on their property and then stopped
paying taxes; then cited Sweet's case? It would set a precedent. Let the county
have the property as long as the judge makes the judgment subject to existing
liens. In this situation, the county would end up holding all this property but could
have no use of it. No rent. No taxes. No permits. All deficient. The banksters
creditors certainly don't want this scenario. The banksters don't want any cases
administered except through the application of bankruptcy procedure. The
banksters want your rights, privileges, and due process strictly administered by
and through the corporate courts under their corporate public policy, international
bankruptcy procedure. The International banksters and their unregistered
119
foreign agents don't want any evidence on the record, showing how you can get
out from under them. Any revenue collecting individual or agency such as the
courts, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and tax collectors who are
attempting to take money from you as a private American must be registered as
a foreign agent. If they are not duly registered and properly identified, they are
involved in extortion and treason against private Americans.

How Sweet It Is!

As part of Sweet's maneuver, he filled out a financing statement using the

UCC 1 form, whereby he put his wife and himself as debtors and creditors. Now,
the legal situation is switched. The UCC 1 financing record Sweet filed with the
state, shows Sweet and his wife, as being the parties of interest recorded with
the state rather then the presumption that the international banksters are the
parities of interest.

There is an office within each corporate state (Secretary of State) that

handles the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 1 claim forms). Since Sweet is
listed on corporate state records as the debtor and the creditor on his own
property, his property can't be put up in any way for collateral against any debts
claimed by the banksters. The reason is that the International Banksters and
their flunky agents, now, cannot prove that Sweet's property is debt property of
the bank or the corporate county. The property is encumbered by any further
demand for payment of taxes. Sweet has not paid property taxes for many
years. Sweet is now his own creditor. And Sweet is his own debtor. Therefore,
the International Bankster's, along with the county corporate thieves, are
knocked out of the stealing process.

You may want to do it the way Sweet did. If you own property, you will
need to get your deed and a common law lien, than fill out a UCC 1 Form. Then
file it with the Secretary of State. This seems to be the only way for you to get
out from under being a debtor of these bastardly Corporate Foreign International
Banksters. The judges have to know what's going on. The only way this
scheme can work is to have all the lawyers and judges pledge to uphold the
corporate bankruptcy public policy. The banksters just can't allow lawyers in a
legal system who refuse to uphold the bankruptcy policy. These renegade
lawyers would have to be quickly weeded out. They certainly have a neat little
system going here in America. The Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave.

Attention: Law Student

I hope you're listening to this, Law Student. You said you want to be a
lawyer. Well, I hope you're listening closely, because here is the legal system
you're headed to serve, and serve you will. You said you wanted to be a lawyer

 Note from Gnome. See under Title 22 USC, 611.
120
so you can find out what oath they're taking, in secret, behind closed doors in
solemn preparation for the "business of the court" as judges and lawyers. Now,
you know the oath. The oath is simply to uphold the bankruptcy. If you want to
be a lawyer and want to make a living as a lawyer, I can tell you this, they will
weed you out at the very beginning if you don't bring in your paperwork under the
bankruptcy procedures. If you try to defend your clients and try to help your
clients they will get rid of you. They will pull your license. So you spent all that
money and time going to school under the guise of helping people and you're
wasting your time. Without that license you can't go into a courtroom. I would
think about this.

Traffic Citation

Regarding the UCC 1 Form, you can also file it against your car. Wouldn't
that be a kick in the tail if you went into court for a traffic citation where you had
signed "without prejudice UCC 1-207"? And you had dishonored the traffic
citation using the UCC in your procedure by having signed "without prejudice"
and having gone home and sent in your dishonor of presentment of the traffic
citation. Now, let's say you are in front of the judge. The judge won't want any
mention that the citation was issued under bankruptcy. He is afraid you'll
mention the bankruptcy issue. The reason you dishonored the traffic citation, is
that it was issued to you under bankruptcy corporate public policy. He won't get
in to that. When you get before the judge, you just state you have removed
yourself from the bankruptcy. Tell him that your auto is no longer pledged for
collateral against the debt. He'll say, "Oh yeah. What are you talking about?"
That's when you hand him the UCC 1 Form that you had filed with the state.
This UCC 1 Form will show that you are the debtor and the creditor on your auto.
Now what happens? The corporate county/state can't collect on the traffic
citation debt instrument. Why? Because, now that you're the creditor on the
ticket; if they collect a $100.00 fine, they have to pay you the amount of the fine.
How sweet it is! You're the creditor aren't you? People have done this. Of
course, there is no record; no paper trail, in such cases - it is not cited. The
corporate bankster's agents, clerks, lawyers, judges, etc. take the information out
of the records as soon as you beat them at their own game.

The Lawyer's Guild

Connection

Here is what I think in these cases. The American Bar Association, is a

franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain. The America Bar Association is
not concerned primarily with what happens in any case on the local level.
However, when a case leaves the local level, by that, I mean the state court, city
court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court; and goes to the
appeal's court, it would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of
the case. It would seem that the ABA must have an agreement that any action
brought on an appeal, must be reviewed by the ABA, a branch of the Lawyer's
121
Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothschild's Dynasty, to be
able to monitor and administrate the corporate Bankruptcy. It would appear that
the ABA would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any
case brought under common law or the constitutional law that would expose the
bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that "this case is not to
be cited or published". I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the
stamp message in such cases. The justice department maybe able to do that in
Washington, D.C., but I can't see where any judge or lawyer could have the
authority to stamp or label the case as one not to be cited for future cases. I
think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.

The Bankruptcy Accounting

System

Now, Joe Law Student, if you're still attending classes and you have a
good professor, ask him/her about just where the stamp comes from that you've
seen on many cases. Just who put it on the paperwork and just who authorized
the citation restriction? Just who is tampering with the law? There is one thing
certain, the creditor and or his agents are watching these cases very carefully.
The creditor and his agents must balance their books. When you think of the
IRS, be aware that the IRS is an agent of the creditor, the corporate International
Banksters. This is just one of the Banksters' state side agencies. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) is another agency they use for this country. This is
where all the accounting goes to keep track of the debt. All the states have to
send reports to Washington, D.C.. Washington, D.C., itself, has to send reports
to the GAO. Take a look at your state Comptroller's Annual Report to the
Governor of your state. I found it in the library located in the city of the corporate
state capital. Look under "Trust Fund" for each state sub-corporation like the
state courts, HRS, Banks, Education, etc. you will be amazed at the amount of
money being pumped into the Trust Fund from the various Corporate State
Departmental Revenues (all revenues is referred to as taxes: fines, fees,
licenses, etc.). There are millions and billions of your hard earned worthless
federal reserve notes, "dollars", being held in "trust". This money is being
siphoned off into the coffers of the International Banksters while the corporate
government officials are hounding you for more taxes.

All this accounting system is not so the people will know what is going on.
The accounting reports are for the Bankster creditors to keep tabs on just where
their collections are coming from. The Banksters want to know if the bankruptcy
debt payments are coming in and just how much and from what sources. This
accounting is the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5. All this accounting
is closely monitored. Maybe every day; but at least once a week. These M's are
the reports of the amounts of money in circulation. The amount of debt out
there, and the amount of credit out there. The floating of debt in the form of
bonds. There are five different categories. This system had to come into
existence in order for the creditors to be on top of the bankruptcy at all times.
122
This system allows the creditors to figure out and know exactly what is going on
in their domain.

It all makes sense. Don't the banksters hire bill collectors? Creditors hire
bill collectors to snoop around to see why you're not paying. They want to know
how much you are going to pay so they can figure out how much will be coming
in; how much they will collect. They want to know who will pay and who won't.
The whole system is nothing but credit and debt.

(Concluded)
___________________

"With the Erie RR v. Tompkins case of 1938 the Supreme Court

confirmed their success: we are now in an international private commercial
jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have
been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom,
common law, Article III courts, and Republic. The Bill of Rights has been
statutized into "civil rights" in commerce."

"You might ask; where does the authority come from? It was made-up.
If you want to know what I mean, go into a law library and ask for the non-fiction
section. Law libraries are the only public libraries that do not have a non-fiction
section. One of the closely guarded secrets around the capitol, in Washington,
D.C., is that most of the New Deal Legislation, for 1933, consisted of blank
sheets of paper stapled together with a summary sheet. The government printing
office [G.P.O.] was unable to keep-up with the printing demands of the law
writers, so Congress voted for statutes that did not exist. The top attorneys
engineered the passage of carte blanche statutes so that they could act as
parens patriae by assuming the power of a king [judges act like rulers by making
rulings or rules] while operating from behind the vile of a corporate charter -
corpora ficta. They also passed a statute that authorized court rules to
supersede any statute in conflict with the new rules. Needless to say, one of the
other benefits to these make-believe statutes is that a challenge to the
constitutionality of an imaginary statute will be declared frivolous by the courts.
Those who are familiar with income tax cases are aware of the Supreme Court's
opinion notwithstanding the fact that the Internal Revenue Code [Title 26] has
not been enacted as law, but is published at the direction of the subcommittee.
The courts never reveal why these arguments are frivolous. The Internal
Revenue Service is a corporation."

"America has been stolen. We have been made slaves: permanent

debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered commercial 'persons', 'residents',

 From an unknown author.
 Reprinted with the permission from David M. Dodge, c/o P.O. Box 610933,
Miami, Florida.
123
and corporate franchisees known as 'citizens of the United States' under the so-
called '14th Amendment'. Said 'Amendment' created a citizenship for
corporations; abstract statutory entities which are the products and definitions of
the legislature and are fully taxable and regulatable thereby."

Jefferson's prophecy came to pass:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of
currency...the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children will
wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"Since 1933 what is called the "United States Government" is a privately

owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/IMF. It is merely an instrument
whereby the banksters administer their ongoing tyranny and plunder of what was
once considered 'the last great hope of human freedom'. All 'public servants',
officials, Congressman, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement, States
and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these 'Foreign
Principals' who have stolen the country by clever, intentional, and unrelenting
fraud, trickery, treachery, non-disclosure, misrepresentation, intrigue, coercion,
conspiracy, murder, etc. If there is a greater tragedy in human history it is hard
to know what it is."

Documented Evidence

There is documented evidence of the bankruptcy. It is brought to us by

John B. Nelson and is reprinted with his blessings. It was written for the people
of the state of Colorado and the scrutiny of all. His December 26, 1991
introduction states:

"I hope this communication finds you well and mentally strong for the
occasion. It is quite apparent that the "Treasonous" and "Seditious" are brewing
up a storm of untold magnitude...."
________________________________________________________________
__________________________
RE: SENATE REPORT NO. 93-549, Etc

I have enclosed Senate Report No. 93-549, consisting of 607 pages,

which I believe you will find most interesting. The United States went "Bankrupt"
in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073,


 From an unknown author.
 Ibid.
124
6102, 6111 and Executive Order 6260 , and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.
The several states of the union then pledged the faith and credit thereof to the
aid of the national government, and formed numerous socialist committees, such
as the "Council Of States Governments", "Social Security Administration" etc., to
purportedly deal with the economic "Emergency". These organizations operated
under the "Declaration Of INTERdependence" of January, 22, 1937, and
published some of their activities in "The Book Of The States." The 1937 edition
of The Book Of The States openly declared that the people engaged in such
activities as the Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal
"Tenants" on their land. This of course was compounded by such activities as
price fixing wheat and grains [7 U.S.C.A. 1332], quota regulation [7 U.S.C.A.
1371], and livestock products [7 U.S.C.A. 1903], which have been held
consistently below the costs of production; interest on loans and inflation of the
paper "Bills of Credit"; leaving the food producers and others in a state of
peonage and involuntary servitude, constituting the taking of private property, for
the benefit and use of others, without just compensation.

Note: The Council Of State Governments has now been absorbed into
such things as the "National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State
Laws", whose Headquarter's Office is located at 676 North Street, Clair Street,
Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and "all" being "members of the Bar", and
operating under a different "Constitution And By-Laws" has promulgated, lobbied
for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their
purported statutory provisions, to "help implement international treaties of the
United States or where world uniformity would be desirable." This is apparently
what Robert Bork meant when he wrote "we are governed not by law or elected
representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee
of lawyers applying no will but their own." This association has been engaged
in activities such as turning "Marriage" (licensed) into "International Private Law",
through its International Liaisons, which meet at such places as the Hague
Conferences.

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the
prior 150 years concerning "common Law", in the federal government.

"There is no federal common law, and congress has no power to declare

substantive rules of common law applicable in a state, whether they be local or

 See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594 under the "Trading With The
Enemy Act" 65th Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917.
 Book Of The States, 1937, pg. 155.
 See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council Of Commissioners On
Uniform State Laws, pg. 2
 See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130
 See: Handbook Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, 1966 Ed., pg.
156-157.
125
general in their nature, be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts." 

The members and associations of the Bar thereafter formed committees,

granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held
meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws "to
conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives",
including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is
known today as "One Form Of Action."

NOTE: The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established

by the ordained Constitution (1787), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of
Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgepodged and fundamentally
changed in 1982 to include Admiralty jurisdiction, which was once again brought
inland.

"This is the fundamental change necessary to effect unification of Civil

and Admiralty procedure. Just as the 1938 Rules abolished the distinction
between actions at Law and suits in Equity, this change would abolish the
distinction between civil actions and suits in Admiralty."

The United States thereafter entered the second World War during which
time the "League of Nations" was instituted under pretense of the "United
Nations", and the "Bank For International Settlements" reinstated under
pretense of the "Bretton Woods Agreement" as the "International Monetary
Fund" (The Fund) and the "International Bank For Reconstruction And
Development" (The Bank).

The United States as a corporate body politic (artificial), came out of World
War II in worse economic shape than when it entered, and in 1950 declared
Bankruptcy and "Reorganization". The Reorganization is located in Tile 5 of
United States Codes Annotated. The "Explanation" at the beginning of 5
U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The "Secretary of Treasury" was
appointed as the "Receiver" in Bankruptcy. The United States went down the

 Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 188.
 See: Constitution And By-Laws, Article 3, Sec. 3.3(c), 1990-91
Reference Book, supra, see also, Colorado Methods Of Practice, West Pub.,
Vol. 4, pgs. 2-3, Authors Comments.
 Federal Rules Of civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17
 See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287 et. seq.
 See: 60 Stat. 1401, 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. seq.
 Note from Gnome: This date is more than likely the year when the
Reorganization of the Bankruptcy began - not the actually year bankruptcy was
declared; that was 1930.
 See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-564,
126
road and periodically filed for further Reorganization. Things and situations
worsened, having done what they were Commanded NOT to do , and in 1965
passed the "Coinage Act of 1965", completely debasing the Constitutional Coin
(gold & silver i.e. Dollar). At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965,
Lyndon B. Johnson stated in his Press Release that:

"When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first
fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965
supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a
Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States...."

"Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system
since the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it."

It is important to take cognizance of the fact that NO Constitutional

Amendment was ever obtained to FUNDAMENTALLY "CHANGE", amend,
abridge or abolish the Constitutional mandates, provisions or prohibitions, but
due to internal and external diversions surrounding the Viet Nam War etc., the
usurpation and breach went basically unchallenged and unnoticed by the general
public at large, who became "a wealthy man's cannon fodder or cheap source of
slave labor." Congress was clearly delegated the Power and Authority to
regulate and maintain the true and inherent "value" of the Coin within the scope
and purview of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6 and Article I, Section 10,
Clause 1, of the ordained Constitution (1787), and further, under a
corresponding duty and obligation to maintain said gold and silver Coin and
Foreign Coin at and within the necessary and proper "equal weights and
measures" clause.

Those exercising the Offices of the several States, in equal measure,

knew such "De Facto Transitions" were unlawful and unauthorized; but
sanctioned, implemented and enforced the complete debauchment and the
resulting "governmental, social, industrial economic change" in the "De Jure"
States and in United States of America , and were and are now under the
delusion that they can do both directly and indirectly what they were absolutely

Legislative History, pg. 5967

 See: Madison's Notes, Constitutional Convention, August 16, 1787,
Federalist Papers No. 44
 See: 18 U.S.C.A. 331 & 332, U.S. vs. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560, 13 L. Ed. 257
 See: Silent Weapons For Quite Wars, TM-SW7905.1, pgs 6,7,8,9,12,13
and 56
 See also: Bible, Deuteronomy, Chapter 25, verses 13 through 16, Public
Law 97-289, 96 Stat. 1211
 See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5936, 5945, 31 U.S.C.A.
314, 31 U.S.C.A. 321, 31 U.S.C.A. 5112, C.R.S. 11-61-101, C.R.S. 39-22-103.5
and C.R.S. 18-11 203
127
prohibited from doing.

In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the Federal Tax

Lien Act of 1966, by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. "Essential
Engine" was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. The Uniform
Commercial Code was of course promulgated by the National Conferences Of
Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with the American Law
Institute for the "banking and business interests." The United States being
engaged in numerous U.S. conflicts, including the Korean and the Viet Nam
conflicts, which were under the direction of the United Nations [See: 22 U.S.C.A.
287d], and agreeing to foot the bill [See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287j], and not being able to
honor their obligations and rehypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly
dishonored and disavowed their "Notes" and "obligations" [12 U.S.C.A. 411] i.e.
"Federal Reserve Notes" through Public Law 90-269, Section 2, 82 Stat. 50
(1968) to wit:

"Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12
U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking 'and the funds provided in the Act for the
redemption of Federal Reserve notes'."

Things steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970, President Nixon
issued Proclamation No. 3972, declaring an "emergency" because the Postal
Employees struck against the de facto government (?) for higher pay, due to
inflation of the paper "Bills of Credit." [See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 596]
Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under control of the "Department of
Defense." [See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 (1969 ed.)]

"The System has been faltering for decade, but the bench mark date of
the collapse is put at August 15 1971. On this day, President Nixon reversed
U.S. international monetary policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of
the U.S. dollar [F.R.N.] into gold."

On September 21, 1973, Congress passed Public Law 93-110, amending

the Bretton Woods Par Value Modification Act, 82 Stat. 116, [31 U.S.C.A.449],
and reiterated the "Emergency", [12 U.S.C.A. 95a], and section 8 of the Bretton
Woods Agreements Act of 1945 [22 U.S.C.A. 286f], and which included "reports

 See also, Federalist Papers No. 44, Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Peters 903
 See: Federalist Papers No. 31
 See: Public Law 89-719, Legislative History pg. 3722, also see, C.R.S. 5-1-
106
 See: Handbook Of The National Conference Of Commissioners On
Uniform State Laws, (1966) Ed. pgs, 152 & 153
 See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5937 & Senate Report No.
93-549, Foreword pg. III, Proclamation No. 4074, pg. 597, 31 U.S.C.A. 314 &
31 U.S.C.A. 5112
128
of foreign currency transactions." [Also see, Executive Order No. 10033] This
act further declared in Section 2(b) that:

"No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and
no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to
prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with
gold."

On January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt noted for the record, a second
"Declaration Of INTERdependence" and clearly identified the U.N. as a
"Communist" organization, and that they were seeking both production and
monetary control over the Union and the People through International
Organization promoting the "One World Order." [8 U.S.C.A. 1101 (40)] also see,
[50 U.S.C.A. 781 & 783]

The socio/economic situation worsened as noted in the

Complaint/Petition, filed in the U.S. Court of Claim, Docket No 41-76, on
February 11, 1976, by 44 Federal Judges, Atkins et al. vs. U.S.. Atkins et al.
complained that "As a result of inflation, the compensation of federal judges
have been substantially diminished each year since 1969, causing direct and
continuing monetary harm to plaintiffs....the real value of the dollar decreased by
approximately 34.5 percent from March 15th, 1969 to October 1, 1975....As a
result, plaintiffs have suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of earnings", and in
the prayer for relief claimed "damages for the constitutional violations
enumerated above, measured as the diminution of his earnings for the entire
period since March 9, 1969." It is quite apparent that the persons holding and
enjoying Offices of Public Trust, Honor and/or Profit knew of the emergency
emergent problem and sought protection for themselves, to the damage and
injury of the People and Children, who were classified as "a club that has many
other members" who "have no remedy." And knowing that "heinous" acts had
been committed, stated that they [judges/lawyers] would not apply the Law, nor
would any substantive remedy be applied (checked more or less, but never
stopped) "until all of us [judges] are dead." Such persons Fraudulently swore an
Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and several
Republican States of the Union, and breached the Duty to protect the
People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and stealthy
encroachment. This is verified in Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg.
5944, which states:

"Moving to a floating exchange rate for international commerce means

private enterprise and not central governments bear the risk of currency
fluctuations."

