Link
ARE YOU SUBJECT TO

All Pages

Dear Reader,
Please read the following document with an open mind. It is not intended to offend anyone. I am a legal historian that has taken me on a journey way beyond my own beliefs of the way I thought things are, or the way I thought things should be that has changed my life forever. Its purpose is to alert the people of just what is happening to America based upon facts in the law. It has taken the author, who is not a lawyer and never went to law school, but graduated from the school of real hard knocks, 40 years to research, develop, and compile this information. Most of what you will read you probably will not understand, but if you keep pecking away at it, the lights will come on one by one. A page has been taken from Ayn Rand to tell the following facts in many different ways hoping the reader will find the nitch to understanding.
The American people became bankrupt in 1933. As a result of the bankruptcy and the coming of the massive debt load by the people, the government has launched a reorganization plan. In other words, public policy has shifted from a policy of

pay as you go to a very dangerous policy of go and pay later. In order to cloud the bankruptcy and reorganization issue, the government has been involved in huge misinformation programs that spawn many conspiracy theories, tabloids, and websites, that are nothing more than gobbledygook to lead people into chasing rabbits thus, creating confusion in order to neutralize opposition. Diversion protects the private banking, insurance, and investment interest involved in the bankruptcy and reorganization that the individual has a vested interested in through social security, insurance, and retirement. In fact and in law there is no vast conspiracy, just pure greed and egos. The whole bureaucracy has taken on a life of its own driven by the people’s greed. The more debt that is created by people by not taking on the responsibilities for themselves, the less freedoms and liberties they will have until all life is choked out of those who are subject to the 14th Amendment.
Title 48 United States Code of Federal Regulations discloses names and everything the federal government is doing and what is in those federal regulations is a far cry from the vast conspiracy propagandist in whatever form, disseminating half truths, innuendoes, and absolute lies. Unknown to most conspirators, they become agents for the government by adding to even more mass confusion.
The truth of the matter is, there is in reality no Government in Washington D.C., instead there is a mass bureaucracy floated on debt and credit that is driven by hundreds of associations that are comprised of private parties. Some of these associations are unincorporated thus are not recognized by law as a legal entity. Neither the Constitution of the United States or the common law forbids such associations, but tolerates them. In other words, these associations operate outside the Separation of Powers Doctrine as enumerated to the Constitution of United States. The Constitution was designed to protect the individual and the right to enter into contracts without Government intervention. These private associations control the bureaucracies that enact administrative laws that are to benefit the members of the associations. All this is accomplished by and through contract law that the members have volunteered into. Before the bankruptcy we had a Government of free enterprise whereby private unincorporated associations could not meddle with the law because they were not legal entities. Today the government is private enterprise run by an unincorporated association called public policy. Those public policy laws directly affect the masses that contracted with the association for their own benefit. In other words, you have both of your hands around your neck choking yourself. All you have to do is release your hands. I have met the enemy and it is I. Sad to say, but voting today is nothing more than electing who has the money to buy the election and select what brand of mass confusion and mayhem will lead the nation into a communist dictatorship. There is no standard of values because the law treats a bankrupt people as outlaws and fictitious “persons”.
ARE YOU “SUBJECT TO” ©

Monday September 1, 2008

The 14th Amendment reads in part:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. (Bold emphasis added)

The 14th amendment is an executive order (proclamation) Vol. 1 of Presidential Executive Orders, 2 vols. (N.Y.: Books, Inc., 1944—Copyright by Mayor of N.Y. 1944).

“[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co., 1906), vol. 1, pp. 45-47.

“And subject to”. The question is who is “subject to” the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment made everybody a commercial citizen. With the advent of the explosion of commerce in the early 1800’s, man started to venture into other jurisdictions in quest of his business ventures, and in so doing, became subject to the laws of those various foreign jurisdictions. As long as he remained free from debt he could still maintain his permanent domicile in the state wherein he had his domicile. In other words, he remained under the protection of the common law of his state with absolute property rights to all his property. Any and all claims by the state could only come about by trial by jury in both civil and criminal claims. In said claims there had to be a franchise or immunity that the citizen had with the state or there was no jurisdiction. The same pertained to the federal government. The minute he became a debtor, he could no longer establish a permanent domicile, i.e., remain a Citizen of the Common Law of “the State” wherein he was domiciled, thus, he became a resident. This is the rule of private international law, and the law of nations. To further prove the above statement it is read:
In his treatise on the “History of Land Titles in Massachusetts”, (1801), James Sullivan, former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court at pp. 337-338 stated:

Personal estate is not fixed to any place or country, and contracts depend on the jus gentium (the general law of nations) for their origin and their expositions, rather than on any municipal regulations of particular countries.
It is observed by Justinian, that the law of nations is held in common by all the world; and that all contracts had their origin in those necessities of mankind, which urged them to buying, selling, etc. … As personal contracts are founded in commerce, they cannot rest on the particular laws of one country only; but ought to be the subject of those principles of the general law of nations, which are acknowledged by the world.