 See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 074, The Tempting Of
America, supra, pgs. 155-159, also see, 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report
NO. 93-549, pgs. 69-71, C.R.S. 24-75-101
129
 Numerous serious debates were held in Congress, including but not
limited to, Tuesday, July 27, 1976 [See: Congressional Record - House, July 27,
1976] concerning the International Financial Institutions and their operations.
Representative, Ron Paul, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, made
numerous references to the true practices of the "International" financial
institutions, including but not limited to, the conversion of 27,000,000 (27 million)
in gold, contributed by the United States as part of its "quota obligations", which
the International Monetary Fund (Governor-Secretary of Treasury) sold under
some very questionable terms and concessions.

On October 28, 1977 the passage of Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227
declared most banking institutions, including State banks, to be under direction
and control of the corporate "Governor" of the International Monetary Fund .
The Act further declared that:

"(2) Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 [31 U.S.C. 822a(b)] is
amended by striking out the phrase 'stabilizing the exchange value of the
dollar'..."

"(c) The joint resolution entitled 'Joint resolution to assure uniform value to
the coins and currencies of the United States', approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C.
463) shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this
section."

The United States as Corporator , and State had declared

"Insolvency." A permanent state of "Emergency" was instituted, formed and
erected within the Union through the contrivances, fraud and avarice of the
International Financial Institutions, Organizations, Corporations and
Associations, including the Federal Reserve, their "fiscal and depository agent."
This has lead to such "Emergency" legislation as the "Public Debt Limit-Balance
Budget And Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985", Public Law 99-177, etc.

The government by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty and


 See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5945 & 5946
 Also see: The Ron Paul Money Book, (1991), by Ron Paul, Plantation
Publishing, 837 W. Plantation, Clute, Texas 77531
 See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5942, United States
Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-481
 22 U.S.C.A. 286c, et seq.
 C.R.S. 24-36-104, C.R.S. 24-60-1301(h)
 See: 26 I.R.C. 165(g)(1), U.C.C. 1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22-103.5, Westfall vs.
Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W. 2d 911,
Ward v.s Smith, 7 Wall 447
 22 U.S.C.A. 286d
130
takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived
from the corporate charter. The real party of interest is not the de jure "United
States of America" or "State", but "The Bank" and "The Fund". The acts
committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under "Letters
of Marque and Reprisal" i.e. "recapture". Such principles as "Fraud and Justice
never dwell together" [Wingate's Maxims 680], and "A right of action cannot arise
out of fraud." And do not rightfully contemplate the thought concept, as "Due
Process", "Just Compensation" and Justice itself. Honor is earned by honesty
and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses, nor will the color of the
cloth one wears cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery and deceits. When Black
is fraudulently declared to be White, not all will live in darkness. As astutely
observed by Will Rogers, "there are men running governments who shouldn't be
allowed to play with matches", and is as applicable today as Jesus' statements
about Lawyers.

The contrived "emergency" has created numerous abuses and

usurpations, and abridgments of delegated Powers and Authority. As stated in
Senate Report 93-549:

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared
national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidential proclaimed
states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by
President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed
by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the
states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23,1970,
and August 15, 1971."
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These
hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily
exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host
of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer
enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional
process."

"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may; seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities;
assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all
transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise;
restrict travel; and in a plethora or particular ways, control the lives of all
American citizens."

 See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed.
(9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242
 22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103
 See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323
 Broom's Maxims 297, 729; Cowper's Reports 343; 5 Scott's New Reports
558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800
131
 The "Introduction", on page 1, begins with a phenomenal declaration, to
wit:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives
under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures
guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws
brought into force by states of national emergency..."

According to the research done in 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd

Edition, Sections 71 and 82, no "emergency" justifies a violation of any
Constitutional provision. Arguendo, "Supremacy Clause" and "Separation of
Powers", it is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549 that abridgment has
occurred. The statements heard in the Federal and State Tribunals, on
numerous occasions, that Constitutional arguments are "immaterial", "frivolous"
etc., are based upon the concealment, furtherance and compounding of the
Frauds and "Emergency" created and sustained by the "Expatriated", ALIENS of
the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and Associations.
Please note that, 8 U.S.C.A. 1481, is one of the controlling statutes on ex-
patriation, as is 22 U.S.C.A. 611, 612 & 613 and 50 U.S.C.A. 781.

The Internal Revenue Service entered into a "service agreement" with the
U.S. Treasury Department and the Agency for International Development,
pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For International
Development is an International paramilitary operation , and includes such
activities as "Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial
authority over a country or area." It is also to be further observed that the
"Agreement" regarding the headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT
agreed to , and is illegally in the Country in the first instant.

The International Organizational intents, purposes and activities include

complete control of "Public Finance" i.e. "control, supervision, and audit of
indigenous fiscal resources; budget practices, taxation, expenditures of public
funds, currency issues, and banking agencies and affiliates." This of course

 See: Letter, Insight Magazine, February 18, 1991, pg. 7, Lowell L. Flanders,
President, U.N. Staff Union, New York
 See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan
No. 26
 See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-
4,Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1-10(7)(c)(1), 22 U.S.C.A. 284
 See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7,Section 110(7)(c)(4); Agreement Between The
United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters
Of The United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8); 22 U.S.C.A. 287 (1979 Ed.) pg. 241
 See: Congressional Record - Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurnond
 See: FM 41-10, pgs. 2-30 through 2-31, Section 251, Public Finance
132
complies with "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars" Research Technical Manual TM-
SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people,
monetary control by the Internationalist, through information etc. solicited and
collected by the Internal Revenue Service and who is operating and enforcing
the seditious International program. The 1985 Edition of the Department Of
Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 further describes the International "Civil Affairs"
operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the A.I.D. is autonomous and under
direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at page 3-8
that the operation is "paramilitary". The International Organizations(s) intents
and purposes was to promote, implement, and enforce a "DICTATORSHIP
OVER FINANCE IN THE UNITED STATES."

It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue

Service Agents etc. are "Agents of a Foreign Principal" within the meaning and
intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938." They are directed and
controlled by the corporate "Governor" of "The Fund" also known as "Secretary
of Treasury" and the corporate "Governor" of "The Bank" 22 U.S.C.A. 286 and
286a, acting as "information-service employees [22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(ii)], and
have been and do now "solicit, collect, disburse or dispense contribution [Tax -
pecuniary contributions, Black's Law Dictionary 5th edition], loans, money or
other things of value for or in interest of such foreign principal 22 U.S.C.A.
611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements with a Foreign Principal pursuant to
Treasury Delegation order No. 91 i.e. the "Agency For International
Development." The Internal Revenue Service is also an agency of the
International Criminal Police Organization, and solicits and collects information
for 150 Foreign Powers. It should be further noted that Congress has
appropriated, transferred, and converted vast sums to Foreign Powers and has
entered into numerous Foreign Taxing Treaties (conventions) and other
Agreements, which are solicited and collected pursuant to 26 I.R.C. 6103(k)(4).
Along with the other documentary evidence submitted herewith, this should
absolve any further doubt as to the true character of the party. Such restrictions
as "For the general welfare and common defense of the United States"

 See: TM-SW7905.1, pg. 48, also see, 22 U.S.C.A. 286F & Executive Order
No. 10033 and 26 U.S.C.A. 6103(k)(4)
 See: TM-SW7905.1, pg.52
 See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186
 See: Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual
1990/91, pgs. 480 & 481, 26 U.S.C.A. 770(a)(11), Treasury Delegation Order
No. 150-10
 See 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(2)
 See: U.S.C.A. 263a, The United States Government Manual, 1990/91, pg.
385, see also, The Ron Paul Money Book. pg. 250-251
 See: 22 U.S.C.A. 262c(b)
 See: 22 U.S.C.A. 285g, 287j
 See: Constitution (1787), Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
133
apparently aren't applicable, and the fraudulent rehypothecated debt credit will
be merely added to the insolvent nature of the continual "emergency", and the
reciprocal socio/economic repercussions laid upon present and future
generations.

Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign

Agents Registration Statement, 22 U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951,
military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. The United Nations
Charter, Article 2, Section 7, further prohibits the U.N. from "intervening in
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..."
Korea, Viet Nam, Ethiopia, Angola, Kuwait, etc., etc., are evidence enough of the
"BAD FAITH" of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and
Associations, not to mention the seizing of two day care centers in the State of
Minnesota by their agents, and holding the children as collateral/hostages for
payment/ransom of their fraudulent, dishonored, rehypothecated debt credit,
worthless securities. Such is the "Rule of Law" "as envisioned by the Founders"
of the United Nations. Such is Communist terrorism, despotism and tyranny.
ALL WERE AND ARE OUTLAWED HERE.

I hope this communication finds you well and mentally strong for the
occasion. It is quite apparent that the "Treasonous" and "Seditious" are brewing
up a storm of untold magnitude. "Bush's public address of September 11,
1991 "One World Order" affiliation and collusion with the Soviet Union
Oligarchy [50 U.S.C.A. 781], direction by the U.N., 22 U.S.C.A. 611, etc. You
might also find it interesting that Treasury Delegation Order No. 92 states that
the I.R.S. is trained under direction of the Division of "Human Resources" (U.N.)
and the Commissioner (INTERNATIONAL), by the "Office Of Personnel
Management." In the 1979 Edition of 22 U.S.C.A. 287, The United Nations, at
pg. 248, you will find Executive Order No. 10422. The Office of Personnel
Management is under direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
And as stated previously, the I.R.S. is also a member in a one hundred fifty (150)
nation pact called the "International Criminal Police Organization" found at 22
U.S.C.A. 263a. The "Memorandum & Agreement" between the Secretary of
Treasury/Corporate Governor of "The Fund" and "The Bank" and the Office of
the U.S. Attorney General would indicate that the Attorney General and his
associate are soliciting and collecting information for Foreign Principals.

It is worthy of note that each and every Attorney/ Representative, Judge or


 See: Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100-70, Military Law Review,
Vol. 70
 See: Weekly Compilation Of Presidential Documents
 See also: Extension Of Remarks, January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt, 8
U.S.C.A. 1101(40)
 See: The United States Government Manual 1990/91, pg. 385, also, The
Ron Paul Money Book, supra, pg. 250,251
134
Officer is required to file a "Foreign Agents Registration Statement" pursuant to
22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(1)(iv) & 612, if representing the interests of a Foreign
Principal or Power.

On January 17, 1980, the President and Senate confirmed another

"Constitution", namely, the "Constitution Of The United Nations Industrial
Development Organization", found at Senate, Treaty Document No 97-19, 97th
Congress, 1st Session. A perusal of this Foreign Constitution should more than
qualify the internationalist intents. The "Preamble", Article 1, "Objectives" and
Article 2, "Functions", clearly evidences their intent to direct, control, finance and
subsidize all "natural and human resources" and "agro-related as well as basic
industries", through "dynamic social and economic changes" "with a vied to
assisting in the establishment of a new international economic order." The high
flown rhetoric is obviously of "Communist" origin and intents. An unelected,
unrepresentative, unaccountable oligarchy of expatriates and aliens, who
fraudulently claim in the Preamble that they intend to establish "rational and
equitable international economic relations", yet openly declared that they no
longer "stabilize the value of the dollar" nor "assure the value of the coin and
currency of the United States" is purely misrepresentation, deceit and fraud.
This was augmented by Public Law 101-167, 103 Stat. 1195, which discloses
massive appropriations of rehypothecated debt for the general welfare and
common defense of other Foreign Powers, including "Communist" countries or
satellites, International control of natural and human resources, etc. etc. A
"Resource" is a claim of "property" and when related to people constitutes
"slavery".

It is now necessary to ask, "Which Constitution are they operating under?"

The "Constitution For The Newstates Of The United States". This effort was the
subject matter of the book entitled "The Emerging Constitution" by Rexford G.
Tugwell, which was accomplished under the auspices of the Rockefeller tax-
exempt foundation called the "Center For The Study of Democratic Institutions."
The People and Citizens of the Nation were forewarned against formation of
"Democracies". "Democracies have ever been the spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have
been violent in their deaths." This Alien Constitution, however, has nothing to
do with democracy in reality. It is the basis of and for a despotic, tyrannical
oligarchy.

Article I, "Rights and Responsibilities", Sections 1 and 15 evidence their


 See: 22 U.S.C.A. 613, Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.C. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d
940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951
 See: Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227, at pg. 1229
 See: Federalist Papers No. 10, also see, The Law, Fredrick Bastiat, Code
of Professional Responsibility, Preamble
135
knowledge of the "emergency". The Rights of expression, communication,
movement, assembly, petition and Habeas Corpus are all excepted from being
exercised under and in a "declared emergency". The Constitution for the
Newstates of America, openly declares, among other seditious things and
delusions that "Until each indicated change in the government shall have been
completed the provisions of the existing Constitution and the organs of
government shall be in effect." "All operations of the national government shall
cease as they are replaced by those authorized under this Constitution." This is
apparently what Burger was promoting in 1976, after he resigned as Supreme
Court Justice and took up the promotion of a "Constitutional Convention." No
trial by jury is mentioned, "JUST" compensation has been removed, along with
being informed of the "Nature & Cause of the Accusation", etc., etc., and
everyone will of course participate in the "democracy". This Constitution is but a
reiteration of the Communist Doctrines, intents and purposes, and clearly
establishes a "Police Power" State, under direction and control of a self
appointed oligarchy.

Apparently the present operation of the "de facto" government is under

Foreign/Alien Constitutions, Laws, Rules and Regulations. The overthrow of the
"essential engine" declared in and by the ordained and established Constitution
for the united States of America (1787), and by and under the "Bill of Rights"
(1791) is obvious. The covert procedure used to implement and enforce these
Foreign Constitutions, Laws, Procedures, Rules, Regulations, etc., has not, to
my knowledge, been collected and assimilated or presented as evidence to
establish seditious collusion and conspiracy.

Fortunately and Unfortunately in my Land it is necessary to seek, obtain

and present EVIDENCE to sustain a conviction and/or judgement. Our patience
and tolerance for those who pervert the very necessary and basic foundations of
society has been pushed to insufferable levels. They have "fundamentally"
changed the form and substance of the de jure Republican form of Government,
exhibited a willful and wanton disregard for the Rights, Safety and Property of
others, evinced a despotic design to reduce my people to slavery, peonage and
involuntary servitude, under a fraudulent, tyrannical, seditious foreign oligarchy,
with intent and purpose to institute, erect and form a "Dictatorship" over the
Citizens and our Posterity. They have completely debauched the de jure
monetary system, destroyed the Livelihood and Lives of thousands, aided and
abetted our enemies, declared War upon us and our Posterity, destroyed untold
families and made homeless over 750,000 children in the middle of winter,
afflicted widows and orphans, turned Sodomites lose among our young,
implemented foreign laws, rules, regulations and procedures within the body of
the country, incited insurrections, rebellion, sedition and anarchy within the de
jure society, illegally entered our Land, taken false Oaths, entered into Seditious

 See: Article XII, Section 3
 Ibid. Section 4
136
Foreign Constitutions, Agreements, Pactions, Confederations, and Alliances, and
under pretense of "emergency", which they themselves created, promoted and
furthered, formed a multitude of offices and retained those of alien allegiances to
perpetuate their frauds and to eat out the substance of the good and productive
people of our Land, and have arbitrarily dismissed and held mock trials for those
who trespassed upon our lives. Liberties, Properties and Families and
endangered our Peace, Safety, Welfare and Dignity. The damage, injury and
costs have been higher than mere money can repay. They have done that which
they were COMMANDED NOT TO DO. The time for just correction is NOW!

I could go on but the story is long! I hope this information and research is
of assistance to you. Much remains to be uncovered and disclosed, as it is
necessary and imperative to secure the Lives, Liberties, Property, Peace and
Dignity of the People and our Posterity. Good Hunting and the Good Lord be
with you in all your endeavors.

God Bless!

(*)__________________________
John Nelson, Jure Soli,
Jure Sanguinis, Jure Coronea
c/o 14675 Co.Rd. 35.6
Mancos, Colorado, u.S.A.
Teste Meipso

P.S. (From John Nelson) In addition, I am yet expecting a copy of the "Service
Agreement", [T.D.O. 91]. It was located in the Department of Treasury, office of
the Assistant General Counsel, (International Affairs), Russell L. Munk, 1500
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. Efforts are being made to
obtain a copy, but so far have ben obstructed by the Bar. If anyone knows
where and how a copy can be obtained please do so immediately, the
documents are necessary and imperative. It ought to be most informative! By
the way, it's against the law for an insolvent to make a loan or to try to
fraudulently collect thereon. It should be further noted that an "Alien" or
"Denizen" cannot sit on a Jury , nor hold a Pubic Office.

The "out of court", "ex parte", summary determinations upon matters in

issue is purely "Administrative" procedures. The Jury, if any, is reduced to an

 Note from Gnome: HO!
 See: Neal et al. vs. Clark, 251 P.2d 903
 See: 3 Am. Jur. 2d Sec. 40
 See: 50 U.S.C.A. 781(9) & 842
 See: 1 Am. Jur. 2d Sec. 78
137
"advisory jury" position, and is more than likely arrayed as a "homage" jury.

5 U.S.C.A. 701-703 should be of interest concerning "Judicial Review" of

Agency actions. It can be found in most States under such headings and Acts
as the "Administrative Procedures Act" or the "Administrative Reorganization
Act."

ALL de facto Federal/International chartered "Institutions", their Officers,

Employees, Servants, Agents and Representatives are subject to and should be
turned over to a Court of Law for prosecution, trial, and judgment according to
law.

I believe that the statement made in Cohen vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5
L.Ed. 257 (1821) is more than worthy of note:

"We [Courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction

which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. THE ONE OR THE OTHER
WOULD BE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION." (Also see: U.S. vs. Will, 449
US 200,66 L.Ed. 2d 392, at pg. 406.)

One cannot make agreement with Sodomites, Babylonians and/or

satanics. Their words, oaths or signatures are of no meaning or value; their
intent and purpose is to deceive, cheat, steal, lie, defraud and destroy. The
seditious covert conspiracy and collusion of certain Organizations, Corporations
and Associations to damage, injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate and enforce
their fraudulent, foreign, socialist, Communist, "Democracy" and foist their
delusions upon the Citizens and children of this land, and to corrupt the de jure
Public Offices established to accomplish the purposes set forth in the "Preamble"
to the ordained and established Constitution is cause and necessity enough.

Once again finding our safety, happiness and liberties to be in imminent

danger, it has become necessary and imperative to our rights, privileges,
immunities, lives, liberties and property and that of our posterity, to declare our
separate and equal station, and exercise our Right and Duty to throw off and
abolish the form and operation of the de facto, fraudulent, seditious "state."

___________________________


 See: Pope Mfg. Co. vs. Gormully, 144 U.S. 414, at pg. 419, also see, 22
U.S.C.A. 286g.
138
 VI
THE BANKERS MANIFESTO

"Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and

through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common
people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily
governed by the strong arm of the law, applied by the central power of wealth,
under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with
their leaders. This is well known among our principal men now engaged in
forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we
can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance
to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus, by discreet action we can
secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully
accomplished."

If you think the above quote might be just a little sick, perverted, twisted,
or demented, the next reading will convince you that it is. It is highly technical;
written for the graduate student of the social or natural sciences - sociology,
economics, mathematics, as well as containing presentations from the business
realm. Take your time going through it and you will come to realize how sinister
these people and their plot really are. Their words leave no bones about it. So it
shouldn't be too difficult to tell where the truths are "currently" being practiced. It
probably will make you rip-roaring mad; for it paints yet another picture of an
American people who have been duped.

This composition, mentioned in the last report by John Nelson, can also be
found in Bill Cooper's book, Behold A Pale Horse, published by Light Technology
Publishing, P.O. Box 1495, Sedona, Arizona, 86336. Bill's book is one you
should get your hands on. It shows documentation and discusses the
government's involvement with UFOs, AIDS, drugs, and the New World Order. A
copy of "A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL MODEL FOR THE NEWSTATES
OF AMERICA" is also included. You want to talk conspiracies? Bill can tell you
about some. Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars will show just how diabolical these
elitist are in their plan to make economic slaves out of the planet's
inhabitants. Again, I didnt write it, I just present it to you.


 From the Banker's Manifest, for private circulation among leading
bankers only. "Civil Servants' Year Book (The Organizer)" Jan 1934 & "New
American" Feb 1934.
 Note from Gnome: The inhabitants do not necessarily have to refer to the
erect hairless bipeds, but the other animals which are as well used in this
economic scheme.
139
 SILENT WEAPONS
FOR QUIET WARS

This article, edited for length, seems to be "reverse disinformation"

aimed at educating the public about what the author supposes the plans of the
controlling elite to be. In this it shares its broad intent with other possible hoax
documents such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Wicca Papers,
although going about its revelations in a highly original manner. It claims to be a
handbook of strategy circulated among the secret technicians of "social
automation." Ostensibly dated May, 1979, it was supposedly discovered in an
IBM copier of a surplus sale. Regardless of its origins the document is insightful,
perhaps providing a real breakthrough in the understanding of elitist human
control.
_______

This publication marks the 25th anniversary of the Third World War,
called the "Quiet War", being conducted using subjective biological warfare,
fought with "silent weapons." This book contains an introductory description of
this war, its strategies, and its weaponry. It is patently impossible to discuss
social engineering or the automation of a society, i.e., the engineering of social
automation systems (silent weapons) on a national or a worldwide scale without
implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e.
slavery and genocide. This manual is in itself an analog declaration of intent.
Such a writing must be secured from public scrutiny. Otherwise, it might be
recognized as a technically formal declaration of domestic war. Furthermore,
whenever any person or group of persons in a position of great power and
without full knowledge and consent of the public, uses such knowledge and
methodology for economic conquest - it must be understood that a state of
domestic warfare exists between said person or group of persons and the public.

The solution of today's problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly

candid, with no agonizing over religious, moral or cultural values. You have
qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold
objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with
others of similar intellectual capacity without a loss of discretion or humility.
Such virtues are exercised in you own best interest. Do not deviate from them.

Historical Introduction

 Note from Gnome: Opening statement from an unknown editor of this work
printed in an unknown publication. Personally, I don't feel the person who wrote
this work is the one who left it to be discovered. And I sure would love to meet
both (for obvious reasons). I feel this was never meant to get into the public's
hands. But who knows?
140
 Silent weapon technology has evolved from Operations Research (O.R.),
a strategic and tactical methodology developed under the military management
(Eisenhower) in England during World War II. The original purpose of
Operations Research was to study the strategic and tactical problems of air and
land defense with the objective of effective use of limited military resources
against foreign enemies (i.e., logistics). It was soon recognized by those in
positions of power that the same methods might be useful for totally controlling a
society. But better tools were necessary. Social engineering (the analysis and
automation of a society) requires the correlation of great amounts of constantly
changing economic information (data), so a high-speed computerized data-
processing system was necessary which could race ahead of the society and
predict when society would arrive for capitulation. Relay computers were too
slow, but the electronic computer, invented in 1946 by J. Presper Eckert and
John W. Mauchly, filled the bill.

The next breakthrough was the development of the simplex method of

linear programming in 1947 by the mathematician George B. Dantzig. Then in
1948, the transistor, invented by J. Bardeen, W.H. Brattain, and W. Shockley,
promised great expansion of the computer field by reducing space and power
requirements. With these three inventions under their direction, those in
positions of power strongly suspected that it was possible for them to control the
whole world with the push of a button. Immediately, the Rockefeller Foundation
got in on the ground floor by making a four-year grant to Harvard College,
funding the Harvard Economic Research Project for the study of the structure of
the American economy. One year later, in 1949, the United States Air Force
joined in. In 1952 the original grant period terminated, and a high-level meeting
of the elite was held to determine the next phase of social operations research.
The Harvard project had been very fruitful, as is borne out by the publication of
some of its results in 1953 suggesting the feasibility of economic (social)
engineering. (Studies in the Structure of the American Economy -- copyright
1953 by Wassily Leontief, International Sciences Press Inc., White Plains, New
York.)

Engineered in the last half of the decade of the 1940s, the new Quiet War
machine stood, so to speak, in sparkling gold-plated hardware on the showroom
floor by 1954. With the creation of the maser in 1954, the promise of unlocking
unlimited sources of fusion atomic energy from the heavy hydrogen in sea water
and the consequent availability of unlimited social power was a possibility only
decades away. The combination was irresistible. The Quiet War was quietly
declared by the international elite at a meeting held in 1954. Although the silent
weapons system was nearly exposed 13 years later, the evolution of the new
weapon-system has never suffered any major setbacks. This volume marks the
25th anniversary of the beginning of the Quiet War. Already this domestic war
has had many victories on many fronts throughout the world.

141
 In 1954 it was well recognized by those in positions of authority that it was
only a matter of time, only a few decades, before the general public would be
able to grasp and upset the cradle of power, for the very elements of the new
silent weapon technology were as accessible for a public utopia as they were for
providing a private utopia. The issue of primary concern, that of dominance,
revolved around the subject of the energy sciences.

Energy

Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is

the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science,
theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of
social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems. Mathematics is the primary
energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if all public can be kept
ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means
to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains
only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called
"moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed
that a nation or world of people who will not use her intelligence are no better
than animals who do not have intelligence. Consequently, in the interest of
future world order, peace, and tranquility, it was decided to privately wage a quiet
war against the American public with an ultimate objective of permanently
shifting the natural and social energy (wealth) of the undisciplined and
irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible, and worthy
few. In order to implement this objective, it was necessary to create, secure, and
apply new weapons which, as it turned out, were a class of weapons so subtle
and sophisticated in their principle of operation and public appearance as to earn
for themselves the name "silent weapons." In conclusion, the objective of
economic research, as conducted by the magnates of capital (banking) and the
industries of commodities (goods) and services, is the establishment of an
economy which is totally predictable and manipulatable.

In order to achieve a totally predictable economy, the low-class elements

of society must be brought under total control, i.e. must be housebroken, trained,
and assigned a yoke and long-term social duties from a very early age, before
they have the opportunity to question the propriety of the matter. In order to
achieve such conformity, the lower-class family unit must be disintegrated by a
process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and the establishment of
government-operated day-care centers for the occupationally orphaned children.
The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort, so
that the moat of ignorance isolating the inferior class from the superior class is
and remains incomprehensible to the inferior class. With such an initial handicap,
even bright lower class individuals have little if any hope of extricating
themselves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slavery is essential to
142
maintaining some measure of social order, peace, and tranquility for the ruling
upper class.

Descriptive Introduction of the Silent Weapon

Everything that is expected from as ordinary weapon is expected from a

silent weapon by its creators, but only in its own manner of junctioning. It shoots
situations, instead of bullets; propelled by data processing, instead of a chemical
reaction (explosion); originating from bits of date, instead of grains of gunpowder;
from a computer, instead of a gun; operated by a computer programmer, instead
of a marksman; under the orders of a banking magnate, instead of a military
general. It makes no obvious explosive noises, causes no obvious physical or
mental injuries, and does not obviously interfere with anyone's daily social life.
Yet it makes an unmistakable "noise", causes unmistakable physical and mental
damage, and unmistakably interferes with daily social life, i.e., unmistakable to a
trained observer, one who knows what to look for.

The public cannot comprehend this weapon, and therefore cannot believe
that they are being attacked and subdued by a weapon. The public might
instinctively feel that something is wrong, but because of the technical nature of
the silent weapon, they cannot express their feeling in a rational way, or handle
the problem with intelligence. Therefore, they do not know how to cry for help,
and do not know how to associate with others to defend themselves against it.
When a silent weapon is applied gradually, the public adjusts/adapts to its
presence and learns to tolerate its encroachment on their lives until the pressure
(psychological via economic) becomes too great and they crack up. Therefore,
the silent weapon is a type of biological warfare. It attacks the vitality, options,
and mobility of the individuals of a society by knowing, understanding,
manipulating, and attacking their sources of natural and social energy, and their
physical, mental, and emotional strengths and weaknesses.

Theoretical Introduction

"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its
laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812). Today's silent weapons
technology is an outgrowth of a simple idea discovered, succinctly expressed,
and effectively applied by the quoted Mr. Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Mr.
Rothschild discovered the missing passive component of economic theory
known as economic inductance. He, of course, did not think of his discovery in
these 20th century terms, and, to be sure, mathematical analysis had to wait for
the Second Industrial Revolution, the rise of the theory of mechanics and
electronics, and finally, the invention of the electronic computer before it could be
effectively applied in the control of the world economy.

What Mr. Rothschild had discovered was the basic principle of power,
influence, and control over people as applied to economics. That principle is
143
"when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you." Mr.
Rothschild had discovered that currency or deposit loan accounts had the
required appearance of power that could be used to induce people (inductance,
with people corresponding to a magnetic field) into surrendering their real wealth
in exchange for a promise of greater wealth (instead of real compensation). They
would put up real collateral in exchange for a loan of promissory notes. Mr.
Rothschild found that he could issue more notes than he had backing for, so
long as he had someone's stock of gold as a persuader to show his customers.
Mr. Rothschild loaned his promissory notes to individuals and to governments.
These would create overconfidence. Then he would make money scarce,
tighten control of the system, and collect the collateral through the obligation of
the contracts. The cycle was then repeated. These pressures could be used to
ignite a war. Then he would control the availability of currency to determine who
would win the war. That government which agreed to give him control of its
economic system got his support. Collection of debts was guaranteed by
economic aid to the enemy of the debtor. The profit derived from this economic
methodology made Mr. Rothschild all the more able to extend his wealth. He
found that the public greed would allow currency to be printed by government
order beyond the limits (inflation) of backing in precious metal or the production
of goods and services (gross national product, GNP).

Apparent Capital as Paper Inductor

In this structure, credit, presented as a pure element called "currency",

has the appearance of capital, but is, in fact, negative capital. Hence, it has the
appearance of service, but is in fact, indebtedness or debt. It is therefore an
economic inductance instead of an economic capacitance, and if balanced in no
other way, will be balanced by the negation of population (war, genocide). The
total goods and services represent real capital called the gross national product,
and currency may be printed up to this level and still represent economic
capacitance; but currency printed beyond this level is subtractive, represents the
introduction of economic inductance, and constitutes notes of indebtedness.

War is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors
(the public, which we have taught to exchange true value for inflated currency)
and falling back on whatever is left of the resources of nature and regeneration
of those resources. Mr. Rothschild had discovered that currency gave him the
power to rearrange the economic structure to his own advantage, to shift
economic inductance to those economic positions which would encourage the
greatest economic instability and oscillation. The final key to economic control
had to wait until there was sufficient data and high-speed computing equipment

 Note from Gnome: For more on just how "our" government views war read
Report From Iron Mountain On The Possibility And Desirability Of Peace. Dial
Press, Inc. 1967 New York. Libr. Of Congress Cat. No. 67-27553
144
to keep close watch on the economic oscillations created by price shocking and
excess paper energy credits -- paper inductance/inflation.

The Economic Model

The Harvard Economic Research Project (1948-) was an extension of

World War II Operations Research. Its purpose was to discover the science of
controlling an economy; at first the American economy, and then the world
economy. It was felt that with sufficient mathematical foundation and data, it
would be nearly as easy to predict and control the trend of an economy as to
predict and control the trajectory of a projectile. Such has proven to be the case.
Moreover, the economy has been transformed into a guided missile on target.
The immediate aim of the Harvard project was to discover the economic
structure, what forces change that structure, how the behavior of the structure
can be predicted, and how it can be manipulated. What was needed was a well-
organized knowledge of the mathematical structures and interrelationships of
investment, production, distribution, and consumption.

To make a short story of it all, it was discovered that an economy obeyed

the same laws as electricity and that all of the mathematical theory and practical
and computer know-how developed for the electronic field could be directly
applied in the study of economics. This discovery was not openly declared, and
its more subtle implications were and are kept a closely guarded secret, for
example that in an economic model, human life is measured in dollars, and that
the electric spark generated when opening a switch connected to an active
inductor is mathematically analogous to the initiation of a war.

The greatest hurdle which theoretical economists faced was the accurate
description of the household as an industry. This is a challenge because
consumer purchases are a matter of choice which in turn is influenced by
income, price, and other economic factors. This hurdle was cleared in an
indirect and statistically approximate way by an application of shock testing to
determine the current characteristics, called current technical coefficients, of a
household industry. Finally, because problems in theoretical economics can be
translated very easily into problems in theoretical electronics, and the solution
translated back again, it follows that only a book of language translation and
concept definition needed to be written for economics. The remainder could be
gotten from standard works on mathematics and electronics. This makes the
publication of books on advanced economics unnecessary, and greatly simplifies
project security.

Time Flow Relationship and Self-Destructive Oscillations

An ideal industry may be symbolized electronically in various ways. The

simplest way is to represent a demand by a voltage and a supply by a current.
When this is done, the relationship between the two becomes what is called an
145
admittance, which can result from three economic factors: (1) hindsight flow, (2)
present flow, and (3) foresight flow.

Foresight flow is the result of that property of living entities to cause

energy (food) to be stored for a period of low energy (e.g., a winter season). It
consists of demands made upon an economic system for that period of low
energy (winter season). In a production industry it takes several forms, one of
which is known as production stock or inventory. In electronic symbology this
specific industry demand (a pure capital industry) is represented by capacitance
and the stock or resource is represented by a stored charge. Satisfaction of an
industry demand suffers a lag because of delays. It is, so to speak, "input today
for output today", a "hand to mouth" flow. In electronic symbology, the specific
industry demand (a pure use industry) is represented by a conductance which is
then a simple economic valve (a dissipative element).

Hindsight flow is known as habit or inertia. In electronics this

phenomenon is the characteristic of an inductor (economic analog = a pure
service industry) in which a current flow (economic analog = flow of money)
creates a magnetic field (economic analog = active human population) which, if
the current (money flow) begins to diminish, collapse (war) to maintain the
current (flow of money -- energy). Other alternatives to war as economic
inductors, or economic flywheels, are an open-ended social welfare program, or
an enormous (but fruitful) open-ended space program.

The problem with stabilizing the economic system is that there is too
much demand on account of (1) too much greed and (2) too much population.
This creates excessive economic inductance which can only be balanced with
economic capacitance (true resources or value -- e.g., in goods or services).
The social welfare program is nothing more than an open-ended credit balance
system which creates a false capital industry to give nonproductive people a roof
over their heads and food in their stomachs. This can be useful, however,
because the recipients become state property in return for the "gift," a standing
army for the elite. For he who pays the piper picks the tune. Those who get
hooked on the economic drug, must go to the elite for a fix. In this, the method
of introducing large amounts of stabilizing capacitance is by borrowing on the
future "credit" of the world. This is a fourth law of motion -- onset, and consists
of performing an action and leaving the system before the reflected reaction
returns to the point of action -- a delayed reaction. The means of surviving the
reaction is by changing the system before the reaction can return. By this means,
politicians become popular in their own time and the public pays for it later. In
fact, the measures of such a politician is the delay time.

The same thing is achieved by a government by printing money beyond

the limit of the gross national product, an economic process called inflation. This
puts a large quantity of money into the hands of the public and maintains a
balance against their greed, creates a false self-confidence in them and, for
146
awhile, stays the wolf from the door. They must eventually resort to war to
balance the account, because war ultimately is merely the act of destroying the
creditor, and the politicians are the publicly-hired hit men that justify the act to
keep the responsibility and blood of the public conscience.

If the people really cared about their fellow man, they would control their
appetites (greed, procreation, etc.) so that they would not have to operate on a
credit or welfare social system which steals from the worker to satisfy the bum.
Since most of the general public will not exercise restraint, there are only two
alternatives to reduce the economic inductance of the system. (1) Let the
populace bludgeon each other to death in war, which will only result in a total
destruction of the living earth. (2) Take control of the world by the use of
economic "silent weapons" in a form of "quiet warfare" and reduce the economic
inductance of the world to a safe level by a process of benevolent slavery and
genocide.

The latter option has been taken as the obviously better option. At this
point it should be crystal clear to the reader why absolute secrecy about the
silent weapons is necessary. The general public refuses to improve its own
mentality and its faith in its fellow man. It has become a herd of proliferating
barbarians, and, so to speak, a blight upon the face of the earth They do not
care enough about economic science to learn why they have not been able to
avoid war despite religious morality, and their religious or self-gratifying refusal to
deal with earthy problems renders the solution of the earthly problem
unreachable by them. It is left to those few who are truly willing to think and
survive as the fittest to survive, to solve the problem for themselves as the few
who really care. Otherwise, exposure of the silent weapon would destroy our only
hope of preserving the seed of future true humanity.

The industries of finance (banking), manufacturing, and government, real

counterparts of the pure industries of capital, goods, and services, are easily
defined because they are generally logically structured. Because of this their
processes can be described mathematically and their technical coefficients can
be easily deduced. This, however, is not the case with the service industry
known as the household industry.

In recent times, the application of Operations Research to the study of the

public economy has been obvious for anyone who understands the principles of
shock testing. In the shock testing of an aircraft airframe, the recoil impulse of
firing a gun mounted on that airframe causes shock waves in that structure which
tell aviation engineers the conditions under which parts of the airplane or the
whole airplane or its wings will start to vibrate or flutter like a guitar string, a flute
reed, or a tuning fork, and disintegrate or fall apart in flight. Economic engineers
achieve the same result in studying the behavior of the economy and the
consumer public by carefully selecting a staple commodity such as beef, coffee,
gasoline, or sugar, and then causing a sudden change or shock in its price or
147
availability, thus kicking everybody's budget and buying habits out of shape.
They then observe the shock waves which result by monitoring the changes in
advertising, prices, and sales of that and other commodities.

The objective of such studies is to acquire the know-how to set the public
economy into a predictable state of motion or change, even a controlled self-
destructive state of motion which will convince the public that certain "expert"
people should take control of the money system and re-establish security (rather
than liberty and justice) for all. When the subject citizens are rendered unable to
control their financial affairs, they, of course, become totally enslaved, a source
of cheap labor. Not only the prices of commodities, but also the availability of
labor can be used as the means of shock testing. Labor strikes deliver excellent
test shocks to an economy, especially in the critical service areas of trucking
(transportation), communication, public utilities (energy, water, garbage
collection), etc. By shock testing, it is found that there is a direct relationship
between the availability of money flowing in an economy and the psychological
outlook and response of masses of people dependent upon that availability. For
example, there is a measurable quantitive relationship between the price of
gasoline and the probability that a person would experience a headache, feel a
need to watch a violent movie, smoke a cigarette, or go to a tavern for a mug of
beer. It is most interesting that, by observing and measuring the economic
modes by which the public tries to run from their problems and escape from
reality, and by applying the mathematical theory of Operations Research, it is
possible to program computers to predict the most probable combination of
created events (shocks) which will bring about a complete control and
subjugation of the public through a subversion of the public economy (by shaking
the plum tree).