Our Constitution represents the law of a public incorporated association, the Constitution being the Charter of that public incorporated association. Former Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Maurice (U.S.) 26 Fed Cas. 1211, stated, at page 1216: “The United States is a government, and consequently a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers, for important purposes.” Quoted In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 506, 141 N.Y. 479. The American People created the National corporation; the National corporation did not create the people. As the Preamble says: “We the People in Order to form a more perfect Union … .” Establish public money for the “payment” of private debt as per the National Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 at Statute I United States Statutes at Large Chap. XVI Section I. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, . . .” See also Sec. 14 and 16 of said Act. [Italics in original]
In other words, the Constitution is a common law document1 that spells out what powers the Government has, if it does not appear in the Charter the Government does not have that power. Our Constitution guaranteed two distinct things, the separation of powers doctrine, i.e., executive, judicial, legislative, under Articles I, II, III, and the Common Law of “the States” that was definitive by Article I Section 10 on the subject of “Payment of Debt” in Law under our National “Standard” lawful money (hereinafter “Standard” lawful money) and the Contract clause of Article I Section 10. “Standard” lawful money in “Payment” of debt in and of itself was not and can never be considered commerce; whereas debt/credit is commerce and foreign to the Common Law of the various States and the sovereignty of the individual’s contract rights. In other words, in the Common Law of “the State”, there is a meeting of the minds and the terms of the contract are spelled out bilaterally with no third party intervention. Today the third party is the government administering the public debt through one sided unilateral contracts that the people have signed into through the banks and various agencies.
The 14th Amendment implies everybody is a U.S. citizen primarily and a citizen of “this state” secondarily whereas; before the amendment everybody was considered primarily State Citizens of “the state”, secondarily U.S. citizens.2 Being a commercial citizen you could or can remain a Citizen of your State primarily despite the fact that there is no “Standard” lawful money. With the advent of HJR 192, on June 5, 1933 (48 Stat 113, P.L. 73-10), Codified at Title 31 United States Code Section 5118 2d, (hereinafter HJR 192 attached at end). It is now presumed you are a debtor/creditor because Congress says it is against public policy to demand “payment”. If you can go into debt, but you cannot “pay” your debts at Law, you are presumed to be a debtor/creditor in “discharge” of debts. If you are a debtor/creditor then you are primarily a U.S. citizen. All that is needed is evidence that you are a debtor.
These private unincorporated associations have no charter and have always been a thorn in the side to “the states” common law and the sovereignty of the individual with the Justinian devised concept of controlling people’s actions with contract law. In other words, you enslave yourself with your own signature on any government form or forms. Introduction of the unincorporated association(s) was accomplished by the use of contract law whereby people could join together for a common purpose. In other words, people contracted with each other under the Common Law to do certain things such as forming an unincorporated association for a commercial enterprise. The problem was, the people contracted to enter into private international law thus, in a conspiracy and detriment to the Common Law of “the State”. The common law of “the state” was helpless to stop them because of Article I Section 10’s contract clause. The common law does not forbid such associations, but only tolerates them by controlling them, thus, the Constitution provides a remedy that we will explore.
Commercial citizenship was nothing new to the founders of this great Nation. The Law of Nations recognized commercial citizenship long before United States of America was founded. It is or was the commercial citizenship of the 14th Amendment that was invoked to help solve the problem of making people of color a part of our great Nation.
The problem of slavery between the north and south came to a head before the 14th
Amendment went into effect. Congress in 1861 enacted the War Powers Act under Article I Section 8 cl. 11 to the Constitution to deal with the Civil War. Today those war powers are still in effect with the war on drugs, war on poverty etc., not under Article I, but under private international law, through Article IV Section 3 cl.2,3 in addition to a National Emergency declared in 1933 that brought about drastic changes how the 14th Amendment operates. Senate Report 93-549 (1973), declared since March 9, 1933 we are in a national emergency. Said emergency brought about HJR 192 supra.
Despite Congresses’ War Powers and the ability to create a National Emergency, Congress cannot override your personal liberties with public policy to discharge an obligation via HJR 192.4
It must also be mentioned here that under the war powers act there are no true 5th Amendment protections. See Miller v. United States 78 U.S. 144.
What had been a banking system that dealt primarily with a money backed system of public money for private debt before 1933 has since developed into a primarily backed debt/credit banking system of private money for public debt. Despite the fact of private money for public debt, the fact remains that there still remains two distinct sides to the banks. There is the incorporated side that deals in currency and coin of the United States under the general (commercial) federal common law, i.e., Article I Section 8; and the unincorporated side that deals in debt/credit under private international law i.e., Article IV Sec 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment. “Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates and to the business which is to be transacted.” The Bank of United States v. Planters Bank 9 Wheat. 904, 907 (22 U.S. 904). In other words, by contract law, you hold the key as to what side of the law you have entered into.
The National Banks were reorganized by the National Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933.
The banking charter spells out what the new duties and liabilities of the banking association are such
as lending currency etc. In other words, a corporate charter governs the banks through Article I Section 8 to the Constitution.
The unincorporated side of the banks and the insolvency or bankruptcy of the people was announced by HJR 192 and exists to this very day. There is no charter to spell out the terms, conditions, and liabilities of the new unincorporated banking association that deals in debt/credit. Since 1933, it is now presumed that by HJR 192, that you are using the debt/credit of public policy whereby everybody reinsures everybody else in the communal debt as evidenced by Title 15 United States Code (hereinafter USC) Chap. 41 Sec. 1602 (c), (d), (e). There is no corporate charter to control the association, the association and its members must be controlled by bureaucrats and administrative codes that the courts take judicial notice of the difference between the two different jurisdictions. The letter and strict meaning and interpretation of the law in the incorporated side; the spirit and true meaning of the law in the unincorporated side. This is why we don’t get the Constitutional protection we think we have. You must also keep in mind the law as evidenced by the Constitution does not deal with debt/credit. Those who deal in the unincorporated side of the banks and its debt/credit are in a conspiracy to destroy the grounded substance of “the states” that Congress and the courts by the Constitution are bound to protect. See Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113 infra. Therefore, in order to protect the grounded substance of the states from our greed, incompetence etc., Congress acting under local law, i.e., Article IV Section 3, cl.2 or territorial law passes legislation to control our actions. Debt created that cannot be “Payed” in Law, i.e., “discharge” of debt creates compelled performance in equity, eventually putting more demands on the substance of the land than the land can handle. In order to protect the land, the government creates all these bureaucracies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Act, etc., that in turn destroys your freedoms, and ownership of property, real and personal, and the rights thereto. Essentially, we are financing our own destruction with the use of debt/credit for sake of expediency and convenience. More on this infra.
Title 15 USC Trade and Commerce, Chap. 41, Section 1602 in part to wit:
(c) The term ''organization'' means a corporation, government or
governmental subdivision or agency, trust, estate, partnership,
cooperative, or association.
(d) The term ''person'' means a natural person or an
organization.
(e) The term ''credit'' means the right granted by a creditor to
a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its
payment. [Bold emphasis added] [“forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors”]

Title 12, Banks and Banking, USC 95(a) (1), (A) reads:
Section 95a. Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency
that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he
may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise –

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in
foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by,
through, or to any banking institution, and the importing,
exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver
coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void,
prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use,
transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation
of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege
with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which
any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of
any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and
upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person
as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon
such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such
interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated,
sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the
benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person
may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or
furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the
manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full
record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or
otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction
referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the
completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign
property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country
or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be
otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision,
and in any case in which a report could be required, the President
may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or
if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of
any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or
other papers, in the custody or control of such person.



(3) As used in this subdivision the term ''United States'' means
the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction
thereof; Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be
construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is
hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not
inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all
of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision
the term ''person'' means an individual, partnership, association,
or corporation [Bold emphasis added]

The people in mass, that is, public policy gave up “Payment” of debt in Law and unilaterally agreed to “discharge” their debt with its consequences of compelled performance in equity.
There is a distinction between a “debt discharged” and a “debt paid.” When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment. Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 784.

HJR 192 is a violation of Article I Section 10 to the U.S. Constitution as regards “the State” on the subject of “Payment”, and is the reason you cannot be compelled to be in a debtor/creditor relationship. There is no such injunction of “Payment” in Law in the Constitution at the federal level. There is no federal common law. Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. 591 (1834). No federal common law is the reason the federal government can pass notes that are legal tender and lawful money under Article I Section 8. In fact, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is the only mention of the federal powers that deals with money, not private debt/credit. See Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio RR 294 U.S. 312 where Congress noted the distinction between credit and currency.

1 See Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113, infra.

2The primary purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn the doctrine of state citizenship being primary to federal citizenship being primary to those to whom it applies. Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967). The 14th amendment states “and subject to”. The amendment does not say everybody is “subject to” the amendment.