Diversion, the Primary Strategy

Experience has proven that the simplest method of securing a silent

weapon and gaining control of the public is to keep the public undisciplined and
ignorant of basic system's principle's on the one hand, while keeping them
confused, disorganized, and distracted with matters of no real importance on the
other hand. This is achieved by: (1) disengaging their minds; sabotaging their
mental activities; providing a low-quality program of public education in

 Note from Gnome: Gambling must be the next big reality escape that they
are discovering. They called Atlantic City an "experiment". Now there are
casinos popping up all over the country. Not only that, but the state run
(monopoly) lotteries are a great escape for the masses who watch TV
commercials about how great it would be for them if they won, only to keep them
from not trying to make it on their own, rather, having them throw the dice, or buy
that ticket and sit around the house, watching TV, and saying to everyone, "when
I hit the lottery..." Gambling is the only other industry, besides the alcohol
industry, which has proven itself to be recession proof.
148
mathematics, logic, systems design and economics; and discouraging technical
creativity, (2) engaging their emotions, increasing their self-indulgence and their
indulgence in emotional and physical activities, by; (a) unrelenting emotional
affrontations and attacks (mental and emotional rape) by way of a constant
barrage of sex, violence, and wars in the media -- especially the T.V. and the
newspapers; (b) giving them what they desire -- in excess -- "junk food for
thought" -- depriving them of what they really need, (3) rewriting history and law
and subjecting the public to the deviant creation, thus being able to shift their
thinking from personal needs to highly fabricated outside priorities. These
preclude their interest in and discovery of the silent weapons of social
automation technology. The general rule is that there is profit in confusion; the
more confusion, the more profit. Therefore, the best approach is to create
problems and then offer the solutions.

A silent weapon system operates upon data obtained from a docile public
by legal (but not always lawful) force. Much information is made available to
silent weapon systems programmers through the Internal Revenue Service. This
information consists of the enforced delivery of well-organized data contained in
federal and state tax forms collected, assembled, and submitted by slave labor
provided by taxpayers and employers. Furthermore, the number of such forms
submitted to the IRS is a useful indicator of public consent, an important factor in
strategic decision making. Other data sources are given in the Short List of
Inputs. Consent Coefficients -- numerical feedback indicating victory status.
Psychological basis: When the government is able to collect tax and seize
private property without just compensation, it is an indication that the public is
ripe for surrender and is consenting to enslavement and legal encroachment.
A good and easily quantified indicator of harvest time is the number of public
citizen who pay income tax despite an obvious lack of reciprocal or honest
service from the government.

From the time a person leaves its mother's womb, its every effort is
directed toward building, maintaining, and withdrawing into artificial wombs,
various sorts of substitute protective devices or shells. The objective of these
artificial wombs is to provide a stable environment for both stable and unstable
activity; to provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth and maturity
-- i.e. survival; to provide security for freedom and to provide defensive protection
for offensive activity. This is equally true of both the general public and the elite.
However, there is a definite difference in the way each of these classes go
about the solution of problems.

The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a

political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own
dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to
eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on their head, kiss their bruises, put a

 Note from Gnome: Look around. It is everywhere.
149
chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night,
and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning.
This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets
incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So
who is the bigger liar? The public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is
surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare
state as a strategic weapon useful against a disgusting public.

Most people want to be able to subdue and/or kill other human beings
which disturb their daily lives, but they do not want to have to cope with the moral
and religious issues which such an overt act on their part might raise. Therefore,
they assign the dirty work to others (including their own children) so as to keep
the blood off their own hands. They rave about the humane treatment of
animals and then sit down to a delicious hamburger from a whitewashed
slaughterhouse down the street and out of sight. But even more hypocritical, they
pay taxes to finance a professional association of hit men collectively called
politicians, and then complain about corruption in government.

The people hire the politicians so that the people can: (1) obtain security
without managing it, (2) obtain action without thinking about it, (3) inflict theft,
injury, death upon others without having to contemplate either life or death, (4)
avoid responsibility for their own intentions, and (5) obtain the benefits of reality
and science without exerting themselves in the discipline of facing or learning
either of these things. They give the politicians the power to create and manage
a war machine to: (1) provide for the survival of the nation/womb, (2) prevent
encroachment of anything upon the nation/womb, (3) destroy the enemy who
threatens the nation/womb, and (4) destroy those citizens of their own country
who do not conform for the sake of stability of the nation/womb. Politicians hold
many quasi-military jobs, the lowest being the police, which are soldiers, the
attorneys and the C.P.A.s next, who are spies and saboteurs (licensed), and the
judges who shout the orders and run the closed union military shop for whatever
the market will bear. The generals are industrialists. The "presidential" level of
commander-in-chief is shared by the international bankers. The people know
that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent),
but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite. Thus, a nation
becomes divided into two very distinct parts, a docile sub-nation and a political
sub-nation. The political sub-nation remains attached to the docile sub-nation,
tolerates it, and leaches its substance until it grows strong enough to detach
itself and then devour its parent.

In order to make meaningful computerized economic decisions about war,

the primary economic flywheel, it is necessary to assign concrete logistical
values to each element of the war structure -- personnel and material alike. This
process begins with a clear and candid description of the subsystems of such a
structure.

150
 Few efforts of human behavior modification are more remarkable or more
effective than that of the socio-military institution known as the draft. A primary
purpose of a draft or other such institution is to instill, by intimidation, in the
young males of a society, the uncritical conviction that the government is
omnipotent. He is soon taught that a prayer is slow to reverse what a bullet can
do in an instant. Thus, a man trained in a religious environment for eighteen
years of his life can, by this instrument of the government, be broken down,
purged of his fantasies and delusion in a matter of mere months. Once that
conviction is instilled, all else becomes easy to instill. Even more interesting is
the process by which a young man's parents, who purportedly love him, can be
induced to send him off to war to his death. Although the scope of this work will
not allow this matter to be expanded in full detail, nevertheless, a course
overview will be possible and can serve to reveal those factors which must be
included in some numerical form in a computer analysis of social and war
systems.

Human beings are machines, levers which may be grasped and turned,
and there is little real difference between automating a society and automating a
shoe factory. These values are given in true measure rather than U.S. dollars,
since the latter is unstable, being presently inflated beyond the production of
national goods and services so as to give the economy a false kinetic energy
("paper" inductance). The silver value is stable, it being possible to buy the
same amount with a gram of silver today as could be bought in 1920. Human
value measured in silver units changes slightly due to changes in production
technology.

As in every social system approach, stability is achieved only by

understanding and accounting for human nature (action/ reaction patterns). A
failure to do so can be, and usually is, disastrous. As in other human social
schemes, one form or another of intimidation (or incentive) is essential to the
success of the draft, individual brainwashing/programming and both the family
unit and the peer group must be engaged and brought under control.

The man of the household must be housebroken to ensure that junior will
grow up with the right social training and attitudes. The advertising media, etc.,
are engaged to see to it that father-to-be is pussy-whipped before or by the time
he is married. He is taught that he either conforms to the social notch cut out for
him or his sex life will be hobbled and his tender companionship will be zero.
He is made to see that women demand security more than logical, principled, or
honorable behavior. By the time his son must go to war, father (with jelly for a
backbone) will slam a gun into junior's hand before father will risk the censure of
his peers, or make a hypocrite of himself by crossing the investment he has in
his own personal opinion or self-esteem. Junior will go to war or father will be

 Note from Gnome; One current show which is great for teaching this is
Martian. Others are also obvious.
151
embarrassed. So junior will go to war, the true purpose not withstanding.
The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic
second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins,
fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the
future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a
wealthy man's cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor. A woman must,
however, be conditioned to accept the transition to "reality" when it comes, or
sooner. As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must
be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-
operated child-care centers must become more common and legally enforced so
as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier
age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs can speed the transition for the child
(mandatory). Caution: A woman's impulsive anger can override her fear. An
irate woman's power must never be underestimated, and her power over a
pussy-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women
the vote in 1920.

The emotional pressure for self-preservation during time of war and the
self-serving attitude of the common herd that have an option to avoid the
battlefield -- if junior can be persuaded to go -- is all of the pressure finally
necessary to propel Johnny off to war. Their quiet blackmailing of him are the
threats: "No sacrifice, no friends; no glory, no girlfriends."

And what about junior's sister? She is given all the good things of life by
her father, and taught to expect the same from her future husband regardless of
the price.

Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have
no brains, and so this mindless school of jellyfish, father, mother, son, and
daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.


 Note from Gnome: Sounds like the "Contract with America".
 Note from Gnome; Everyone is on prosaic.
 Note from Gnome: And, much like the princess, the abused child may
expect the same from her husband.
152
 VII
FIGHTING THE FOURTH AMERICAN REVOLUTION

"Dealing With Our Police/State"

The Police

WHAT TO DO IF CAPTURED

I'm not quite sure if I can apologize to anyone who is not at this moment
having a good ride. But this is what tyranny is designed to do - unsettle your
mind. However, now that we know the history of this monkey on our backs, we
can assert ourselves, and without fear, whenever having to remove it. This
information could be the difference between you walking away from an arrest, or
spending the next ten years of your life in a cage.

The first thing you must remember is that you are dealing with a police
officer. These are people who have been conditioned to enforce "the law"
without asking about its moral implications.

Have you ever met a cop who questions the work he is asked to do? I
have. They normally don't get too far in their career. But these are usually not the
ones you will be dealing with. A peace officer of that stature would not harass
you when you are doing nothing that interferes with someone else's life, liberty,
or property. Only the cop who doesn't care, the cop who is looking to impress
some other so he can get more power and money, only he would harass and
intimidate the very same people he has sworn to serve and protect.

It is a fact that people fear the police. And I'm not just speaking about
those that are out committing crimes and don't want to get caught, I'm speaking
about the average person who is not hurting anyone by their day to day custom;
the guy who hits the breaks, or misses a beet, whenever a police car is seen.
For those people, a run in with the police usually ends up with them having to
fork over some federal reserve notes. To these ends, the cop is viewed as an
extortionist. The fear comes from having to deal with a situation created only for
the collection of money, and not from any misdeed we may have committed
against another person. People who "live and let live" should have nothing to
fear.

Here is something I notice when I am driving down the highway. See if

you do too. It is all those people who live in fear of the government. I would be
cruising at 65 miles per hour behind a car when all of a sudden they hit the
brakes. It's not that there might be anyone in front of them that they are about to
hit. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is no one in front of them. Yet, out of
the blue they just hit their brakes and send you into a panic thinking you are
153
about to rear-end them. Then you come to learn that the reason they hit the
breaks (in panic) is because they spotted a police car ahead of them hiding in
the bushes. Neither of you were speeding, yet the person in front of you (and
may-be even yourself) is so conditioned, much like a Pavlovian dog, that the
condition/response is, see cop - hit brakes.

Admit it, most Americans live in fear of these extortionists who hid on the
side of the road waiting for someone to stop and demand money from because
they took their car over a certain speed. The people who were pulled over never
hurt anyone's life, liberty, or property. In fact, they were driving a car built to
cruse at 110 miles per hour on a road designed to allow speeds up to 100 miles
per hour, so driving at 80 miles per hour was safe for the conditions they were in,
except, some others say that if you go over 65 miles per hour we will demand
money from you, and, if you don't pay, we will either put you in a cage or not
allow you to travel freely on the highways.

This is all ridiculous as well as dangerous. Who reading this can say that
they have never been in the situation of where they are driving down the highway
when all of a sudden the flow of traffic starts to drastically slow down and box
everyone in, thus creating a danger to everyone entering that pocket, and for no
other reason then because there was a police car on the side of the road? This
panic breaking is very hazardous, and is something created by the police just by
their presence. And this fear of the police has gotten so great that now it doesn't
even have to be a police car people see for them to hit the breaks. Now, those
people who live in the most fear are hitting the breaks whenever they see any
car pulled over to the side of the road in fear that it might be one of those
governmental agents looking to get money off them. And it doesn't even matter
if the driver is speeding or not. The fear of being harassed by the police is so
great that it has travelers constantly searching the sides of the road for them and
hitting the breaks whenever any car is spotted. Do you travel in a condition of
tranquillity, or tyranny?

So it is this above-mentioned relationship, which is the root of the

"respect" problem between the police and Joe Average American. When Joe
Average American is arrested or given a ticket (for the demand of money) when
his actions were doing nothing to interfere with some other's life, liberty, or
property, he becomes resentful to the uniform and office that did this to him. He
feels the officer (a.k.a. agent) should have been out protecting our lives, liberties,
and properties from anyone other then ourselves, and not interfering with the
pursuit of anyone's happiness. This leads to Joe defaming the occupation. And
cops wonder why people just don't like them? The police, and other agents of
and for the state, need to realize that this is America's gripe and stop
participating in the lawyer's extortion racket. Otherwise, they will continue to
receive little cooperation from the People whenever having to deal with them.

The People come to me all the time and tell me their stories of how they
154
had their human rights violated and what the police did to them and how much it
cost them or how long they had to be in a cage. Then, they most often end their
stories with, "I hate cops." Tell me, if you were traveling down the road and
someone stopped you against your will and went through your stuff, and maybe
found something of yours which you grew for your own consumption, then stole
it, then kidnapped you and held you hostage until you or a friend gave them
money (ransom) for your release, and then kept what they stole, only to force
you to pay them more money or go back into a cage, wouldn't that make you
hate them? Would you even allow it? I know people who would knock your
teeth out, or even worse, put a knife or a bullet in you for trying that on them. So
why should you, as a server and protector of the People, think that just because
the person who does that has a badge and is backed-up by others allowing and
encouraging it, it makes the situation any different? It doesn't. Don't you
understand that this predicament is tyranny no matter who is conducting it? The
victim will only resent you. But what we must realize, as people who just get on
with our own business, is that it is not always the police officer but the esquires
who are to blame. The "honest" peace officer does it, acting only as an ignorant
henchmen, a mere tool, for the bar cronies. Go easy on them, but take note of
the "pig", his betrayal of the public trust makes him unfit to be a human - let
alone a peace officer.

So to our peace officers I can say only this, straighten up, fly right, or
continue to be the object of hate in America. Do the job of serving and
protecting the people, and not the wallets of the esquires, and maybe we will
start working with you. Because of the current situation, most self-respecting
patriotic people would sooner shoot your ass for stopping them, than play your
extortion game. But at the moment we are out gunned and out numbered by
agents who have no idea what true freedom is all about, so for now, you can get
away with it. But gentlemen, the excuse didn't work at the Nuremberg trials,
don't expect it to work at yours. You will be held liable.


 Genesis 1:11, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth; and it was so." Gen. 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given
you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every
tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
Gen. 1:30, "..I have given every green herb for meat..." Gen. 1:31, "And God saw
every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good."
 If the bullshit "statutory" laws were non-existent, then these same people
would not feel the want to do this when stopped because it would be a given that
the officer was not out to see what he can give you a ticket or arrest you for, but
because he might think your description fits someone they are looking for, or
maybe because he just needs your help. When all are innocent, all will
cooperate with total trust.
155
Conversing With The Police.

There are many different reasons why any of us would find ourselves
having a conversation with a peace officer. The first of the many reasons could
be placed into the category of "consensual contact".

Consensual contact would consist of a conversation either initiated by you

or by the officer when he has no other reason to stop or question you. In the
decision of Meranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to remain
silent exists whenever having any contact with the police. So, the moment you
give up that right, anything you say can and WILL be used against you.

If you are doing nothing that interferes with anyone's life, liberty, or
property, then you must remember that the officer has no jurisdiction over you,
and in reality you are the one in control. He is the public servant and you are the
master (sovereign) of whom he serves. You must remember, and he must be
made aware, that his job was created, and is supported, by, the consent of
People, of which you are a part. Without your permission, our government could
not exist nor function like it does. So, if you don't consent to a conversation
initiated by an officer of "the law", then he has no other choice than to leave you
alone.

Say you are walking down the road and a peace officer says to you, "hey,
buddy...come here," and you for some reason or another don't have the time for,
or just don't want to be, speaking with him. You could ask, "is that a request?" If
he says yes, you would respond, "I respectfully decline your request," and go
about your business. Now if he tells you no, that it is an order, then comply with
the best of your composure. Always converse with tact. Feel out the situation
before you go invoking the king's privilege. He might just want to ask some
innocent questions about a crime which may have occurred, and he may only be
looking for witnesses. But like I said, feel out the situation. In any conversation
see where it is going. If it seems to be headed away from routine police
business, and feels like it is turning into a game of twenty questions, then invoke
the king's privilege and inform the officer, "I no longer consent to contact with you
and unless I am under arrest, I will be leaving your company."

Traveling v. Driving

Where did our government get the authority to regulate our God given
inherent right of travel? When we travel we are freely going from point "A" to
point "B". It makes no difference how that travel is being accomplished.
Whether it be by foot, carriage, bicycle or car. Traveling from "A" to "B" is a free
and voluntary action, which interferes with no other person. So regulating it
becomes an act of tyranny against those it intends to control.

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not
156
a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337
Ill. 200, 169 NE 934. Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607, 25 A M JUR(1st) Highways,
Cec. 163.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege
which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has
under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Thompson v.
Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty which the citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v.
Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no

rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436, 491.

The United States is a corporate fiction. The only people it can regulate
on the road, air and waterways are those who "drive" for hire.
A driver is one who is being paid to move itself, the vehicle, and whatever
else is in the vehicle, from point "A" to point "B". The people with the driver are
passengers. Compare that to those just traveling. Those people are not driving
their vehicles; they are merely operating them for the purpose of travel. The
people traveling in those vehicles are not passengers, but guests of the
owner/operator. Be careful of the wording.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his
property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and
obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and
uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former
is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all,
while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent
of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader,
the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to
other, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and
fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." Ex parte M.T.
Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 579; 85 S.E. 781 (1915);

Getting Pulled Over

Crosby, Stills, and Nash, has a line in their song entitled "Almost Cut My
Hair" which goes, "...and it increases my paranoia, like looking in my mirror and
seeing a police car." We all know what that feels like. With myself, I would have
to say, "felt like". I no longer have that paranoia. As the song continues, "but I'm
157
not giving in an inch to fear..." I know how to make them fear me, rather than
vise-versa. As Jefferson said, "When people fear the government you have
tyranny, when government fears the people you have freedom." That feeling of
freedom is blessed liberty which comes from knowing that the government of the
United States lacks jurisdiction over my person while it is engaging in conduct
which does nothing to interfere with another's, life, liberty, or property.

Being pulled over by the police is a touchy subject with me. When I was
cruising around the country in my 1971 Volkswagen Camper, complete with
about 40 stickers, I was getting pulled over on average of once a week. I knew
the game. They were only stopping me because of the way I looked, so the best
the police were hoping for was to "get" me on some statutory law. It got to the
point where I bought myself a micro-cassette recorder. After that, those who
interrupted my travel knew I have played "heads and feds" before. But just the
mere subject of having my travel regulated by agents of the state is what really
bothers me.

The first thing the police are going to ask you for are "your papers". It is
like the World War II films where the scene is Nazi Germany, and the S.S. have
a road block where the first thing they tell the traveler is, "Let me zee your paparz
please." In Nazi U.S. it's, "Let me see your license, registration, and insurance."
Again you could go with the, "is that a request" gig. But in any event, before you
comply with their demands, you should demand to know what it is they
interrupted your travel for.

You'll know when the stop is about bullshit. If the cop acted in haste, he
will be stumped. He will not have an answer, and without probable cause, there
is no reason why he can stop you. When the tape recorder is put in his face he
becomes very uncomfortable. His eyes focus on the recorder. Having no real
answer, he is either quick to make-up some story, or has no other choice but to
let you proceed. Many times, when I have done that, the cop just told me I could
leave. If he makes up a story, then hold him to that and allow him no other
function than to write you the ticket for what he said and send you on your way.
Be firm in not playing "twenty questions" with him. Then you can use the
techniques taught later in this book to deal with the next group of agents - the
courts.

The Road Block

Other than having your travel interrupted by the flashing lights of a police
car, another method the police/state uses for "catching" "criminals" is the
roadblock.
The roadblock is a real revenue raiser for the Federal Reserve
Board/International Monetary Fund. We must remember, any money the court
collects in fines, or for issuing "licenses", goes to the state "Trust Fund", which is
published and found in the libraries at the state capitals. This "money" is being
158
held, in trust, for payment of the national debt. So that is who the real party of
interest is in any action taken under "statutory" jurisdiction. Because of the
disappearance of the Amendment of 1819, and because we have been made
"subjects" under the known 14th Amendment, and because of the creation of the
FRB and the IRS, and because of the bankruptcy of 1930-33, we find ourselves
a people who are once again "subject" to "statutory" laws (much like those who
fought in the 1st American Revolution) which we have been compelled to
perform under since 1938. Again, it is the real party of interest, the international
banksters, who are using America's federal government to pressure America's
state governments, who are using their county and local governments to all put
pressure on the police to "bring in the business." And they really don't care how
much the price is to bring you in. You, and the other taxpayers pay for that.
They will spend thousands of your tax "dollars" to prosecute a case where they
will receive $500.00 in "fines". The banksters win three ways: they don't pay for
the police or the courts (you do); they collect $500.00 which you must now work
to obtain; and your "punishment", and the word of your fine or imprisonment,
keeps you and those who hear about it "in line" and "subject" to their laws.