3The best way to understand the United States Constitution as the founders wrote it is in a three dimensional form that has three departments of government under the separation of powers doctrine in the land of reality. The legislature, executive and judicial under Articles I, II, III. Article III courts reflect common law principles derived from the grounded substance of the common law of the states with it’s hard Coin and physical borders outlined in each states’ constitution via Article IV sec. 3 cl.1 that reflects the separation of powers. Said separation of powers that includes the first 10 amendments.. The law of nations is part of that three dimensional document.
Contrary to the three dimensional form in reality; we have a spiritual form in the land of make believe of debt/credit. We will call the form a over lay that you can see only the legislative and executive under Articles I and II. The judicial branch being filtered out because of privileges and immunities under private international law that create administrative courts under control of Congress under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2; amendments 11 and 14. Quite obviously there is no separation of powers. UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 3 CL.2 WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, THE DIFFERENT LAW FORUMS SUCH AS THE COMMON LAW, ADMIRALTY-MARITIME, CIVIL LAW, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE LAW OF TRUSTS, LAW AS OPPOSED TO EQUITY HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED AND ARE NOW TREATED AS ONE AND THE SAME. THIS IS WHY IT IS SO DIFFICULT IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING TO AMERICA. IN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
When the founding fathers meet in public meetings drawing up the Constitution; you will also read that the founders held private meetings to the exclusion of the public. These private meetings were held to formulate private Roman law (private international law) under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. Said Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 created Conflict of Law with the PUBLIC (commercial) international law under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1. PUBLIC international law was also known as the PUBLIC law merchant under the law of nations where all debts were to be paid in gold and silver. Said law of nations is not to be confused with the United Nations which is private international law where debts are not to be paid in gold and silver but “discharged” with compelled performance.
The rights of man do not come from government, they come from God. The reason the founders talked about God so much was that the constitution’s original intent was that privileges and immunities do not come from God but from government. Tom Jefferson stated: “All men are created equal”, meaning no man is born with special privileges and immunities before the natural law. What a terrifying thought as we witness destruction of God in our society today. World history is repeat of the idea that government creates man that has produced a long line of tyrants. We are going down the same road called Marxism. In the mind it sounds good but in reality it will never work along with the other tyrannies because you will never control mans greed and incompetence, therefore, the less government we have, the less greed, incompetence, corruption and control.

4Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions [290 U.S. 398, 426] which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system. Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).
While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. 'Although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.' Wilson v. New, 243 US 332, 348. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. Thus, the war power of the federal government is not created by the emergency of war, but it is a power given to meet that emergency. It is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme co-operative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120-127; United States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 633, 627; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 US 146, 155; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 US 81, 88. When the provisions of the Constitution, in grant or restriction, are specific, so particularized as not to admit of construction, no question is presented. Thus, emergency would not permit a state to have more than two Senators in the Congress, or permit the election of President by a general popular vote without regard to the number of electors to which the States are respectively entitled, or permit the States to 'coin money' or to 'make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.' But, where constitutional grants and limitations of power are set forth in general clauses, which afford a broad outline, the process of construction is essential to fill in the details. That is true of the contract clause. The necessity of construction is not obviated by [290 U.S. 398, 427] the fact that the contract clause is associated in the same section with other and more specific prohibitions. Even the grouping of subjects in the same clause may not require the same application to each of the subjects, regardless of differences in their nature. Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934). See Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449, 505; Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 US 427, 434.
No attempt has been made to fix definitely the line between alterations of the remedy, which are to be deemed legitimate, and those which, under the form of modifying the remedy, impair substantial rights. Every case must be determined upon its own circumstances.' And Chief Justice Waite, quoting this language in Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 US 769, 775. 'In all such cases the question becomes, therefore, one of reasonableness, and of that the legislature is primarily the judge.' [290 U.S. 398, 431] The obligations of a contract are impaired by a law which renders them invalid, or releases or extinguishes them. (Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 197, 198) and impairment, as above noted, has been predicated of laws which without destroying contracts derogate from substantial contractual rights.Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, supra, 290 U.S. 398 (1934). [Bold emphasis added]
When your rights to Pay debts at law have been unlawfully refused under by H.J.R. 192, (48 Stat 113); that is only prima facie evidence of the law. You have the Constitutional power to stand on Article I Section 10 in defense of your person and property against all unlawful assaults and seizures. This includes the right of refusal to mortgage his future performances in discharge of a debt to a private unincorporated banking association in perpetual succession. “If any subsequent law affect to diminish the duty or to impair the right, it necessarily bears on the obligation of the contract, in favor of one party to the injury of the other; hence any law which in its operation amounts to a denial or obstruction of the rights accruing by a contract, though professing to act only on the remedy, is directly obnoxious to the prohibition of the constitution.” Poindexter v. Greenhow 114 U.S. 270, 304. “The state itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is a lawless usurpation. The constitution of the state is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and state are subject to the supremacy of the constitution of the United States, and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. . . . That which, therefore, is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. It was upon the ground of this important distinction that this court proceeded in the case of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700.” Poindexter v. Greenhow supra, 270, 290.
A statute valid at one time may become void at another because of altered circumstances. Nashville, C. & S. L. Railway v. Walters, 294 US 405. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory its validity, even though affirmed by former adjudication is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. Re Opinion of Justices, 278, 181 NE 833. This principle is applicable to acts of Congress. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 US 146. [HJR 192]
[L]egislation which deprives one of the benefit of a contract, or adds new duties or obligations thereto, necessarily impairs the obligation of the contract, and when the state court gives effect to subsequent [federal local law] legislation which has the effect to impair contract rights by depriving the parties of their benefit, and make requirements which the contract did not theretofore impose upon them, a case is presented for the jurisdiction of this court. Northern Pacific R. v. Minn. 208 U.S. 583, 592 (1908), Ouoting New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 US 336, 350.
“Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty or property.” Western & A. R. Co. v. Henderson, 279 U.S. 639, citing Manley v. Georgia 279 U.S. 1, holding invalid certain laws which made legal presumptions without proof of sufficient basis of liability. Taken from p. 262 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corp. Vol. 1 Chap. 1.
Valid contracts have the status of property for the purpose of the guaranty of due process of law. N.H. Lyons & Co. v. Corsi 3 NY 2d 928 167 NYS2d 945, 145 NE2d 885, app dismd 355 US 284; People ex rel. Rodgers v. Coler, 166 NY 1, 59 NE 716, and as such are protected from being taken without just compensation, whether the obligator is a private individual, a municipality, a state, or the United States. Lynch v. United States 292 US 571.
Other courts have stated that the liberty to make contracts includes the corresponding right to refuse to accept a contract or to assume such liability as may be proposed. St. Louis S.R. Co. v. Griffin, 106 Tex 477, 171 SW 703; Seattle High School Chapter A. F. T. v. Sharples, 159 Wash 424, 293 P 994.
A person cannot be forced to do a thing which he did not agree to do because it is like, and no more burdensome than, something which he did contract to do. Crane Ice Cream Co. v. Terminal Freezing & Heating Co., 147 Md 588, 128 A 280. Taken from 16 A Am Jur § 592, p. 524.

The federal Government’s incorporated powers under Article I of the Constitution have been established within the 10 square mile area in Washington D.C. All the unincorporated federal powers such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, etc. are outside the 10 square mile area. They get their powers from the people who have volunteered by contract (public policy), into the unincorporated association under Article IV Section 3 cl.2.
Although the Federal Reserve System is a private banking entity it is within the 10 square mile area because the Federal Government is in a contract with the Federal Reserve to produce the nation’s money supply because there is no prohibition in the U.S. Constitution to prohibit such a contract.
Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives Congress authority to enact statutes such as Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Act, etc., that become the penal clauses of the contract that you have used to enter interstate commerce via private international law. When you don't perform, an agency/agent cites you, and the courts through an administrative procedure, causes you to perform to the contract through fines or whatever. Your performance is required to support this public debt/credit system. Despite the debt/credit system, you cannot be forced into a debt/credit relationship with an unincorporated banking association. You can operate in the Law within the bounds of the incorporated state without all the controlling conditions of Congress and all the agencies of the state and local governments applying to you, but you must refrain from creating the liability.
Article IV Section 3 cl.1 of the Constitution is the power given to Congress to deal with incorporated states.
[clause 1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV Section 3 cl.2 is the power given to Congress to deal with unincorporated states.

[clause 2] The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 stated:

Literally, the word “territory”, as here used, signifies property, since the language is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.” There thus arises an evident difference between the words “the territory” and “a territory” of the United States. The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth's surface-the imperially extensive real estate holdings of the Nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a “territory”, but which quite as well could have been called a “colony” … “province” . . . . ‘A territory, under the Constitution and laws of United States is an inchoate state,” quoting Ex parte Morgan D.C. 20 Fed 298, 305. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933). [Bold emphasis added]

The. An Article which particularizes the subject spoken of. “Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the Articles ‘a’ and ‘the’. The most unlettered persons understand that ‘a’ is indefinite, but ‘the’ refers to a certain object.” Black’s Law Dict. 5th Ed.

The status and rank of territorial governments, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Snow v. United States. 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 317, stated: government territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress, and secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. They are mere dependencies of the United States. Their people do not constitute a sovereign power. This decision is based upon the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution as determined by Congress under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. [bold underline emphasis added]
The Court, in Kansas v. Colorado. 206 U.S. 46 (1906) at 89 speaking of Article IV, Section 3 stated, "it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its property. That is implied by the words 'territory or other property ‘ ...it has been referred to in some decisions as granting political and legislative control over the territories as distinguished from the states of the Union."[Bold emphasis added]
The Court held in First National Bank v. Yankton County. 101 U.S. 129, that "A territorial government is an agency employed by Congress". and further; The organic act of a territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of local government. Congress is supreme of its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved by the prohibitions of the Constitution.
A "territory" of the United States is a portion of the country not included within the limits of any state and not yet admitted as a state into the Union, but organized under the laws of Congress. People of State of New York ex reI. Kopel v. Bingham, 81 N.E. 773, 89 N.Y. 124, affirmed 211 U.S. 468, See also, 148 F. 505, 507, citing De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, In re Lane,135 U.S. 447, Ex Parte Morgan, 20 F. 298, 305.
In McAllister v. United States 141 U.S. 174, (1891), the Supreme Court held that territorial courts are not established under the authority of Article III of the Constitution, but rather are legislative courts established under the property clause.
And in Williams v. United States 289 U.S. 553, (1933), the Court observed that the authority granted to territorial courts to hear and decide controversies arising in the territories of the United States is judicial power, but is not that judicial power granted by § 1 and defined by § 2 of Article III of the Constitution; rather it is derived from the property clause.
What the McAllister and Williams Court is saying is, the judicial Power (small “j” capital “P”)
is the Article III courts give access to the general (commercial) federal common law whereas; the other Judicial power (capital “J” and small “p”) as mentioned in the 11th amendment you are a “person” treated as “other property “subject to” Art. IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment.
In other words, you are the creation of the government and there is no such thing as the separation
of powers doctrine. Check the spelling in your copy of the constitution. Are you beginning to
understand federal mandates and why the courts render the rulings they hand down.
It must also be mentioned here that Title 18 sec. 5 US Criminal Code to wit:

The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone. [Bold print emphasis underline added]

Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof, Binns v. United States, 194 US 491 (1904). See also Sere v. Pitot, 10 US (6 Cr) 332, 336 1810); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 US 15, 44 (1885), which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress, Walker v. New Mexico & S.P.R. Co., 165 US 593, 604 (1897); Simms v. Simms 175 US 162, 163, (1899); Wagoner v. Evans, 170 US 588, 591 (1898).
[Congress serves a dual function, i.e., enacting local laws under Article IV Sect. 3 cl.2 or general laws pertaining to Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 and Art. I ]. The constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 271 (1901) but not in unincorporated territories. Downes v. Bidwell 182 US 244. [Bold emphasis added]
The Constitution is a Charter whereby the people formed an incorporated association under the Common Law that is evidenced by that document that spells out what the duties of Government are. The Constitution does not restrict the individual’s right to contract into an unincorporated association under private international law should they desire. The Constitution must provide you free access to the law of your choice, or the Constitution becomes a dictatorship.
In fact, the Constitution of U.S. does not deal with individuals, it is a limit on the powers of Governments whereas; the Bill of Rights pertains to individuals. The first 10 Amendments deal with the incorporated side under the general (commercial) federal common law of Swift v. Tyson 16 Peters 1 (1842). In other words, interstate commerce under the general (commercial) federal common law is still available under Swift despite Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) to those who are free of diversity of citizenship under the 14th amendment with its debt/credit. In the May 1984 issue of Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97 No. 7 noted: that whether Erie RR v. Tompkins supra, or Swift v Tyson supra, is to apply is a contractual right up to the individual.
Decided the same day as Erie Railroad supra, the Court in Hinderlider v. La Plata 304 US 92 noted: “Where there are no state statutes or case decisions that the Federal Courts may rely on, then we may say that there is a federal common law specifically created by the Federal Courts themselves and applicable to those areas where State laws cannot be relied upon.” If the common law (Anglo-American) is nothing else, it is the history of the struggle of trial by jury against the civil law of the Roman (private international law) and Germanic Empires. Law that is ministerial and inquisitory is not “the common law” … it is the civil law of Rome and Germany. Every allusion in D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 315 U.S. 447 is to “The common law,” not to civil law. Take note that the Roman civil law is now called under the conflict of laws “private international law”. The reason is a story in and of itself that we will not delve into. Does George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770-1831 and Karl Marx 1818-1883 sound familiar??? The rest of the amendments deal with private international law of the unincorporated association. Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives the government the authority to regulate unincorporated associations through what is also known as local law. As commerce began to explode, the founding fathers knew, and is the reason Ben Franklin said, “we have given you a Republic, the question is, can you keep it?”; that the people would be more interested in making money than producing money. Consequently, the “Standard” lawful money in “Payment” of Debt in the Common Law of “the State” i.e., public money for private debt that belonged to the people individually as sovereigns. To the contrary, there is now a debt/credit system in “discharge” of debt in equity (no twelve man jury) among the people of the several federal states under private international law, i.e., private money for public debt. Under the U.S. Constitution, a strong central Government is designed to protect the grounded substance of “the states” from the unincorporated associations, i.e., private international law. Had we remained under the Articles of Confederation, and went bankrupt in 1933, we would have fallen into the clutches of foreign investors and their country’s foreign laws to which there would have been no escape and no return to the common law. Because of Article I Section 10 the debt would have been subject to a bilateral agreement, and the debt, by the law of nations, follows the laws of the domicile of the creditor. As it now stands, the people have control of the debt and can abolish the debt when they are ready. The people have reinsured each other by contract in a debtor/creditor relationship that is a one sided unilateral contract in the world of make believe under Title 15 Trade and Commerce. Is there a vast conspiracy? Yes, but it is not the vast conspiracy everybody thinks it is. It is a conspiracy of the people against the grounded substance of the states through commercial law.
The founders had to put in a protection devise to protect the substance of the grounded substance of the states as evidenced by Article I Section 10 against these unincorporated associations created under Article IV Section 3 cl.2. In other words, the federal Government under the Constitution is bound to protect the grounded substance of “the states”, but at the same time preserves your right to enter into private international law.
“. . . for the sake of distinction from the other branch or portion of English law, be called the "territorial" or ‘local’ law of England. This territorial law constitutes indeed so much the oldest and most important part of English law that it has been constantly taken to be, and treated as, the whole of the law of the land. *Blackstone's Commentaries, for example, though written with the avowed object of describing the whole of the ‘law of England’ contain no mention of any rules which do not belong to the territorial or local law. . . . . For the term ‘law of a given country’ has, at least, two meanings. It may mean, and this is its most proper sense, every rule enforced by the Courts of that country. It may mean, from LEADING CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW on the other hand, and this is a very usual sense, that part of the rules enforced by the Courts of a given country which makes up the ‘local' or ‘territorial’ law of a country.” Quoting, by John W. Dwyer, Chapter I, NATURE OF THE SUBJECT, pp. 4, 5, Callaghan Co. (1904).
A local law is one which operates over a particular locality instead of over the whole territory of the state. Ulrich v. Beatty, 216 N.E.2d 737, 746. One which relates to particular persons or things or to particular persons or things of a class or which operates on or over a portion of a class instead of all of the class. In re Annexation of Reno Quartermaster Depot Military Reservation to, Independent School Dist. No.34. Canadian County, Okl., 69 P.2d 659, 662. [Bold emphasis added] [Particular persons or things of a class meaning 14th amendment “persons” or things i.e., a debt res.] or strawman. (more on strawman infra). One whose operation is confined within territorial limits, other than those of the whole state or any properly constituted class or locality therein. State v. Kallas, 94 P.2d 414, 420; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 S.W.2d 360, 364. Whole state refers to “the state” as opposed to “this state”.
SOCIAL SECURITY THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST

Being there is no prohibition under Article IV Sec. 3 or any other provisions of the Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an association of new unincorporated several federal states. As noted in Article IV supra, there is no charter of incorporation by HJR 192 of the newly created several federal states and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents and purposes; a resulting or implied (charitable) trust is formed by operation of law.5 That when said “persons” try to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of other members of the association; the government commences a court action under local law (the association) whereby the court constructs a trust based upon a intangible debt res or strawman. The court creates a quasi in rem jurisdiction i.e., attaching the res while moving against the person or strawman This term originated under the ancient rules of admiralty-maritime law. More on admiralty-maritime infra, “or as current thought has it, there is a presumption of a gift for charitable purposes where no consideration or use is mentioned; thus, that “person” as a member of the association is liable on the principle of agency.” See UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS Chapter V, Non-Profit Associations, pp. 199, 208 by Sidney Wrightington of the Boston Bar. Little, Brown & Co. Publisher, Boston (1916). [Bold emphasis added].
From the book THE LAW RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS by Dennis Lloyd, Street & Maxwell, London, (1938) it is read: “It is an axiomatic proposition in the law of contract that the agreement of the parties cannot affect the legal position of other persons who were not parties to the contract. As regards them the contract is res inter alios acta and of no effect. This rule has important consequences as regards voluntarily associations, or it means that no agreement between the members of such an association can affect the rights of others not parties to the agreement. The members of an unincorporated society, for example, agree that their personal liability for the transactions of the society shall be limited to a certain sum. Though this will be binding on the members inter se, it can have no effect whatever on third parties who have not consented to the limitation of liability, and as regards these, the members will be liable to the full extent. . . . .
English law, however, has been more fortunate in possessing a further legal relationship which could be established by agreement and which enabled objects to be achieved which were beyond the reach of contract. This relationship, which has come to be called the trust, has played a great role in enabling associations to form and maintain them in a satisfactory legal position without being incorporated, at times when the State was most hostile towards corporations” (Footnotes omitted.) (Bold italics emphasis added).
Association is “confederacy or union for particular purpose, good or ill. This term is used throughout the United States to signify a body of persons united without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies, for the prosecution of some common enterprise. It also enters into the names bestowed by the legislatures upon many corporations. In this connection it is used without any very uniform discrimination as to its precise meaning, but seems to be on the whole preferred for bodies which are not vested with full and perfect corporate rights and powers.” Allen v. Steven’s, 54 N.Y.S. 8, 23, 33 App.Div. 485.
“An indefinite or uncertain trust res is fatal to the trust as no subject matter whatever.” Wilce v. Van Anden, 358, 94 N.E. 42, 140 Am.St.Rep. 212, 21 Ann. Cas. 153, LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 72 (1973).
“An unincorporated association at common law is not a legal person, has not the capacity to receive title to property, and hence cannot be a trustee.” Restatement, Trusts, Second §§ 89-100. LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 90 (1973). [underline added] You as a “person” have only a certificate of title to your property because you never “paid” in law. See Stanek v. White supra.
Now you know the reason why the 14th Amendment reads: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Despite what Congress did in regards HJR 192 and to “discharge” debt, Congress did what it had to do. As mentioned above, people became more interested in making money than producing money. According to the Congressional Record in reference to the suspension of our national “Standard” money, there were more demands placed on the future delivery of gold than there was gold in the treasury.
Being you are insolvent or bankrupt you become primarily a U.S. citizen and resident. The term "resident” is often used in the sense of "domicile" as in case of insolvency statutes, [HJR 192, 48 Stat 113] . . . , and questions of jurisdiction. People v. Platt, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 454; De Meli v. De Meli 120 N.Y. 485; Ayer v. Weeks, 18 Atl. 1108. [Bold italics added.] From DICTIONARY OF WORD ORIGINS by Joseph T. Shipley, 1945. 1995 Barnes and Noble books. ISBN 0-88029-751-4 case bound. ISBN 1-56619-826-7 paperback. The word reside, see subsidy. Subside, subsidy. Subsidy is a thing sitting nearby until needed: from L. sub, under + sidere, from sedere, sess-, to sit. It was applied first to the Roman military reserves, which waited (kneeling) in the background until called into action. Subside is from the same source. . . . [See also the term res, or strawman].
In other words, you have given up being primarily a State Citizen to become primarily a U.S. citizen to become part of the vested public interest in public policy’s private debt/credit system. Said debt/credit system does not primarily deal in currency that is legal tender or lawful money of the United States under Article I but, under private international law of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 for the sake of convenience and expediency.6
You cannot be compelled to be a debtor/creditor against your will. The only way you can be compelled to perform outside the incorporated states is by CONTRACT law, unilateral or otherwise, or by giving a gift in trust. In other words, if you have contracted to perform as a debtor/creditor to the unincorporated side of the banking association, the Constitution provides no protection with absolute property rights. Those absolute property rights are under the letter and strict meaning of the law, i.e., federal (commercial) common law. Only relative rights, i.e., rights divided among the communal members are under the spirit and true meaning as invoked by Congress using private international law. The courts then enforce your right to contract. When you go into the courts without the proper evidence and argument, the courts construct a trust based upon unjust enrichment. The court presumes you have taken on a privilege in the “discharge” of debt in exchange for being a debtor/creditor in equity as a 14th Amendment citizen residing in “a territory.”