Our U.S. Constitution would never allow such practices as restricting

travel, or setting up roadblocks to "catch criminals". Really...Where is there any
law being broke which is enforceable under an Article III court, when a traveler is
moving from point "A" to point "B"? Unless he is fleeing from "justice", or the
commission of a crime, there is none.

So just what are the police really up to when they set up a roadblock and
waste all our time (and money)? It is nothing more than an extortion racket, as
described in pages 1-13, to keep a reign of tyranny on the land and the people
subject to it. But none of these practices seem to be allowed on paper.

Our God given unalienable right to free passage was confirmed as early
as the Articles Of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777. Article IV of said
Articles states:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse

among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of
each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted,
shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several
States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and
from any other State,...

The United States Constitution was supposedly just a way of revising the
Articles. And James Madison states in Federalist Papers No. 40:

The truth is that the great principles of the Constitution

proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely
new than as the expansion of principles which are found in the
159
 Articles of Confederation.

Thus, the principle of free travel throughout the union, as established under the
Confederation, was not abrogated by the U.S. Constitution. It still is a valid part
of our Constitution and is therefore part of the 'supreme law of the land.' The only
aspect of this provision of the Confederation which was altered by the
Constitution, is that the words "free inhabitants" were changed to "citizens"
according to Article 4, Section 2. It is this section of the U.S. Con-stitution that
had specifically preserved Article IV of the Confederation as verified by the
United States Supreme Court:

That the Constitution plainly intended to preserve and

enforce the limitations as to discrimination imposed upon the
States by Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, and thus
necessarily assumed the continued possession by the States of the
reserved power to deal with free residence, ingress and egress,
cannot be denied for the following reasons: (1) Because the text of
Article IV, sec. 2, of the Constitution, makes manifest that it was
drawn with reference to the corresponding clause of the Articles of
Confederation and was intended to perpetuate its limitations; and
(2) because that view has been so conclusively settled as to leave
no room for controversy. United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S.
281,294 (1920)."

The right of every citizen, or person to enjoy free egress from, or transit
through the State, is, in our opinion, an undoubted constitutional right. The
framers of the Federal Constitution clearly intended that personal intercourse
between the States should be, so far as practicable, as free as the transit of the
ocean, and as unembarrassed as the commerce of the public seas. Joseph v.
Randolph, 71 Ala. 499, 506 (1882).

So why should there be ignorance of our right to travel?

The meaning which a constitutional provision had when adopted, it has

today; its intent does not change with time nor with conditions; while it operates
upon new subjects and changed conditions, it operates with the same meaning
and intent which it had when formulated and adopted. Cooley's Constitutional
Limitations (8th Ed.) vol. 1,p.123. As Judge Cooley says:

"A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time,

and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances
may have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the
case seem desirable." Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 76 S.W.(2d)
1007, 1011; 124 Texas 45.

 The Right To Travel (Liberty Or License?), Charles A. Weisman, 1989.
160
 And Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969), states:

This court long ago recognized that the nature of our

Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty
unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the
length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or
regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.

That proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger
Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849):

"For all the purposes for which the federal government was
formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all
citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same
community, must have the right to pass and repass through every
part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

This is the problem with America. Its foundation, and court rulings look
great on paper, but in all actuality, it's not really practiced. Those of us who
know the meaning of the law and the constitution can tell you, "yeah, we know
what they can't do, but in reality they do it anyway." Those who are still unaware
of the law will tell you, "look, don't tell me what police or state (or police state)
can't do, they did it to me."

But can the agents of the state stop people in the middle of their travels -
most often with the sole intent of simply searching you for "your paparz"?
Remember what it is you must produce before you can even think of proceeding.

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways...includes

the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to
operate an automobile thereon,...The rights aforesaid, being
fundamental, are constitutional rights, and while the exercise
thereof may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance
of the police power of the State, and although those powers are
broad, they do not rise above those privileges which are imbedded
in the constitutional structure. The police power cannot justify the
enactment of any law which amounts to an arbitrary and
unwarranted interference with, or unreasonable restriction on,
those rights of the citizen which are fundamental. Teche Lines v.
Danforth, 12 So.2d 784, 787-88 (1943).

But the police power, even as thus defined, vague and vast
as it is, has its limitations, and it cannot justify any act which
violates the prohibitions, expressed or implied, of the state or
federal constitutions. If this were not so, and if the police power
161
 were superior to the constitution and it extended to all objects
which could be embraced within the meaning of the words "general
welfare," as defined by the lexicographers, the constitutions would
be so much waste of paper, because no right of the individual
would be beyond its reach, and every property right and personal
privilege and immunity of the citizen could be invaded at the will of
the state, whenever in its judgment the convenience, prosperity, or
mental or physical comfort of the public require [it]. Tighe v.
Osborne, 149 Md. 349, 357; 181 A. 801, 803

Being Searched

So where does this all fit in at a roadblock. Well, first off they are
restricting your God given ancient right of passage. And second, they are
violating the 4th Amendment to the United States Con-stitution, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or
things to be seized.

Those who have been paying attention from the beginning of this book
probably have smiles on their faces right now because they can see where I am
going with all this.

Again, what is the first thing they ask you for? "Let me zee your paparz
please." Now again, you could go with the "is that a request" gig and take it from
there. But, always remember that by their laws they have to have probable
cause to stop you. If there answer is, "it's just a 'routine' check, we want to zee
your paparz," then know now that that is a definite statement of intent to search
you for such papers.

You could ask, "What makes you think that I don't have the proper
paperwork either on my person or in my effect known as my car?"

Now that would probably stump the officer. He may think that you are
copping an attitude with him so he might put on the bad cop routine. He might
demand that you "step out of the car." But under no circumstances should you
leave your property nor invite the officer in it. Keep your doors locked and your
windows up, just allowing enough room for conversation. If their "probable
cause" to interrupt your travel is only to look for your paperwork, then it would be
with the assumption that you do not have any either on you or in your car, or that
it even exists in the first place. You were not stopped for any moving violation,
so the need for the officer to request or demand "the big three" (license,
162
registration, and insurance "card", a.k.a. in Russia as, "your travel permit") would
be non-existent.

You could tell the officer, "I have not been stopped for any moving
violation nor have I been involved in any accident. Your demand for those items,
therefore, are without reason. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states
that I have the right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you can have an elected judge,
and not a magistrate, issue a warrant upon your probable cause, supported by
an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the person or things to be seized, then I will have no other choice than to comply.
Otherwise, I would like to be on my way." Of course, the Supreme Court doesn't
feel that way. But think of the logic. You're traveling down the road, when all of
a sudden you are prevented from proceeding until you can prove that you have
the proper traveling permits, as if you even need them in the first place.

Now either one of three things could happen. One, he laughs and sends
you on your way (maybe); two, he makes you wait while he gets the warrant
(doubtful); or three, he brings over, or calls for, the dog. He is brainwashed into
believing that if you are willing to stand up for your rights, then you must be
hiding something, either contraband, or even your true identity which may be
wanted. If the officer is totally irate, he may loose it and place you under arrest
for obstructing justice. If he places you under arrest just go peacefully (for now)
through the motions, which will be discussed a little later.

Now the dog thing is a neat trick. Most of the time it is a bluff, just like
when he says he will get a warrant. Remember, he must have probable cause to
obtain a warrant from a judge. Plus, he has to find a judge to issue the warrant
(that's not easy to do at 3 am. on a Saturday night). But more than likely, he will
think your refusal isn't because it is your right, but because you are hiding
"drugs".

Want to know how to tighten a cop's asshole? The next time one asks
you if he can search you or your car ask him, "do I have a choice?" This is
guaranteed to get his goat. The obvious answer to that question is "yes". If you
didn't have a choice he wouldn't even ask. He would just do it. His next step
would be the intimidation move. "I'll get a warrant if you don't sign." Fine. Then
get a warrant. Like I said, if he had to ask then he had no probable cause.
Without probable cause no judge will give him a warrant. He knows that, and
knows that he can't go to a judge and say, "well, I think he has this contraband
because he is quoting the fourth amendment." Do you really think that is going
to hold up with any judge? Not likely. His next move will be to call for the dogs.

A lot of times at a roadblock where they have dogs, the dogs are not drug
sniffing dogs but bluff dogs. They will have the dog walk around your car and
then on single have it bark. They will even do this to a real drug-sniffing dog if he
163
isn't responding. They don't care, they just want to get in to your stuff. But the
mere bark of a dog doesn't warrant probable cause enough to search. I told a
group of people about what to do if they tried that dog trick on them. One
brother took my advice and this is what happened:

Ned, was pulled over on a Florida highway. Ned never left the van, had
all the doors locked, and cracked the window enough to hand out the paperwork.
After the bullshit was out of the way, rather than letting him proceed, the cop
asked if he could search his van. Ned said no. The cop asked why not. Ned
said because it was his right and he had already wasted enough of his time. The
cop, no doubt feeling a little belittled, told him if he didn't allow him to search he
was going to call for the dog. Ned laughed and said O.K. then.

During the wait for the dog, which took 8 1/2 hours, the cop kept coming
up to his window demanding for Ned to let him search. He became irate and
stated that he was going to bust in the window. Ned pulled out his Federal
Firearms License and showed it to the cop. The cop went back to his car and
waited for the dog.

The dog arrived. He was walked three times around the van without ever
uttering a sound. On his fourth pass Ned saw the officer single the dog and it
barked. The cop who pulled him over became excited, stating that the dog
barked so now he had probable cause to search the van. Ned said, "no, now
you have probable cause to obtain a search warrant. Have the dog go tell the
judge exactly what you intend to find and where. Have your dog sign a sworn
affidavit to that and I am sure the judge will give you the warrant." The officer
became enraged. He looked over at Ned and yelled, "Augh, fuck it," then left.
The officer with the dog looked over at Ned and said, "yeah, he's a real asshole."
Ned went on his way.

What if it is now out of your control and either they have a warrant or
decide they are going to conduct a search anyway? If they have a warrant read
it carefully. If they are looking for a particular person, then they have no right
going through your glove-box. You can't fit a person in there. And if they believe
they are going to find pot in your stuff, then they have no right going through the
stuff in your care, which are not owned by you. You do not have the authority to
divulge personal information belonging to others. If they want to search a person
or his or her bags, then they must get the permission from them. A name is also
personal property. You have no authority to speak for another person and
answer personal questions like what is his name. You cannot do that unless that
person has given you authorization to do so. You know...like a signed power of
attorney.

164
You can not be made criminal through "statutory jurisdiction". The ruling in
Mugler v.Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 659-60, states:

"Our system of government, is based upon the individuality and

intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his
conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself."

v. driving stop v. road block

impound against 5th Amendment - TON page 17 cross reference
step one at the stop-hand card
At the station
at the jail
in the courtroom

165
 Now that we have stopped spinning, and are standing balanced, we can
turn their game around and spin them a bit. It might sound a little cruel, but I
don't see that. If an agent of the state has to arrive at "the spin" (and trust me,
these courtroom techniques will spin them), then we should remember that it is
through their blindness that they arrive. Let's hope that it is quick and painless
for them so we can both get back to our own business.

The first thing to remember whenever dealing with any agents of the court
is to remain humble. The knowledge you are about to receive will put you in a
position of power over them. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then
remembering that is prudent for keeping composure. If we are called to do battle
with them, then we go armed with the truth; for truth is something which no one
can refute.

THE UCC CONNECTION

This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a

seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available
the knowledge and experiences of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible
and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and
the courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty learning from
such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this
information without having to listen to three or our hours of recorded material.

The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be
overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, is based on lack of
understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have chosen a path out of
bondage and into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical
power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of
the courts. We have been taught that we must "get a good lawyer," but that is
becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves
from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money and then
tell us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you with that--I'm an officer of the
court."

Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a 'snowball's chance' is to

understand the rules of the game, and to come to an understanding of the true
nature of the Law. The lawyers have established and secured a virtual
monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just
too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate
vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at
times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp--are lawyers
really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been
166
through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come
to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman
admits that he is not a lawyer, and as such, he has a way of explaining law to us
that puts it well within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the
Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand,
specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted.

So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that "THE BUCK STOPS
HERE!" It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good
use the TRUTH. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our
posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically
off the labor, skill, and talents of others.

To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of our

plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note that this lecture
represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always
refining, expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of
departure from which to begin our own journey into understand, that we all might
be able to pass on to others; greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of
lives lived in peace, freedom and praise.

The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties on putting this to
paper in an effort to make it readable and somewhat compact. He wishes to
offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman for the opportunity to work with
information so absolutely vital to our survival as dignified, unenslaved human
beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgiveness for any errors committed in
getting this in print. Its purpose, as stated above, is to make this knowledge and
wisdom available to as many people as will take the time and trouble to read it.
This is meant to be supplemental to Mr. Freeman's recorded lectures, not a
substitute. Indeed, there is no substitute for hearing him present this material in
his own words. It is not just the law and the facts that are important here, but the
way they are used. His numerous reminders of Jesus' commission to be "...like
sheep among wolves..."cannot be overstated, and is certainly good advice to us
in all dealings--not just in court or with the government. Hearing him explain this
in his own words brings to life the practical application and usefulness of being
"wise" and "harmless". In fact, after being introduced to this approach it
becomes difficult to imagine that any other way of defending oneself from the
government would be effective.

It goes without saying that none of this information presented here is in

any way, shape or form offered as legal advice. For that, as you know, you must
"get yourself a licensed attorney."

Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the most difficult
aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney--even a good one--may be knowing
just whose side is he on (he is, after all, an officer of the court)! So for those of
167
us who have concluded that having an attorney means that you will soon be
chained, gagged, and lead to the gallows, this information may be indispensable.
For the extraordinary challenges of appearing in court in one's own personin
propria persona--there are few reliable sources of information. Learning to
defend ourselves, that is, being responsible instead of turning over one more
area of our lives to "professionals"--may be the only way to have any chance of
digging ourselves out of this pit of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem
we face in education today is the matter of widespread legal illiteracy.

Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just don't care
about these issues who either:

(1), have a soft life which is supported and maintained by this secret
system of law and the institutions which have grown up around it ('I can make a
bundle buying these IRS seized homes cheap and reselling them'), or

(2), don't believe that anything can be done about it ('you can't fight city
hall'), or

(3), simply don't have the energy or inclination to do anything about it

('that's nice, but let's see what's on TV').

For those good 'citizens' this whole effort may seem useless, or even
threatening. But it is this writer's view [and Gnome's] that God did not intend for
us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of secret
world manipulators, even if the 'masters' grant us some token pleasures and
diversions. Human dignity requires much more than entertainment. The door is
there and the key exists; we must find it and we must use it to return to
freedom!

INTRODUCTION

When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If I had tried to
use these in court, I would have been convicted.

I was involved with a patriot group and I studied supreme Court cases. I
concluded that the Supreme Court had declared that I was not a person required
to file an income tax-that the tax was an excise tax on privileges granted by
government. So I quit filing and paying income taxes, and it was not long before
they came down on me with a heavy hand. They issued a notice of deficiency,
which had such a fantastic sum on it that the biggest temptation was to go in with
their letter and say, "Where in the world did you ever get that figure?" They
claimed I owed them some $60,000. But even if I had been paying taxes, I

 Note from Gnome: For more information on Howard Freeman's tapes
write, America's Promise Ministries, P.O. Box 157, Sandpoint, Idaho, 83864.
168
never had that much money, so how could I have owed them that much?

NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF

DEFICIENCY

Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of information: NEVER

ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're not required to file, what do you
care whether they say you owe sixty dollars or 60,000 dollars. If you are not
required to file, the amount doesn't matter. Don't argue the amount--that is a fact
issue. In most instances, when you get a Notice of Deficiency, it is usually for
some fantastic amount. The IRS wants you to run in and argue about the
amount. The minute you say "I don't owe that much", you have agreed that you
owe them something, and you have given them jurisdiction. Just don't be
shocked at the amount on a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is ten million dollars!
If the law says that you are not required to file or pay tax, the amount doesn't
matter.

By arguing the amount, they will just say that you must go to tax court and
decide what the amount is to be. By the time you get to tax court, the law issues
are all decided. You are only there to decide how much you owe. They will not
listen to arguments of law.

So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required to file. He
said, "You are required to file, Mr. Freeman." But I had all these supreme Court
cases, and I started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know anything about
law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and you're
going to pay that amount or you're going to go to tax court." I thought that
someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked to talk to his
superior. I went to him and got out my Supreme Court cases, and he wouldn't
listen to them. "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman..." Finally I got to
the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He said that the
only person above him was the District Director. So I went to see him. By the
time I got to his office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was
out. But I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there.

I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal Building and
into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a desk, and she
asked if she could help me. I told her my problem. I said that I really thought the
District Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it
was Senator Simpson's office calling and to ask if the District Director was in. I
said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are from the Senator's office
and you have a person who you are sending over to speak to him--if he can wait
just five minutes." It worked. He was there, and I ran back up to his office. His
secretary met me when I came in and said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky--the
Director just arrived."

169
 The Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies and we sat
and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to talk to him about. (If you ever
have someone say to you "I'm from the government and I'm here to do you a
favor", watch out!-but we can turn that around and approach them the same
way.) So I said, "I thought you ought to know that there are agents working for
you who are writing letters over you name that you wouldn't agree with. Do you
read all the mail that goes out of this office over you signature?" The Director
said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything--it goes out of here by the bagful." That was
what I thought. I said, "There are some of your agents writing letters which
contradict the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And they're
not doing it over their name, they're doing it over your name."

He was very interested to hear about it and asked if I had any examples. I
just happened to have some with me, so I got them out and presented them to
him. He thought it was very interesting and asked if I could leave this information
with him, which I did. He said he would look it over and contact me in three
days. Three days later he called me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that
you will be glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been withdrawn.
We've determined that you're not a person required to file. Your file is closed
and you will hear no more from us." I haven't heard another word from them
since. That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1969.

THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL

I thought for sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged with
Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help him. I told him that
they have to prove that he willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should
put me on the witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and
place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the audience. He should then ask me
what I spoke of that day. When I got on the stand, I brought out all of the
Supreme Court cases I had used with the District Director. I thought I would be
lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off, but I was reading
whole paragraphs--and the judge didn't stop me. I read one and then another,
and so on. And finally when I had read just about as much as I thought I should,
the judge called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we had it made.
There was just no way that they could rule against him after all that testimony.
So we relaxed.

The prosecution presented its case and my friend decided to rest his

 Note from Gnome: This opening statement to the head agent is very
important. He is directly responsible for his employees under him. Notice the
tact used in delivery. Mr. Freeman has taken away the appearance that neither
himself nor this agent are the direct aggressors in this matter, and has made it
appear to this agent that he must be on defense from those under his
supervision--not Mr. Freeman.
170
defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not required to file, and that
the Supreme Court had upheld this position. The prosecution then presented its
closing statements and we were just sure that he had won. But at the very end,
the judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts of this case
and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form;
you decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted him.
Later some members of the jury said, "What could we do? The man had
admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict him."

As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge's office and he
was just coming in through his back door. I said, "Judge, by what authority do
you overturn the standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court?" He
says, "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions.
They have never been overturned. I don't care hold old they are; you have no
right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a
District Court."

PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme court after 1938 and I'll
honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor
those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the
Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has
dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public
Policy Statute, not a Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to
Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had already
told me too much--he wasn't going to tell me any more.