5 Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed.

6 Huber on “Conflict of Laws” makes it very clear beyond doubt in “Praelect” pt. 2. bk. 1, tit, 3, n. 2 that any state created rights based on convenience and utility is not binding obligation or duty. Paul Voet, Huber, and John Voet all agree that laws that have extra-territorial effect rest entirely on comity. P. Voet, Statutis s. 4, c. 2, n. 7. [See H.J.R. 192 supra, also Nortz v. U.S. 294 317 (1935). [Bold underline emphasis added.]
Foreign law can have no effect ispo jure outside the territory of the enacting state. It must be recognized or accepted, that is, incorporated by the law of the forum. This is Hubers doctrine in essence. This is also the stand point of the Anglo American law. See Pillet, “principles de droit international prive” Paris and Grenable, 1903; Zitelman, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT, Leipzig, Vol. 1 (2nd ed) 1912, Vol. 2 (1st ed.), 1903. See also Davies, THE INFLUENCE OF HUBERS DE CONFLICTU LEGUM ON ENGLISH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, 18 Brit. Y.B. Int. L. 49 (1937); Lorenzen, HUBERS DE LORENZEN, SELECTED ARTICLES ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 136 (1947). Cf. Anton, THE INTRODUCTION INTO ENGLISH PRACTICE OF CONTINENTAL THEORIES ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 5 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 534 at 539 (1956). [Bold underline emphasis added.]
“Having considered the principles of the law of nations, and the reciprocal obligations of the states under the confederation.” Said the Chief Justice for the Court:
“It is true, that the laws of a particular country, have in themselves no extra-territorial force, no coercive operation; but by the consent of nations, they acquire an influence and obligation, and, in many instances, become conclusive throughout the world. ... From the nature of the act then, it appears to be founded upon equitable grounds, for general and just purposes; it ought therefore to be regarded in all other countries, and should enjoy that weight, in our decisions, which it naturally derives from general conveniency, expediency, justice, and humanity. For, mutual conveniency, policy, the consent of nations, and the general principles of justice form a code which pervades all nations and must be everywhere acknowledged and pursued.” 1 Dall. (Pa.) 232. Followed in Thompson v. Young, 1 Dall, (Phila Co.) 294 (1788). Cf. Gorgerat v. McCarty, 1 Dall. (Phila. Co.) 366 (1788). The interesting status of the law on this subject before Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat (24 U.S.) 213 (1827), is well described in Ingraham, A VIEW OF THE INSOLVENT LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA”, 2d ed., 178 (1827), and Dorsey, AMERICAN LAW OF INSOLVENCY 161 (1832). Camp v. Lockwood, 1 Dall. (Phila Co.) 393 (1788). [Bold emphasis added]
The plaintiff, an inhabitant of Connecticut, had joined the British during the Revolution and removed to Halifax. By a decision of the County Court of 1779, rendered under the Connecticut Forfeiture Act of 1778, his estate was declared forfeited for the benefit of Connecticut. The defendant, likewise an inhabitant of Connecticut, was indebted to the plaintiff. Not having paid the debt either to the State of Connecticut or the plaintiff, he was sued by the latter after the war in Pennsylvania whereto he (the defendant) had removed. Jared Ingersoll—it will be recalled that he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention**—argued for the defendant that, because of the confiscation, the plaintiff had no right to sue. William Rawle, who was on the other side, took the view that the Connecticut confiscation law and decree were not entitled to effect in Pennsylvania.
Both lawyers made full use of the few decisions and even fewer writings then available dealing with the extra-territorial effect of legislation and conflicts problems in general. Arguing the principle of territoriality, Rawle quoted Vattel for the proposition that one nation cannot intermeddle with the government of another, Id at 396, Vattel, Law of Nations (1760). A collisio legum would arise, and the universal rule, as stated by Huber’s third axiom, was that the laws and interests of the state having jurisdiction of the cause shall be preferred. 1 Dall., 393 at 397, Huber’s de conflictu legum, In HUBER, PRAELECTIONES JURIS CIVILIS pt. 2, bk. 1, tit. 3 (1689). 3 Dall. 370 n. (trans.) (1797). In reply, Ingersoll observed:

“that he did not controvert the general doctrine advanced by the opposite counsel [sic], that the law of nations is the law of nature applied to nations, and that one sovereign power cannot be bound by another, but he distinguished between the necessary, and the voluntary law of nations, which arises ex comitate. Vatt. pref. 12 Ibid. p. 6. and insisted that the law of nations actually enforced, are everywhere obligatory, unless they interfere with the independency of another Legislature. 2 Hub. 26. for, common conveniency renders it necessary to give a certain degree of force to the statutes of foreign nations. 2 Ld. Kaim. Prin. Eq. 350, 360. 1 Dall. (Phila. Co.) 393 at 396 (1788). [Bold emphasis added]
He further remarked: “ ... the operation and effect of a sentence, or judgment, of a foreign Court cannot surely be more binding than the act of a foreign legislature; and these, ex comitate et jure gentium, are in many cases final. 1 Black. Rep. 258, 262. Vatt. lib. 2. c. 7. sec. 84. p. 147. 1 Dall. (Phila Co.) 393 at 396 (1788).
And he concluded:

“It is true, that the American States have hithereto been held by a very slight confederacy; but what remedy is to be pursued? Shall we, if the knot is loose, make it still looser? ...[W]hen a more perfect reason of experience would justify such a construction; and the United States, though individually sovereign and independent, must admit, not only the voluntary law of nations but a peculiar law resulting from their relative situations.” Id. at 389. [Bold emphasis added]

The law of nations dealt in reality with bilateral contracts where there was payment of debt and a meeting of the minds, therefore everybody knew the terms of the contact. This was the rules of the ancient law merchant under the term “that a merchants word is as good as gold.” All such contracts where conducted without the intervention of third parties such as the governments of the world.
To the contrary, the unincorporated association joins the United Nations in the spirit world of make believe of debt/credit where nobody is “paid” in law, there is just goods and services of compelled performances based upon unilateral contracts. In addition to other taxes, said contracts will be taxed on a fairy land concoction of carbon footprints that the Congress will manage and enforce, not through Article III courts, but though it’s legislative courts under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. Carbon footprints is a United Nations scam to rob you of your wealth and give most of it to the pirates who run the United Nations under the guise of helping the poor and down trodden. All we need is look at our own welfare system that has received trillions of dollars and we have more homeless and down trodden than we ever had.
The United Nations OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM for the Iraq people was another example of greed and corruption by the United Nations. Most if not all of the money for that program was siphoned of by Sadam Hussein and United Nations bureaucrats and never got to the people it was intended to help.
Regarding the scam of carbon footprints, Bruce Cathie was a commercial airline pilot for New Zealand Airways. He became a pilot in 1952 and witnessed many encounters with UFO’s, some of the sightings with witnesses. He documented in detail where, when, and what they were doing when he started to realize that he was seeing these UFO’s in the same longitude and latitude of the earth. After he retired he devoted his life exploring the earth’s magnetic lines of force and has discovered many astonishing facts that have been proven with mathematics. Anything in the world of reality can be proven with mathematics. He discovered that the earth’s magnetic lines of force are contrary to the conventional thinking. He goes on to prove his findings by using mathematics. He retired then devoted his life exploring the universe. In his book THE HARMONIC CONQUEST OF SPACE, which by the way has nothing to with global warming, natural or man made, stated: “Everything, no matter what its form on this planet exists by reason of magnetic lines of force. Cathie proves his statement with mathematics. Albert Einstein proved his theory about atomic energy with mathematics. In order for man to cause global warming he first has to change the earth’s magnetic lines of force and to do so he has to have a mathematical formula otherwise, its an impossibility. Global warming alarmist are not involved in the earth’s realities that can be proven with mathematics but instead live in a world of their illusions of the way they think things are or the way they think things should be.
Neil Boortz on his radio talk show off the same name that originates out of Atlanta, Georgia, made the statement on June 4, 2008 that the environmental movement in the U.S. is controlled by former red caps that came to U.S. after the collapse of the old Soviet Union. The cold war failed to conquer U.S., now the former Soviet agents are using the environmental movement to choke off the economic engine of U.S. So far so good.

INCOME TAXES
According to Black’s Law Dict. 5th Ed. p. 688 “an income tax is a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, business pursuits, professions, trades or offices. A tax on a person’s income, profits, and the like, or the excess thereof over a certain amount.”
Today’s tax laws although called income taxes among individuals can be divided into:
1. Gift taxes—They are what they are.
2. Custom or Duty taxes—based on expediency and convenience.
3. Taxes on profits from stocks and bonds and interest on saving accounts.
4. Privilege, immunity, or franchise taxes—based on intangibles such as limited liability for the privilege of debt or tangibles such as corporate charters.
5. Estate tax or death tax based upon No. 4.
WHAM O !!!! a progressive or graduated income tax right out of Karl Marx and Fred Engel’s communist manifesto.
We will deal with the most important tax first and that is the Social Security or gift tax. As mentioned earlier, since 1933 by public policy you are considered insolvent or bankrupt therefore, you have a privilege of not being able to “Pay” your debts. You must bear in mind that HJR 192 only states that it is against public policy to demand payment. It does not say to whom the debt applies, it only implies or there is a presumption that you owe the debt subject to private international law and its unilateral consequences. An example is government forms. There is nothing on those forms that tell you what you are signing. It does not say it’s a contract, it does not say what the terms are, who is responsible for what or where the contract is to take place. Nobody but you signs the form or forms. There is no consideration or use mentioned therefore, being said form or forms are only signed by you it is presumed by the government that you intended to create a “third party recognizes or charitable subscription or debt acknowledgement.
When someone gives a gift to the government, and there is no terms or conditions, the charitable thing to do, is give a gift in return, thus the government creates the social security trust (unincorporated association) is born. Under federal law when you make a gift, you have to fill out the forms (1040) and pay the taxes on that gift to wit:
CHAPTER 4—Gift TAxes page 144
Volume 53 Part I United States Statutes at Large (1939)

Sec. 1000. Imposition of Tax
(a) For the calendar year 1940 and each calendar year thereafter a tax, computed as provided in section 1001, shall be imposed upon the transfer during such calendar year by any individual, resident or non-resident, of property by gift. Gift taxes for the calendar years 1932-1939, inclusive, shall not be affected by the provisions of this chapter, but shall remain subject to the applicable provisions of the Revenue Act of 1932, except as such provisions are modified by legislation enacted subsequent to the Revenue Act of 1932.
(b) The tax shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible; but in the case of a non-resident not a citizen of the United States, shall apply to a transfer only if the property is situated within the United States.7 [Bold emphasis added]
Sec. 1005 GIFTS MADE IN PROPERTY

If the gift is made in property, the value thereof at the date of the gift shall be considered the amount of the gift.

Sec. 1006. RETURNS
(a) REQUIREMENT.—Any individual who within the calendar year 1940 or any calendar year thereafter makes transfers by gift (except those which under section 1003 are not to be included in the total amount of gifts for such year) shall make a return under oath in duplicate. The return shall set forth (1) each gift made during the calendar year which under section 1003 is to be included in computing net gifts; (2) the deductions claimed and allowable under section 1004; (3) the net gifts for each of the preceding calendar years; and (4) such further information as may be required by regulations made pursuant to law.

Sec. 1007 records and special returns

1. By Donor.—Every person liable to any tax imposed by this chapter or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render under oath such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations, as the Commissioner, with the approval of Secretary, may from time to time prescribe.