1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD

Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie
Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts
claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had
sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out
of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided
on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not
under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to
sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would

 Note from Gnome: This is another example of how the government has
deprived us of the benefits of trial by jury. In most cases, people don't get a trial
by jury, and if they do the jury cannot interpret the law. But that is what our
judicial branch of the government is for. It checks the laws. If the jury believes
the accused isn't a criminal for what he is accused of, then they are to return a
not guilty verdict and the law in question should be placed in scrutiny. That is the
benefit.
171
have had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v.

Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was
that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law
of the state where the incident occurred--in this case Pennsylvania. But in the
Erie case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under
the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on
the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with
Equity.

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I

determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not
Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.

A FRIEND IN THE COURT

Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make friends with
a judge if you go into court like a 'wolf in black sheep country.' You must
approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into
court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is--how he
had better uphold the law or else. Remember the verse: I send you out as
sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have
to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must
play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and
boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what
they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the
clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're
an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not
sitting on a case we will visit.

AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the
Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said,
"In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were
called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:

America is a bankrupt nation--it is owned completely by its creditors.

The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the judiciary
and they own all the state government.
Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your
court is operating in a Admiralty Jurisdiction--call it anything you want, but do not
call it Admiralty."

ADMIRALTY COURTS
172
 The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense
would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the
Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which had jurisdiction unless there
is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction,
and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty contract, to
which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be
placed into evidence.

No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid

international maritime contract that has been breached.

So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got involved
with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If
this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence,
so that I may challenge the validity of the contract." What they would have to do
is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the
international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.

NOT EXPEDIENT

But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit hat they won
everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they
don't want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too
many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military
forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY
and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the
jurisdiction the courts are operating under. When we understand these things,
we realize that there are certain secrets they don't want to admit, and we can use
this to our benefit.

JURISDICTION

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction

in which the courts may operate:

Common Law

Common Law is based on God's Law. Anytime someone is charged

under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under
the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on
the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of
yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone
else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which

 Note from Gnome: Don't worry. They would never admit to this.
173
prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross
over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR
SEAT BELTS--IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law, because who
would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled
performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of
Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

Equity Law

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform

to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled
performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled
to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil
action--not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you
can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to
perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court,
which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity laws? No, they are not,
because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a
contract.

Admiralty/Maritime Law

This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance, which also has

Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only
applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt
laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under.
Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file),
that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in
force.

However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under
Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law
Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court
decided in the Erie Railroad case--that the decisions will be based on
commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated
with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it
Statutory Jurisdiction.

COURTS OF CONTRACT

You might ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged
with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold
the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution, in
Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not
infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are
enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be
174
enforced--Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory
Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to
box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this more later.

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable.
These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another
characteristic--it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to
read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house,
etc." That was a valid contract--the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now,
suppose you wrote a contract that said, "For one Federal Reserve Note and
other considerations, I will paint your house..." And suppose, for example, I
painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and
get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a
"colorable" dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that
contract would be unenforceable.

COLORABLE MONEY-COLORABLE COURTS

The word "colorable" means something that appears to be genuine, but is

not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not
redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is "colorable". If a Federal
Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a "colorable"
contract. And "colorable" contracts must be enforced under a "colorable"
jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to
create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now
have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty
jurisdiction. It is "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing
because we are using "colorable money". Colorable Admiralty is now known as
Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the "colorable"

currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law or Redeemable
Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of
substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there
had to be a system of law which was completely "colorable" from start to finish.
This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been
adopted in every state. This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all the courts.

I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt
and we have no rights. If the master says "Jump!" then the slave had better
jump, because the master has the right to cut his head off. As slaves we have
175
no rights. But the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a
system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This "colorable" jurisdiction
under the UCC is the next key to understanding what has happened.

CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code
is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2)
voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.

Under the UCC this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary.
Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the
benefits of an "agreement", it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the
obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by
government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every
statute involved with that benefit. The method had been to get everybody
exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the people what the benefit
is. Some people think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the birth
certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.

COMPELLED BENEFIT

I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of
discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a
debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver
dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar--substance for
substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the Milk, I have not paid
for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper
given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this
benefit:

Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over
the continental United States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and
private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your
debts.

So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just discharge
your debts instead of paying your debts." When we use this "colorable" money
to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can only use a
"colorable" court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform
Commercial Code--we are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we
are discharging debt rather than paying debt.

REMEDY AND RECOURSE

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and
176
Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law. The Recourse is if
you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The
Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code
all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If you go
to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you
a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you
pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally
written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and
Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-207
and 1-103.

REMEDY

The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the

person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of
concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7)

It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a

commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. "I DEMAND
MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "you mention
the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't
understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution?
The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend
under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked
where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the
French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The
proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M NOT A
FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction
in which you are charged--not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court,
you must claim your reservation of rights under the UCC 1-207.

UCC 1-207 goes on to say:

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a

reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later
date. (UCC 1-207.9)

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention

to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes-- in
any way, shape or manner--under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC

177
1-207. This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4 that you have
sufficiently reserved your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one
man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what
he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court.
He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it
to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked
him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not
prejudiced against anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it
meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207

When you use "without prejudice" UCC 1-207 in connection with your
signature, you are saying:

"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or

commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and
intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial

agreement? When you use FRNs instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No.
There is no lawful money, so you have to use FRNs--you have to accept the
benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with
limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if
you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the
benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute, ordinance and
regulation of the government, at all levels of government--federal, state and
local.

If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he
asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also
need to understand UCC 1-103--the argument and recourse.

If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy

these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson edition.
Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is

 Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that
you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several
days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights
before signing the document.
 Note from Gnome: It is also a good idea to bring many witnesses with
you.
178
very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten
parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.

RECOURSE

The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6 which

says:

The code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force,

except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony
with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the
Common Law.

This is the argument we use in court.

The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the
Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is
bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to
admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law
entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation
of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in
harmony with the Common Law.

If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the
injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were
charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt, you may ask the court who was
injured as a result of your failure to 'buckle up'.

However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the
case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 1-103.6, which
states:

The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

Tell the judge,

"Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my
right under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to
reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and
now you must construe this statue in harmony with the Common Law. To be in
harmony with the common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."

 Note from Gnome: I wouldn't even give them that much. Referring to them
as "judge", "your honor", or "the court" is only giving them a title of nobility over
your life. He or she is no different than you and should be treated as a neutral
equal. Call him Sam if that's his name.
179
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this
question:

"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court made a legal
determination that the sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial
Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law
before this court?"

Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code
and uphold another? If he answers, "yes," than you say:

"I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination."

Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows
this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION--TRAFFIC COURT

Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look at a
court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you ran through a yellow light
and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.

1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least three weeks.
This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with the officer. Explain to
him that you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court appearance
for about three weeks away.

(At this point we need to remember the government's trick: "I'm from the
government, I'm here to help you." Now we want to use this approach with
them.)

2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say:

"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to save the
government some money (this will get his attention). I am undoubtedly going to
appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the
traffic court doesn't have a court reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer's
money to run me through this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in
a court of record. I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the
government some money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a court of
record."

You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree that there is
plenty of time to schedule your trial for a court of record. Now your first
appearance is in a court of record and not in a traffic court, where there is no
180
record.

When you get into court there will be a court reporter there who records
every word the judge speaks, so the judge is much more careful in a court of
record. You will be in a much better situation there than in a traffic court. If there
is no record, the judge can say whatever he wants--he can call you all sorts of
names and tell you that you have no rights, and so on--and deny it all later.

3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges; driving through a
yellow light, or whatever, and this is a violation or ordinance XYZ. He will ask,
"Do you understand the charges against you?"

4. "Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I can
make a plea of innocent of guilty. I think it could be answered if I could put the
officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short questions."

Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take
the stand."

5. "Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (handing him the traffic citation)

Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other portion of it.

"Where did you get my address that you wrote on that citation?"

Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license.

(Handing the officer your driver's license) "Is this the document you copied
my name and address from?"

Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."

"While you've got that in your hand, would you read the signature that's on
that license?" (The officer reads the signature) "While you're there, would you
read into the record what it says under the signature?"

Officer: "It says, 'Without prejudice, UCC 1-207.'"


 It is very important to get it into the record that you do not understand the
charges. With that in the record, the court cannot move forward to judge the
facts. This will be covered later in questions and review. Note from Gnome:
Remember what happened to Ken Dill in "The fictitious Plaintiff". Be prepared
for such an event.
 Note from Gnome: I have never seen this in action, so I don't know how
well it works. My guess is that it might not work every time for various reasons.
So you should always have a back up plan.
181
 Judge: "Let me see that license!" (He looks at it and turns to the officer)
"You didn't notice this printing under the signature on this license, when you
copied his name and address onto the ticket?"

Officer: "Oh, no. I was just getting the address--I didn't look down there."

Judge: "You're not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I'm afraid I

cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this case. This case is
dismissed."

6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out--he could say that the
officer was not observant enough to be a reliable witness. He did not want to
admit the real nature of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record
that you had written Without prejudice UCC 1-207 on your license, the judge
knew that he would have to admit that:

a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;

b. you had done it sufficiently by writing 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on

your driver's license;

c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with the Common
Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists, but there is no injured party;
and

d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no

jurisdiction under the Common Law.

7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will
want to ask him the following question:

Your Honor, let me understand this correctly; Has this court made a legal
determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating under,
to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called
to its attention?

If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that
legal determination, and that if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him
in a common law action--under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work just as
well with the IRS. In fact, we can use the UCC with the IRS before we get to
court.

USING THE CODE WITH THE IRS

If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a "presentment"

182
in the Uniform Commercial Code. A "presentment" in the UCC is very similar to
the Common Law. First we must understand just how this works in the Common
Law.

Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book--someone I have never

met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead which says, "For services
rendered: $10,000.00" I send this by Certified Mail to him at the address taken
from the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, he finds
an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have any questions
concerning this bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your
questions or objections known."

Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away and
assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty days, I go to court and
get a default judgment against him. He received a bill for $10,000, and was
given thirty days to respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about
it. Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000.

That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The minute
you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you return it immediately with a
letter that says:

The presentment above is dishonored. your name has reserved all of

his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207.

This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more that they can do.
In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of
Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the 'presentment.'
The IRS wrote back that they could not make a determination at that office, but
were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from
the Collections Department which said they were sorry for the inconvenience
they had caused him and that the Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn. So
you can see that if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY

On my way here, I had a chance to visit with the Governor of Wyoming.

He is very concerned that if he runs for office this November, that there won't be
a State of Wyoming at the end of four years. He believes that the International
Bankers might foreclose on the nation and officially admit that they own the
whole world. They could round up everybody in the state capitol building, put
them in an internment camp and hold them indefinitely. They may give them a
trial, or they may not. They will do whatever they want. As I explained earlier, it
has not been expedient to foreclose on the nation until they could get everything
ready. This is where the Federal Emergency Management Agency comes in. It
has been put in place without anyone really noticing it.
183
 FEMA

F E M A, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been

designed for when America is officially declared bankrupt, which would be a
national emergency. In a national emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all
law that previously existed, would be suspended. FEMA has created large
concentration camps where they would put anyone who might cause trouble for
the orderly plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation.

Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment camps, and
kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and they are just waiting to
declare a national emergency. Then even state governments could be
dissolved. Anybody who might oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until
a new set of laws could be written and a new government set up. The Governor
knows all this, and he is very concerned. Ge doesn't want to be in office when all
this happens.

I visited with him and I told him that there are certain action we should
take right now. I think we should consider the fact that, according to the UCC,
Wyoming is an accommodation party to the national debt. To understand this
we must realize that there are two separate entities known as the United States.

THE FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION:

TWO NATIONS IN ONE

It was around the time of the American Civil War that they discovered a
flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Remember that there are two nations called "United States". What is a
nation? See if you would agree to this definition:

Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed territory

containing a body of people.

Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the Republic--the three

branch government. There are the legislative, the executive and the judicial
branches, with a constitution. There is a prescribed territory containing a body of
people. This is a Constitutional R********

 Note from Gnome: This states: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all
Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the
Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings;"
184
********************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************
**************************************************

********************************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************d a
piece of gold or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into coin. This
was the medium of exchange for the Republic.

But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington D.C.), Congress is

not limited by the Constitution. Congress has exclusive rule over the District of
Columbia. The legislators can make the law by a majority vote-that makes it a
democracy; they have the authority to have administrative agents to enforce their
own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of government, to try their
own law. Here we have the legislature making the law, enforcing the law and
trying the law, all within the one branch of government. This is a one branch
government within a three branch government.

Under the three branch government, the congress passes law which has
to be in harmony with the Constitution, the executive enforces the law passed by
the congress, and the judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the Constitution.

THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE

BRANCH LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES.
One is the federal United States, and the other is the continental united States.

ARE YOU A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?

If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United States are
you referring to? Anyone who lives in the District of Columbia is a United States
citizen. The remaining population in the fifty states is the national citizenry of the
nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign states, protected by the
constitutions of those states from any direct rule of Congress over us. In the
democracy, anyone who lives in those states known as Washington D.C., Guam,
Puerto Rico, or any of the other federally held territories is a citizen of the United
States [D.C.].

We must be careful with our choice of words--we are not citizens of the
United States. We are not subject to Congress. Congress has exclusive rule
over a given territory, and we are not part of that territory.

Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal Revenue Code?
It is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. To pass that law,
they only needed a majority vote. There is no other way that they could pass
185
laws directly affecting individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, was
passed as law for another nation (remember our definition of 'nation'), but Title
26 is not consistent with the Bill of Rights. If you try to fight the IRS, you have no
rights--the Code does not give you any of your constitutional rights. It simply
says, "You failed to file an income tax form--you failed to perform in some
specific manner."

Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do whatever you
want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone
else. If you do not want to perform, you don't have to. the only way you can be
compelled to perform under the Constitution in the continental united States, is if
you have entered a contract. But if you are not under a contract you cannot be
compelled to perform. How can you be compelled to file an income tax form, or
any form?

When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes must be in
harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but when Congress works
for the Legislative Democracy, any law it passes becomes the law of the land
(remember, Congress has exclusive legislative control over federal territory).

If you are charged with Willful failure to file an income tax 1040 form, that
is a law for a different nation. You are a non-resident alien to that nation. It is a
foreign corporation to you. It is coming after you, it is a foreign nation--a
legislative democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.

If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a presentment from the
federal United States, and then you can use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can
also mention that you are among the national citizenry of continental united
States. You never lived in a federal territory and never had any income from

Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under the

compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes, because you have
reserved your rights under the Common Law through the Uniform Commercial
Code at 1-207.

ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS

The Founding Fathers would never have created a government that was
going to boss them around! There were 13 sovereign States. They were
nations, and they joined together for protection from foreign enemies. They
provided a means by which the union of the sovereign states could fend off
foreign enemies. But they never gave the congress of the federal United States
direct rule over any citizen of any state. They were not going to be ordered
around by that government they set up.

 Note from Gnome: Dauhh.
186
 FEDERAL REGIONS

The Supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what Congress
creates. Congress did not create the States, but Congress did create federal
regions. So Congress can rule the federal regions, but Congress cannot rule the
States. How have we been tricked into federal regions?

THE ZIP CODE TRICK

Remember how the government always comes to us and says, "I'm from
the government and I'm here to help you." The government went out into the
various states and said. "We don't want you to have to go to all that trouble of
writing three or four letters to abbreviate the name of the state--such as Ariz. for
Arizona. Just write AZ, instead of Ariz. Or you can just write WY for Wyoming
instead of Wyo." So all of the states of the union have got a new two-letter
abbreviation. Even a state such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is
RI, instead of R.I. They have just left off the periods. When you use a two-letter
state abbreviation, you are compelled to use a zip code, because there are so
many state, for example, which start with M. ME is Maine--MI is Michigan. How
many people dot every 'I', or make an 'I' that looks like an 'E'? So, we have to
use the zip code in order to tell them apart. But if you wrote Mich., or Minn., or
Miss., there would be no real problem telling which state it was.

There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully identify your state. I
found out that no state legislature has met to lawfully change the abbreviation of
the state from the old abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the
lawful abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new abbreviation, you have
to use the zip code.

Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you that the first
digit of your zip code is the federal region in which you reside. If you use AZ for
Arizona, you cannot use the state constitution to protect you because you did not
identify your state. You used the zip code, which identifies which federal region
you live in. And Congress may rule directly federal regions, but it cannot rule the
citizens of any state.

ACCOMMODATION PARTY

Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation party to the
national debt. There are many people I have talked to, including the Governor,
who are very concerned about this, and who know that it could happen very
soon.

 Note from Gnome: I don't know about that. I am sure someone could
probably challenge this with success.
187
 If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a national emergency.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency will take over, and anyone who
opposes the new government of the creditors can be sent to a detention camp in
Alaska. We will have no rights whatsoever. They have already set up prison
camps with work camps nearby so the people can be used for slave labor. It
could be the governors, legislators, and other leaders who would be hauled away
to Alaska, while the people now disenfranchised from power would likely be
chosen to run the new government. This could all happen very soon, as the
national debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the interest on the debt is
virtually unpayable.

As I explained, the national debt--more than three trillion dollars--is not

owed by the Continental united States. It is the federal United States that had
authority to borrow bank credit. When Congress worked for Continental united
States, it could only borrow gold or silver, so the national debt was borrowed in
the name of the federal United States. The federal United states has been
bankrupt since 1938, but the federal United States had to trap the States into
assuming the debt obligation of the federal debt.

In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term, 'accommo-dation

party'. How did the states become the 'accommodation party' to the federal
debt? The federal government, through our money system, made the states
deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which means that everything the states do is
'colorable.' Under the 'colorable' jurisdiction of the UCC, all of the states are the
accommodation party to the federal debt.

Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this situation. I told
the Governor that in the Common Law and the Law of Merchants--that's the
International Law Merchant--there is a term called no-interest contract. A no-
interest contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest contract?

NO-INTEREST CONTRACT

If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me, that would be a no-
interest contract. I would just want the house to burn down. I would pay a small
premium, perhaps a few hundred dollars, and insure it for 80,000 dollars against
fire. Then I would be wanting for it to burn so I could trade my small premium for
$80,000. Under the Common Law and under international law of the Law
Merchant, that is called a no-interest contract, and it is void and unenforceable in
any court.

 UCC 3-415. "Accommodation Party." One who signs commercial paper in
any capacity for purpose of lending his name to another party to instrument.
Such a party is a surety. [Surety is, "One who undertakes to pay money or to do
other act in event that his principal fails therein."]
188
 UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS

In the UCC, no-interest contracts are called unconscionable contracts.

The section on unconscionable contracts covers more than forty pages in the
Anderson Code. The federal United States has involved the states as the
accommodation party to the federal debt, and I believe we could prove this to be
an unconscionable contract. We should get some litigation into the courts before
the government declares a national emergency, claiming that this state has no
lawful responsibility for the national debt (of the federal United States), because
it became an accommodation party to this debt through an unconscionable
contract. If we have this litigation before the courts under International Law
when the nation is declared bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this
matter first, and it would delay them. They would want the new government to
appear to be legitimate, so they could not just move right in and take over the
state, because it would be in an International Court. This is very important at this
time.

QUESTIONS AND REVIEW

Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main lecture. Some are
restatements of material presented earlier, but they contain very valuable
information which is worth repeating.

COURTROOM TECHNIQUES

Question: How did you "box in" the Judge?

This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know too much, but
I boxed them in. You must play a little dumb.

If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in a criminal
action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible error for the court to
try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try you.

In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and the judge
reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the charges?"

Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not.

Judge: Well, what's so difficult about the charge? Either you drove the
wrong way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go one way on that
street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty dollar fine. What's so difficult about
this that you don't understand?

 Note from Gnome: I would omit 'Your Honor'.
189
D: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather the nature of the
law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me
the right to request the court to explain the nature of any action against me, and
upon my request, the court has the duty to answer. I have a question about the
nature of this action.

J: Well, what is that--what do you want to know?

Always ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are
answering. You ask:

D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action?

J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be

criminal.)

D; Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that
this action against (your name) is a criminal action, is that right?

J: Yes.

D: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action. There are
two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the
Common Law, and the other deals with International Maritime Contracts, under
an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal action,
so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law.
But what puzzles me, Your Honor, is that there is no corpus delicti here that
gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common
Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is moving under the
Common Law.

J: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.

D: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the charge against me
even more difficult to understand. The only other criminal jurisdiction would
apply only if there was an International Maritime Contract involved, I was a party
to it, it had been breached, and the court was operating in an Admiralty
Jurisdiction.

I don't believe I have ever been under any International Maritime contract,
so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it

 Note from Gnome: "The existence of the essential fact or facts which
prove the commission of a crime, as the finding of stolen goods on the person of
an alleged thief." Funk & Wagnalls
190
does exist, be placed into evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely, this
court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.

You just put the words in the judges mouth.

J: No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
We're not out in the ocean somewhere--we're right here in the middle of the
State of (any state) . No, this is not an Admiralty Jurisdiction.

D: Thank you Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this
charge is not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty--and those are the
only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution--what kind of
jurisdiction could this court be operating under?

J: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.

D: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have never
heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that, I would need to have
the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me
where I might find those rules?

There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will get very angry at
this point and say:

J: If you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed
attorney--I'm not allowed to practice law from the bench.

D: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law
from the bench if you just answer a few questions to explain to me the nature of
this action, so that I may defend myself.

J: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more questions. Do you
understand that? If you ask any more questions in regards to this, I'm going to
find you in contempt of court! Now if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the
court will provide you with one. But if you want those questions answered, you
must get yourself a licensed attorney.

D: Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight.

Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct
a criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of

 Note from Gnome: When I tried this with a D.A. in Georgia her answer was
exactly these words. And she said them with quite a confident smile. It is as if
they are all forced to memorize and state this answer for when they are asked
this question.
191
which are known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me
the right to defend in my own person?

He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone the case and
eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as wise as a serpent and as
harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a chip on your shoulder
and as a wolf in "black sheep" country. Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out
as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove." Sheep
do not attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't
understand the charge, and remember--they can't try you criminally if you don't
understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on
appeal.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM

If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting out in my first
job, I would not want Social Security. With my signature on the application I
would write, 'Without prejudice UCC 1-207', and I would reserve my Common
Law rights. But why wouldn't I want Social Security today?

I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I paid into it dollars
that had good purchasing power. Now I'm getting a promised return in Federal
Reserve Notes which have considerably less value. For example, in 1940, you
could buy a deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today's FRNs, that won't buy
the rear fenders and trunk on a new Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I would
not want to put FRNs into Social Security now, and get back something later like
the German mark after World War I--when it took a billion to buy a load of bread.
They will give you every FRN back that they promised you, but it might not buy
anything.

ASSURANCE

Under the UCC, you have the right in any agreement, to demand a
guarantee of performance. So, don't go to them and say, "I want to rescind my
Social Security number," or "I refuse to take it." Just take it easy and say, "I
would be happy to get a Social Security number and enter into this contract, but I
have a little problem. How can I have assurance before I enter into this contract
that the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at the end of
the contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the beginning?" They
can't guarantee that, and you have a right under the UCC to assurance of
performance under the contract.


 Note from Gnome: A friend of mine got nervous in front of the judge and
went right to the last question after the judge told him it was statutory jurisdiction.
The judge's answer was yes. My friend got very nervous and folded.
192
 So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this contract unless the government will
guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract with the same value Federal
Reserve Notes that I'm paying in. Both may be called Federal Reserve Notes,
but you know that these Federal Reserve Notes don't hold their value. I want
assurance on this contract that the Federal Reserve Notes that I get in my
retirement will buy as much as the ones that I'm giving you now in my working
years." They can't make that guarantee. If they won't give you that guarantee,
just say, "I'd be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee performance under
the contract, I'm afraid I cannot enter the contract."

Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the sections of the
UCC which grant the right to have assurance that the contract you have entered
will be fulfilled properly--that the return will equal the investment, and you can
reject the contract using the Code. Using their own system of law, you can show
that they cannot make you get into a contract of that nature. Just approach them
innocently like a lamb.

It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with the

government or the courts--never raise your voice or show anger. In the
courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge up--call him 'Your Honor'. Give
him all the 'honor' he wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather to be
cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say the things
which you need to have in the record.

THE COURT REPORTER

In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets his job at
the judges pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease the judge. The court
reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of every word that is spoken in
the courtroom. But if the judge makes a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court
reporter and says, "I think you had better leave that out of the transcript; just say
it got a little too far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything in." So
this will be missing from the transcript.

In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and the judge
got very angry and said, "This court has a licensed court reporter right here, and
the record of this court is this court reporter's record. No other court reporter's
record means anything in this court."

We responded with, "Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly glad to use
your regular court reporter. But you know, Your Honor, sometimes things move
so fast that a court reporter gets a little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it
all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had another licensed court reporter in the
courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind, so that we could fill
in from this other court reporter's data. I'm sure, Your Honor, that you want an
accurate transcript. (I like to use the saying; give a bad dog a good name and
193
he'll live up to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that moment on, he was
very careful of what he said.

These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how to be wise as
a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter into a courtroom. There are
others using the same information presented here who end up in jail, handcuffed
and hit over the head, because they approach the judge what the law is and the
he is a no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and harmless.

UCC 1-207 REVIEW

It is so important to know and understand the meaning of "Without

Prejudice UCC 1-207", in connection with your signature, that we should go over
this once more. It is very likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So
please learn and understand this carefully:

The use of Without prejudice UCC 1-207, in connection with my signature

indicates that I have reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to
perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally.

And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the

compelled benefit of any un-revealed contract or commercial agreement.

Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear. Under the Common Law, a
contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both
parties, or it can be declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right
not to be compelled to perform under any contract that you did not enter into
knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And you do not accept the liability
associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement.

The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal Reserve Notes to

discharge your debts with limited liability rather than to pay your debts with silver
coins. It is a compelled benefit, because there are no silver coins in circulation.
You have to eat, and you can only buy food with the medium of exchange
provided by the government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so
you are compelled to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed
commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely and explicit
reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and you simply exercise this benefit
rendered by government, you will be obligated, under an implied agreement, to
obey every statute, ordinance and regulation passed by government, at all

 See UCC 1-201. General Definitions (3) "Agreement" means the bargain of
the parties in fact as found in their language or by implication from other
circumstances including course of dealing, or usage of trade, or course of
performance...
194
levels--federal, state and local.

(Concluded)
_________________________
This next segment comes from someone who I think would rather remain
anonymous. She stated that she would not use her work as an authority, but I
think you should be able to see how it fits in with the rest. I contacted her after
reading something, which didn't jibe with my previous research. I have since
removed it from the following transcript. This work was only to be for her
husband's eyes. He was in prison at this time (1989-90) and she was just trying
to keep him updated regarding the subjects in the study guide.

A STUDY GUIDE

-- UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE --

There are TWO (2) DIFFERENT and DISTINCT definitions of the phrase,
(or term), UNITED STATES. This phrase can describe two different areas of our
continent.

Although the term UNITED STATES is usually used to describe the

several continental states of the Union of states that comprise the United States
of America; this same term, UNITED STATES, is also used to describe the ten-
mile area that is often referred to as the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (and its
possessions).

The possessions belonging to the corporate District of Columbia include

Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. enclaves,
other territories organized under Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the U. S.
Constitution.

The purpose of this paper is to help each of us determine which state WE, as
individuals, owe an allegiance. This can be very confusing because an individual
could live in one of the above-defined United States and still owe an allegiance
to the other.

***
The above-named possessions, GUAM, PUERTO RICO, VIRGIN
ISLANDS, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS,(and OTHER possessions,
enclaves, and territories owned and organized by the Federal Government) are
the ONLY areas that comprise the corporate United States.

In order to verify this fact, please refer to 26 USC, the Internal Revenue
Code, at Section 3306 (j)(2) which defines UNITED STATES as:

195
 "United States. -- The term 'United States' when used in the geographical
sense includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands."

If there is any doubt regarding the definition of the word INCLUDES, as it

is used here, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Montello Salt Co.
vs. State of Utah has clearly set forth that when the word INCLUDES is used by
the Internal Revenue Service, IT IS DEFINITELY RESTRICTIVE; and that
anybody or anything (territory) not named IS TO BE EXCLUDED. As used
above, the word INCLUDE does not refer to any geographical areas that are not
mentioned in 26 USC, section 3306 (j)(2).

***
In the public schools we all were taught that the Thirteenth Amendment
freed the black man; and IT DID FREE HIM FROM A CONDITION OF
SLAVERY, but it left him in a condition of SERVITUDE. For at the close of the
Civil War the black man was the property of the United States Government and
he was rightless. He was told, at that time, that if he wanted to leave this country
he could do so at any time as he was here voluntarily; but for as long as he
chose to stay in the United States he was in a condition of voluntary servitude.

"Ratified" on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment secured to those

under the incapacity of race, newly freed from their condition of slavery, a class
of citizenship unknown in the Constitutional Contract of 1787. The first clause of
the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the term CITIZEN
as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside."

Additionally, in 1872 the Supreme Court (in the Slaughter House Cases)
determined that the 14th Amendment established (or "created") a separate and
distinct class of citizenship for those under the incapacity of race; thus securing
to this new class of citizen/subject the same privileges and immunities of the
native-born individual who was born in one of the several continental states of
the Union.

This same type of privileged citizenship has since been OFFERED to

persons, of all races and circumstances. The contractual terms of this
citizenship requires the individual to forfeit his native-born rights in exchange for
securities, privileges, protections, AND LIABILITIES granted by the United States
Government (District of Columbia).

Thus, now any individual CAN become SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the
(corporate) United States by either volunteering to file a form 1040 or BY
ACCEPTING benefits and privileges granted by said corporate United States.

196
***
If we are not a citizen of the federal United States, (home office situated in
the District of Columbia) we are NOT SUBJECT to its jurisdiction. We are thus,
FOREIGN to (and OUTSIDE) of its scope of jurisdiction.

Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum at 1758 states:

"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a

state." --N.Y. V. reMerriam 36 N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073;
41 L.Ed. 287.

Almost from the moment the U.S. Constitution was written, the United
States government has "overstepped" the authority it was given by the Founding
Fathers of this country. --Employees of this corporation have usurped power and
authority not designated to them and have intentionally deceived the nationals of
this country into believing that they (the private people) are citizen/subjects and
MUST summit to its jurisdiction.

Originally, all native-born people of this country were know as Nationals,

but with the advent of the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal United States
gave these people the "opportunity" to become GOVERNMENT CITIZENS.

---[It is very important that we, as individual private persons, NEVER

REFER TO OURSELVES AS CITIZENS. The term citizen is used by the
government to indicate a person who owes an allegiance to the federal
government and is therefore subject to its jurisdiction. As you will find out later in
this paper, many words are used AND CONSTRUED by the federal government
to denote federal citizenship. To admit to citizenship, one SUBJECTS HIMSELF
to federal jurisdiction.]

Although the 14th Amendment is often referred to as the Amendment

"that freed the slaves", it instead ENSLAVED THE FREE. Because the
constitution did not allow for a citizenship comprised of people OUTSIDE of the
white race, it would appear that the purpose of this amendment was to give the
negro race the same rights and privileges as the native-born NATIONALS. In
reality, the purpose of this amendment was to destroy the free native-born
people by creating corporations; and by giving these corporate artificial entities
the right to own property.

** *
Through the years we have not been aware of the real motive behind the
Fourteenth Amendment; and thus, have FALSELY been lead to believe that we
are ALL Fourteenth Amendment citizens; i.e. persons subject to the jurisdiction
of the federal United States owing an allegiance to the same through the federal
income tax.

197
 The status of the American people (whether or not they are SUBJECT to
the jurisdiction of the federal United States) is CRITICALLY important to both the
State and Federal court system. These courts want to construe each and every
one of us as a federal (Fourteenth Amendment Citizen) in order to obtain
jurisdiction.

The main function of these government courts is to collect revenue in

order to pay the national debt. The only way that this debt can be "paid" is
though the taxing of the federal citizenry.

When gold and silver was taken from the hands of the American people,
with complete disregard of the laws and limitations of the U.S. Constitution, it
"became necessary" for the corporate United States to "create" a new system of
law. They threw out the Common Law and switched it for Admiralty Law
(Negotiable Law).

Today, these courts are NOT courts of LAW; --they are courts of
Commercial Contract. Our problem today is that most of us are unaware that
these courts, and "our" government, are operating on a "presumptuous" contract.
An assumption is made that you and I have accepted government-granted
benefits and privileges that make us liable to the FEDERAL United States. Once
this assumption is made and we fail to dispute and deny said assumption, we
CAUSE a presumption of contract.

---IF WE CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT, WE ARE COMPELLED TO

PERFORM ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT!

The Uniform Commercial Code, is the "law" that the court is applying
today in order to "gain" jurisdiction of all citizens, regardless of their status.
While Common Law is based on SUBSTANCE, the Uniform Commercial Code is
based on bankruptcy. ---[See THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, (unbound -
June, 1938) "What has happened to Jurisprudence" by Allen Fleming].

From our research, we are now aware that the U.S. courts do not have
jurisdiction over a natural person (a NATIONAL of one of the several continental
states of the Union). But, because of our ignorance (lack of information), we
have been mislead to believe that we have lawful courts; and because of this
misunderstanding, we are often quick to agree when a judge says we are
LIABLE or REQUIRED to perform in a specific way.

The Uniform Commercial Code is "COLORABLE" Law. It is not law, but

gives the appearance of law; and IT IS UPHELD by the courts as LAW. In this
"colorable" situation the court can do as it wishes. To be on a jury in a U.S.
courtroom, an individual must be a "colorable" person, (a 14th Amendment
privileged person); and as such, he IS NOT competent to judge the law.
Because these jurors are OUTSIDE of the common law by their very status, they
198
are only allowed to judge the facts, and not the law.

The only reason that an individual is even allowed to talk about the
Constitution in court is because the judges wish to keep up the "Smoke Screen";
---to keep us in the dark regarding what is REALLY happening in court. Because
our public servants who are employed by the federal government have gone
beyond the bounds of their authority, it became necessary to put up this "smoke
screen" to mislead us into believing we have Constitutional Rights.

When you demand your Constitutional Rights in court, the judge will tell
you that, "...you will get all of the rights you deserve", and then he will go on to
say that, "...the right you are demanding is NOT one of those rights"; BUT HE
WON'T TELL YOU WHAT RIGHTS YOU DESERVE. The "rights" he is referring
to are the rights of the business world (the Uniform Commercial Code); and ,
they are not Constitutional at all.

This is where we have been making a mistake. We are expecting to get

Common Law in court of COLORABLE LAW. It's time we study the Uniform
Commercial Code to find out what our remedies are in this "colorable law". The
Uniform Commercial Code is based on negotiable instruments; a medium of
exchange that is not based on real substance (i.e. paper money, checks, credit,
etc). ---The U.C.C. contains all commercial methods of exchange.

When we, and our parents, failed to object to this new system, we
SILENTLY "agreed" to exchange our labor (real substance) for valueless money.
By failing to object, we caused the PRESUMPTION that we are persons
(artificially created) who agree to become SUBJECT TO ALL of the laws of
Uniform Commercial Code.

Thanks to the research done by many patriots in this country, we have

recently learned that there is REMEDY to be found in this colorable law. ---Go to
a Law library and check the following Sections of the Uniform Commercial Code:
1-207, 1-103, 3-305.2(c), 3-601. These sections, and probably many others that
I am not aware of, are where you will find your remedy. These sections we are
going to have to use to assert our common law rights.

UCC, Section 1-207, is entitled PERFORMANCE OR ACCEPTANCE

UNDER RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This appears to be the "blanket" that
covers our common law rights. It states:

A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises

performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the
other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as
"without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.

This means simply that when you find yourself, because of an incapacity,
199
in a situation where it appears that you are accepting a benefit or privilege from
government, IN FACT you are not; it is necessary that you FIRST explicitly state
your reservation of rights, or protest. This is necessary in order that it is
understood that you ARE NOT subjecting yourself to a specific performance, or
making yourself liable in any way; ---that you HAVE NOT knowingly,
intentionally, and voluntarily entered into an unrevealed contract with the federal
government.

***
Before we go any further, it would be wise to first discover some of the
deceivious methods used by agents of government to confuse the Natural
person, (or National), into believing that artificial persons and corporations have
the same fundamental GOD-GIVEN rights as they themselves have; or more
important, to discover how government has fraudulently twisted and construed
the meaning of words in order to "gain" or steal our freedom, thereby placing us
in a position of government servitude.

In most cases, we were completely unaware of this deception; or if we

were aware of it, we did not know that we had recourse and remedy to correct
the situation. In the following text, I will try to list and explain a few of the
CORPORATE United States' intentional deceptions perpetrated against the
NATIONALS of AMERICA and the remedies found for these deceptions in the
Uniform Commercial Code.

First it must be understood that we do not have Constitutional RIGHTS.

The Constitution was written for the public employee, in order for him to know
and understand his LIMITATIONS of authority.

Like it or not, today the "LAW OF THE LAND" is the Uniform Commercial
Code. Although we all know that we have several fundamental inalienable
rights, these rights are completely ignored by the United States courts as
meritless and inapplicable. They ARE meritless and inapplicable because we
have been asserting them in the wrong forum. The only way to get remedy in
today's court is through the Uniform Commercial Code.

Once we have reserved our rights through the Uniform Commercial Code,
Section 1-207, we can then start claiming our fifth amendment rights. Recent
experience has lead many patriots to believe that an affirmative approach is the
proper position to take in the United States' commercial courts. You even want
to consider claiming the almost forgotten Ninth Amendment rights:

"The Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be

construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people...."

Our forefathers, fearful of the imperial power of a central government,

sought to limit its powers by adding the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S.
200
Constitution. The 9th Amendment was added as a "Constitutional" wild card. In
a card game, the wild card is whatever you claim it to be. Under the 9th
Amendment, you may claim whatever rights you want to - subject to the approval
of a common law jury.

---You DO NOT have the right to deceive anyone; to deliberately harm

anyone; to impersonate a government official or professional person in order to
gain what does not rightly belong to you. These are selfish aspirations and not in
the interest of justice. No jury will uphold these "Ninth Amendment rights".

As God-fearing people, we have DIVINE RESPONSIBILITIES. We are

the silver bullets! We are the people who will make a difference. We are the
people who will have to stand up for what we believe, knowing we are doing
God's Will.

***
You will notice that in the Internal Revenue Code certain words are
referred to as "TERMS". The purpose of this practice is to twist, and adjust, the
meaning of a particular word in order to confuse or deceive the people at large.
For example, at the beginning of each Chapter of the Internal Revenue Code,
there is a list of words which have different meanings from that which is used in a
common Webster's Dictionary. In defining particular words in this title you will
see such wording as:

"When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or

manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof.....the term, ______, shall be
construed to mean and include..."

This type of wording alone should alert us that something is amiss. Can
an agency, or anyone for that matter, change the meaning of words for its own
benefit? We must be on the lookout for such wording. If we don't understand a
word, or phrase, it is VERY important to research its meaning in order to fully
understand its intent.

When you see such wording as "proposed deficiency", "imposed tax", or

"taxable income" DON'T jump to the conclusion that these phrases automatically
make the person, receiving a letter containing these terms, a LIABLE PERSON.
If you haven't already voluntarily submitted to Internal Revenue Service's
jurisdiction, does said agency have the authority to "impose" anything on you?
Isn't it possible that this agency is ONLY making presumptions regarding your
"liability" with intent to seduce or harass you into submitting to its PRESUMED
"authority"?

Did you know that in Title 26, USC, the Internal Revenue Code, the terms
"CITIZEN", "RESIDENT", "TAXPAYER", "PERSON", "DRIVER", and
"INDIVIDUAL" all have the same meaning? These terms denote artificial entities
201
who have made themselves subject, by ACCEPTING governmental benefits, to
the jurisdiction of the federal UNITED STATES.

The imposed tax in this case is not on the people themselves but on the
privileges made available to the "citizen", "resident", "taxpayer", or "driver".

---When you bought your house with little green pieces of paper you gave
nothing of value, so you ONLY receive USE of the property; thus the reason for
the tax. The property tax signifies your rent for its use.

---When you use federal reserve notes you accept the PRIVILEGE of
getting by without paying debt, and the SECURITY of having LIMITED LIABILITY
of the national debt.

---Residency itself is not a privilege, but the things that come along with it
are the privileges and benefits; fire and police protection.

These terms indicate a citizenry that has SUBJECTED ITSELF to the

jurisdiction of the federal government by accepting the grants and privileges of a
foreign government. Such grants or privileges can also be disguised as
WELFARE, SOCIAL, SECURITY, COLLEGE GRANTS (or government loans),
privileged PROFESSIONAL LICENSES (verifying your integrity and expertise);
and, in the case of the DRIVER'S LICENSE, the privilege of doing what you
already had the right to do before; ---to move from one point to another
unencumbered.

---If you ask permission to do something, or to receive something, you

have caused another individual (in this case, an agent of government) to make
the PRESUMPTION that he, somehow, has the authority to grant or deny your
wishes. ASK AND YOU WILL RECEIVE; but at the expense of your freedom to
live your own life as you see fit.

To continue, corporate state governments construe the words (terms)

"ADDRESS" and "RESIDENCE" to have the same meaning; when, in fact, they
are quite different. The term "RESIDENCE" is a term for a commercial corporate
address; a privilege given by the STATE. When you fill out a Driver's License
application, and you fill in the space where it asks for your "Address or
Residence", you CAUSE the presumption that you are a privileged corporate
entity; and, therefore, are subject to the jurisdiction, and tax, of the
CORPORATE STATE where you live.

When a State or Federal application asks if you are a United States

Citizen, and you answer "YES", you unknowingly subject yourself to the
jurisdiction of the United States government by "causing" the PRESUMPTION
that you are "ONE OF THEIRS".

202
***
The STATE OF MICHIGAN is a corporate citizen. When you find yourself
in a courtroom situation in which you are the defendant and the STATE OF
MICHIGAN is the plaintiff; you are, for all purposes, up against another State
CITIZEN. This state "became" a citizen (or "injured party") via of its own
corporate status. The preposition OF is the connecting word CONNECTING this
state to the Federal Government; and subjecting this corporate entity to Federal
jurisdiction.

----STATE OF MICHIGAN: corporate citizen

----MICHIGAN state: We the People

Do we, as one of WE THE PEOPLE have any remedy or recourse? Can

we protect ourselves against the fraud that has been perpetrated by the
CORPORATE United States?

***
The following situations are instances in which you might find yourself in a
position wherein you are INCAPABLE of finding recourse or remedy.

1. Overcoming the PRESUMPTION made by corporate government that you

are a contributing party to the "bankruptcy" of this country because of your use of
paper negotiable instruments. (i.e. federal reserve notes, checks, money orders,
credit cards, etc.)

2. Overcoming the PRESUMPTION made by corporate government that you

are "accepting" government-granted privileges, benefits, and securities by
partaking in the following:

a) use of the United States Postal Service; by being in possession of a

residence or address;

b) use of a government-operated communication system; the telephone;

c) use of any government-owned utility; --(The Tennessee Valley

Authority)

d) being a third party fiduciary to a "foreign" corporation by investing in

any product that is manufactured by a privileged corporation. --(i.e. contractual
agreement to buy an automobile)

***
In order to provide for our own personal needs, we often find ourselves in
a position wherein we are INCAPABLE of preventing a false PRESUMPTION on
the part of the FEDERAL United States or the CORPORATE individual state in
203
which we live. In these situations we must conduct business under PROTEST
and WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

To avoid any misunderstanding on the government's part as to whether or

not we are subjecting ourselves to its jurisdiction, IT IS NECESSARY that we
take an affirmative action regarding these false presumptions.

Whenever you find yourself in a court situation or when signing any paper
or document (instrument) pertaining to, or sent to, any governmental or corporate
agency sign WITH RESERVATION OF RIGHTS with one or more of the
following reservations:

"Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207"

"Signed without prejudice pursuant to U.C.C. 1-207"

"With Explicit Reservation of all rights, U.C.C. 1-207"

"Paper Money (or other privilege): A government-granted privilege; --'benefit'

used without prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207"

***
Liability of ALL parties to a contract is DISCHARGED if ANY party has no
right of action or recourse. If remedy is not allowed in a contract, (such as the
presumed "contracts" that are mentioned above), THERE IS NO ACTUAL
CONTRACT.

For an example, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, a "contract"

can be discharged in situations where a natural person does not knowingly,
intentionally, and voluntarily enter into a contract; thereby, he is unaware of any
presumed terms or liabilities. This is often the case in the filing of the Internal
Revenue 1040 form. ---If we don't know who we are, (our status with regard to
the FEDERAL United States), how can we possibly know if we are a "person
made liable for the income tax"?

In all likelihood, you executed and signed your first 1040 income tax form
when you were under age and because your parents told you it was a
requirement. They probably did not tell you whether it was a requirement for all
people, or whether it was a requirement ONLY for the people who chose to
intentionally subject themselves to governmental servitude. Your father mostly
likely told you EXACTLY what was previously told to him; and neither of you
asked "how you were MADE liable".

1. Could such a "contract" be considered a BINDING contract?

2. Wouldn't such a "contract" be considered to be one that was "entered" into

204
under DURESS, or one that was "entered" into under UNDUE INFLUENCE
because you were falsely mislead into believing that you had an obligation to do
so?

3. Wouldn't such a "contract" be considered to be one that was "entered" into

by MISTAKE, because you were not knowledgeable regarding the terms and
liabilities of such a contract?

4. Couldn't such a "contract" be found to be fraudulent in nature?

5. Couldn't such a "contract" or agreement be DISCHARGED because of

DURESS, UNDUE INFLUENCE, MISTAKE, or FRAUD?

If you find you have no right of action or recourse against the government
because they are attempting to impose an unlawful tax, use U.C.C., section 3-
601.2 to DISCHARGE the presumed "liability".

"Liability DISCHARGED without prejudice, ---pursuant to U.C.C., 3-

601.3"

Because of circumstances such as this, we MUST know who we are, and

how we fit in (or don't fit in) with the corporate government. As the saying goes:
WE HAVE TO FIND OURSELVES! If we don't know who we are, how can we
expect others to know?

***
Native-born people (NATIONALS of one of the continental states of the
Union) are not affected by government; unless of course, they choose to be via a
contract or agreement.

As mentioned-above, there are two DIFFERENT and DISTINCT United

States, and one does not affect the other, except through contract or agreement.
They are each FOREIGN to the other. Because of fraudulent practices of the
federal United States, we MUST (as sovereign private Nationals) assert our
sovereign status in order to prevent this foreign corporate government from
FALSELY presuming that we somehow come under its jurisdiction.

26 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1-1 states at (A) that:

"the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is
a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section
871(B) or 877(b), on the income of a non-resident alien individual."

Now, if we are foreign to the corporate United States because of our

NATIONAL status, than we obviously ARE alien to this United States, for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.
205
Section 1.871-1 states the manner of taxing alien individuals

"(A) Classes of aliens. For purposes of the income tax, alien individuals are
divided generally into two classes, namely, resident aliens and non-resident
aliens.---

(B) Classes of non-resident aliens -

(1) In general. For purposes of the income tax, non-resident alien individuals
are divided into the following three classes;

(i) Non-resident alien individuals who at no time during the

taxable year are engaged in a trade or business in the United States, and...."

Knowing that we are a National, we must now determine if we have

engaged in a U.S. "trade or business" which could make us subject to the
corporate United States. The answer to this question will determine whether or
not we are a "resident alien" or a "non-resident alien".

Even though we are not living within one of the federally owned territories,
we could still be considered "ONE OF THEIRS" if we are engaged in "resident
business" thereby conducting business via a corporate license, or government
privilege.

If you qualify as a native-born non-regulated individual, who is FOREIGN

to the legislative and territorial jurisdiction of Congress you ARE a NON-
RESIDENT ALIEN for taxation purpose. If you work in private enterprise, your
earnings are not U.S. sourced, nor effectively connected with a U.S. source. If
you meet these requirements, YOU ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE of the
jurisdiction of Congress and the Internal Revenue Service.

The U.S. Government's power and authority is limited to naturalized

Fourteenth Amendment Citizens and individuals who have volunteered to make
themselves SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL United States, i.e. the
District of Columbia. Unless you volunteer to become subject to its jurisdiction
you are, for purposes of Congress and the Internal Revenue Code, a NON-
RESIDENT ALIEN!

Now that you know who you are, you can assert your rights. In the courts,
and with regard to any governmental agency, those RIGHTS can be found in the
Uniform Commercial Code.

***
With regard to SEIZURES, the Internal Revenue Service is LIMITED as to
whose property they can seize. 26 USC, Sections 7301, 7302, 5225(2), and
206
6331 are the sections that state WHO the government can levy and put seizures
upon. ---NONE OF THESE SECTIONS APPLY TO YOU.

These sections are relevant to the Code of Federal Regulations, section

301.663.2-1 which clearly states that the Internal Revenue Service can only levy
government held property of EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS OF THE
GOVERNMENT.

---Now remember, if you are engaged in a privileged corporate business

that is effectively connected to the federal United States you are considered a
resident (or resident alien); and, you ARE an EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL OF
GOVERNMENT.

We have previously been under the misconception that we were subject

to such seizures. FIRST, we were fraudulently led to believe that we are a
Federal Citizen of the United States. SECOND, we were fraudulently led to
believe that we had an obligation to incorporate our businesses, (or to get a
State License); and, because of this, we have SUBJECTED ourselves to the
jurisdiction of the United States Government.

If you do not, knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally, enter into such a

contract CAN YOU BE HELD LIABLE? Wouldn't such a chain of events
constitute FRAUD on the government's part; and Mistake, Duress, or Undue
Influence on your part? Wouldn't such a chain of events leave you WITHOUT
ACTION OR RECOURSE?

---DISCHARGE this presumed liability WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant

to Uniform Commercial Code 3-601.3

***
Because of the United States government's fraudulent behavior, and
because of our incapacity (being unable to prevent government's FALSE
"presumptions"), any contact that we have with this government MUST be
UNDER DURESS and must be conducted ambiguously. U.C.C. 1-103 gives you
a way back to the real LAW:

---"I don't accept these benefits openly; if I have received a benefit, it was
'received' ambiguously because of the fraud in the essence."

---"I would not have accepted a benefit if I had known the ramifications of
the presumed agreement."

Let it be known that you do not accept their "benefit" openly and
voluntarily. --(Obviously, in order to survive you sometimes find yourself in the
position of "RECEIVING" the corporate benefits of government-owned utilities,
government-grown produce, government-raised protein, and many other
207
government-manufactured merchandise.)

---"Receipt" of government "benefits" is under PROTEST, pursuant to

U.C.C. 1-207, and 3-305.2(c).

***
The following are more examples of situations wherein we can
DISCHARGE fraudulent "liabilities" placed upon us by government:

(1) The necessity of doing "business" with one or more government

corporations because of incapacity.

(2) Because the government exchanged gold and silver for valueless
paper money they have "gained" access to your property.

(3) Because this is the only medium of exchange made available to me, it
has "caused" the country and it's people to become "indebted" to government.

STATE THE FOLLOWING: "If I give the appearance of being indebted to

the government, it is because I am left without action or recourse." ---NO
REMEDY AVAILABLE.

---"Liability DISCHARGED, pursuant to U.C.C., Sections 3-303.2(c) and 3-

601.3."

***
Never admit to ACCEPTING a benefit! Although you might be forced to
"receive" it, or "use" it because of a governmental monopoly; never refer to this
incapacity as an acceptance. ---ACCEPTANCE denotes a voluntary action.

***
--TO DISCHARGE UNLAWFUL PROPERTY TAXES--

To discharge an unlawful property tax some patriots have chosen to print

the following information in the newspaper for three consecutive days. To give
this NOTICE, and in order to prevent any governmental agency from
misconstruing said information, some people have even gone so far as to post a
sign containing the following information on their property.

"This property, and all related instruments are held by (name) pursuant to
ALL explicit reservation of rights."
---U.C.C., Sections 1-207 and 3-601.3

If necessary, you could even make the following amendment (under your
signature) to a property deed that is filed in city hall:

208
 ---"Signed pursuant to PRIOR Reservations of Rights, U.C.C., 1-207"

An UNSUBSTANTIATED, or INVALIDATED property tax bill, traffic ticket,

or income tax demand is nothing more than a PRESENTMENT; a presentment
that is sent to you for your consideration. Once you learn the proper procedure,
per the Uniform Commercial Code, you can dishonor and DISCHARGE this
invalid "bill". How can you be guilty of a demand for money?

You have three (3) days to revoke or deny the presumed liability via a
NOTICE OF DISHONOR. If you fail to dishonor this presentment you ACCEPT it
and become liable for the fine.

---Refer to U.C.C, 3-501 regarding a PRESENTMENT and demand

for payment.

---Refer to U.C.C., 3-305 regarding FAILURE to dishonor.

***
In order to dissolve any UNSUBSTANTIATED PRESUMPTION or
assertion made by the government, you should make a statement such as the
following in order to qualify your position regarding their presumption that you are
"accepting benefits from government; --STOP THE FRAUD BY STATING:

PROPER STATEMENT FOR COURT

TO SET YOURSELF UP PROPERLY UNDER THE U.C.C.

The natural person in the instant case shall continue to state, I AM NOT a
resident of the District of Columbia, or a foreign corporation, officer, director,
stockholder, or an employee of a foreign corporation or a citizen of the United
States, or a citizen of any corporate conglomerate state government, and not a
resident of any Federal possession, enclave or fort, etc...; and, if I, of necessity,
receive any governmental benefits and privileges it is without prejudice, whereby
I reserve all rights per the Uniform Commercial Code 1-207. I am therefore not
subject to the colorable law jurisdiction of the United States in the corporate
monopoly of the Federal and the State Governments."

***
One patriot filed a warrant for the arrest of a public official. He did this by
filing it in the public record in the county in which the official resides. Although it
is unlikely that there will ever be an actual arrest, if there are THREE such
warrants filed against the same official, that person cannot renew his bond. --
You must be sure that the individual has INTENTIONALLY acted in a fraudulent,
deceptive manner before taking such measures. I would suggest that you give
this employee proper NOTICE of his fraudulent activities before filing such a
warrant.

209
***
-- SOCIAL SECURITY --

The Social Security Act, ("Federal Insurance Contribution Act") is a

benefit; and a person in possession of such a number is presumed to have
entered into this contract willingly.

The holder of a Social Security contract GUARANTEES the debt of every

other person who participates in the Social Security System (including the
federal government). The Federal Govern-ment, as a CORPORATE PERSON,
has a taxpayer's identification number and participates in this system.

The FEDERAL United States presumes that we, as numbered "persons",

have secured the public debt; ---therefore, we are a PARTY to the National Debt.
This is why the presumption is made that we are liable.

---(The government ONLY guarantees old age benefits IF there is money

left over after covering the public debt.)

Because most people are not aware of the fraudulent ramifications

surrounding his or her possession of a Social Security number, (or Taxpayer's
Identification Number); or because they are not aware of how to assert their
rights, (through U.C.C.), these "obligations" and "liabilities" DO ATTACH.
Through Social Security, WE GIVE the United States Government an
UNLIMITED credit card stating that we will pay their debt.

---Refer to U.C.C., 2-608 regarding how to REVOKE an agreement in

COLORABLE law.

***
We must remember that the U.S. courts are not courts of law. THEY ARE
COURTS OF COLORABLE LAW, and it is imperative that we know how to
discharge said liability through the correct forum; --the Uniform Commercial
Code. [When in their courts, WE MUST PLAY BY THEIR RULES!]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF COLORABLE LAW: Recently the Supreme

Court ruled that it is NOT unlawful for law enforcement agencies to set up road
blocks and stop ALL vehicles in order to determine if the driver is driving under
the influence of alcohol. This law was passed in order to raise revenue to pay off
the national debt. Accordingly, it is the debtor's responsibility to prove he is not a
debtor, OBVIOUSLY, such a rule would not come out of a Court of LAW. Such
a ruling is completely contrary to the Fourth Amendment.

***
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

210
 The following two situations are cases where a defendant entered an
affirmative defense in the federal courts and got his case dismissed. In both of
these cases the defendants had raised the issue of bankruptcy.

---The FIRST, involved a traffic ticket. In this case, after the judge read
the defendant's motion regarding bankruptcy, he said:

---"You are using a lot of colorable law..."; and then he, (the judge),
asked the defendant, "...You WERE driving on such and such road, right?"

"IF I WAS, I DID SO WITHOUT PREJUDICE under U.C.C. 1-207."

THE CASE WAS DISMISSED!

---In the SECOND situation, regarding a demand for money, the

defendant said:

"If the government said I owe it, I probably owe it; but the government
PUT me in this situation...by taking away my gold and silver and leaving me with
nothing but COLORABLE negotiable instruments...etc."

"...I did what I did without prejudice, U.C.C. 1-207."

The judge RULED in FAVOR of the defendant.

----The following responses might be appropriate in your situation.:

"If it appears that I am 'AN EMPLOYEE' it is without prejudice....U.C.C. 1-

207."

"If it appears that I am 'A RESIDENT' it is without prejudice....U.C.C. 1-

207."

"If it appears that I am 'A CITIZEN' it is without prejudice....U.C.C. 1-207."

---(See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(C) and compare this rule
with U.C.C. 1-103 pertaining to an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.)

Remember, these titles (EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT, or CITIZEN) do not, in

themselves, make an individual subject to government servitude; it is the things
that automatically come along with such a title, the benefit and privileges that
MAKE him subject to the STATE and FEDERAL government.

***
YOU MUST KNOW WHO YOU ARE and how your status fits in, or
DOESN'T FIT IN), with the STATE and FEDERAL governments. You might want
211
to memorize something to the following effect:

"I AM NOT a resident/citizen because I DO NOT have a address or

residence WITHIN this corporate STATE or the federal UNITED STATES; and I
DO NOT participate in the collection of the National Debt of bankruptcy."

"If it appears that I have received any "benefits" from the government,
they were 'received' without prejudice under U.C.C. 1-207."

***
Prove that the government is "acting" in a fraudulent manner by claiming
to be bankrupt. They claim to hold title to all property. They claim to hold the
title to everyone's automobile. The claim all mineral rights. Plus, they are
obviously in possession of all the gold and silver that they fraudulently
exchanged for valueless commercial paper.

Prove FRAUD under U.C.C. 1-103, and DISCHARGE any assumed

liability under U.C.C. 3-601.3.

(1) "I had no RIGHT OF ACTION or RECOURSE against this government's

colorable law that was instituted for the collection of revenue to pay the national
debt."

(2) "I would not accept any liability if I had an understanding of the
'agreement'."

(3) "Because of my lack of understanding, I did NOT enter into said 'contract'
or 'agreement' knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally."

(4) "Any presumption to the contract was fraudulent in nature. Government

officials have a duty to inform me of my rights (remedy) pursuant to U.C.C. 3-
305."

In all cases where a "defendant" accused the government of pretending to

be bankrupt the judge dismissed the case. Once we learn the proper Procedure
we can go after these wrong-doers by charging them with FRAUD.

***
This same section, U.C.C. 3-601.3, pertains to Habeas Corpus; ---No
Right or Recourse, NO INJURED PARTY.

No person can be held in jail if he is being held for a COLORABLE crime

against the United States Government: BUT, as we know, it is being done
everyday. Are we asserting our rights in the WRONG forum?

212
 In Conclusion

These teachings are for our benefit. There a many more things you can do to
fight the $y$tem. Most are simple to learn. The best way to beet them is with
the truth. If you know you are not in the wrong you will be able to find a law that
can prove that. Other methods I take are the big three:

Writs of Habeas Corpus

Writs of Certiorari

Writs of Mandamus

Good luck.

Lou Levite, Jr.

All Rights Reserved
UCC-1-207

213