[§§568-570] from Gilbert’s Law of Outlining by Emanuel (1999) See also West Nutshell Series on contracts.
§ 163. Intended Beneficiaries in Special Situations: Government Contracts and Assumption of Secured Indebtedness.
Third party beneficiaries can be found to have acquired enforceable rights in situations in which the presence of third party interests is not readily apparent. Anytime a contract will have the effect of producing a direct benefit for certain individuals or for a class of people, it is necessary to analyze the

§ 163 THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES 351
question whether the promisee intended that these persons have enforceable rights.
There are many types of contracts that are made between government agencies and private parties or other governmental units for the primary purpose of benefiting a class of citizens.
From Emanueal Law Outlines: Contracts, 1993-94 edition, p. 112
Now can the Service/government collect when you sign a Wage Withholding Certificate and give it to the employer even though the Service/government is not a party to the agreement between you and your employer to withhold? This area of contract law is called “third party beneficiaries” and the answer is yes: [Bold underline emphasis added]



Emanueal, supra, at 324.
The third party beneficiary chapter goes on to show how the common law rule was that a third party beneficiary could not recover on the contract, but that this rule has been generally abrogated if one is the intended beneficiary.

Enrolled. The registering or entering on the rolls of the chancery, kings bench, common pleas, or exchequer, to the clerk of the peace in the records of the quarter sessions of any lawful act; as a recognizance, a deed of bargain and sale, and the like. Jacob Law Dictionary.

“NUL TIEL RECORD. No such record. A plea denying the existence of any such record as that alleged by the plaintiff. It is the genera1 plea in an action of debt on a judgment, Hoffheimer v. Stiefel, 17 Misc. 236, 39 N.Y.S. 714; Watters v. Freeman Bros., 16 Ga.App. 595, 85 S.E. 931. Judgment of nul tiel record occurs when some pleading denies the existence of a record and issue is joined thereon; the record being produced is compared by the court with the statement in the pleading which alleges it; and if they correspond, the party asserting its existence obtains judgment; if they do not correspond, the other party obtains judgment of nul tiel record (no such record).” Black’s Law Dict. 4th ed.

From Gilberts Law § 52 Contracts
“Cases decided under English common law as well as early American cases denied enforcement by third parties because they were persons “from whom no consideration flowed” or because there was no “mutuality of obligation.” However, with the general recognition in the United States of enforceable rights in third party beneficiaries, the notion that the plaintiff had to incur some legal detriment as part of the bargained ex-change has been rejected”.

Notice it does not say the common law of “the” state instead it uses the term United States. See federal common law in D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 315 U.S. 447 supra. In other words, a bona fide debt must be enrolled and to be enrolled it must be certified that the debt is owed. This is the rule of the common law; but we are not dealing in the common law of “the” state of Article IV Section 3 cl.1 or Article I Section 10.
To the contrary, you as a “person” have “other Property” in “a” state or territory that has not been incorporated into the “Union of states”. That is to say, you have a debt res or treated as a “fictitious person” in a inchoate or one of the federated (incomplete) states or states that have no boarders.
Therefore a resident under Article IV Section 3 cl.2 that is under private international law. Any of those above classifications are “other property” that the government has jurisdiction over. See O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933). See also 28 USC Part I Chapt.5 sec 88. See attached copy.
The presumption of a trust for the grantor on a voluntary conveyance has changed to a presumption of a gift to the grantee, where no consideration or use is mentioned. According to current thought, if a grantor expects a trust for him or others he will state it in the deed, and if he does not do so, the natural inference is that he desired to make a gift. Collins v. Collins, 52 P.2d 1169; Todd v. Todd, 92 N.W.2d 415; Fooshee v. Kasenberg, 102 P 2d 995; Hojnacki v. Hojnacki, 275 N.W. 659; Niemaseck v. Beruett Holding Co., 4 A.2d 794 ; Marston v. Myers, 342 P.2d 1111. LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 265 (1973). [Bold emphasis added].
A charitable trust is a trust the performance of which will, in the court of chancery, [equity] accomplishes a substantial amount of social benefit to the public or some reasonable large class thereof. It is immaterial that the settlor had personal motives in creating the trust, if the trust has charitable effects, but the purpose must not include profit-making by the settlor, trustees or others. See, Restatement, Restitution § 160, Restatement Trusts, Second 1e. [Bold emphasis added].
A charitable trust is frequently called a public trust. Appeal of Eliot, 51 A. 558.
“A charity, in the legal sense, may be more fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, [under Art IV Sec 3 c. 2] for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves in life, or by erecting and maintaining public buildings or works, or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.” [that is under Art IV Sec. 3 cl. 2. The Government under Article IV Sec. 3. cl. 1 has not the power to receive a gift in trust] The gift tax statutes of 1939 were passed after Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64 in 1938.
"A charity, in the legal sense, may be more fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves in life, or by erecting and maintaining public buildings or works, or otherwise lessening the burdens of government." Gray, J., in Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, Mass., 539, 556. See Restatement, Trusts, Second, § 368
(What Purposes Are Charitable). “It [a charitable trust] includes everything that is within the letter and spirit of the Statute of Elizabeth, considering such spirit to be broad enough to include whatever will promote, in a legitimate way, the comfort, happiness, and improvement of an indefinite number of persons.” Harrington v. Pier, 82 N.W. 345, 50 L.R.A. 307, 76 Am.St.Rep. 924. [Bold emphasis added] Notice that the Statute of Elizabeth (1552-1602), included both the letter and spirit of the law. It is my belief that the Statute of Elizabeth was the main reason for Article IV sec. 3 cl.1 and Article IV sec. 3 cl.2 and the separation of powers doctrine of Articles I, II, III. Remember, the Government under Article IV sec. 3 cl.1 has no authority to establish a charitable trust but the government under Article IV Article 3 sec. cl.2 does have that authority to receive a gift from you, either by implied or written consent. “The word 'charity,' as used in law, has a broader meaning and includes substantially any scheme or effort to better the condition of society or any considerable part thereof. It has been well said that any gift not inconsistent with existing laws, which is promotive of science or tends to the education, enlightening, benefit, or amelioration of the condition of mankind or the diffusion of useful knowledge, or is for the public convenience, is a charity.” 8 Wilson v. First Nat. First National Bank of Independence 145 N. W. 948 952, Ann.Cas.1916D, 481. LAW OF TRUSTS by Bogart, 1973 p. 200. [Bold emphasis added]
In a Washington case a gift to propagate socialism was sustained as a valid charity. Peth v. Spear, 115 P. 164. LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 237 (1973). [Bold emphasis added].
The United States Government may be the trustee of a charitable trust.” Russell v. Allen, 107 U.S. 163, and further; “The United States or a state has capacity to take and hold property upon a charitable trust.

Admiralty-Maritime—THE LETTER AND STRICT MEANING or the SPIRIT AND TRUE MEANING UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

There is another pitfall to all of this. As mentioned above, when you give a gift, the charitable thing to do is give a gift in return, the return gift is Social Security. With no separation of powers, the law of the sea under admiralty-maritime comes inland; not under the letter and strict meaning; but rather the spirit and true meaning of the U.S. Constitution that is reflected in each state’s offices where Birth Certificates are issued. Here in Pennsylvania said office is titled Office of Vital Statistics located in New Castle, Pa., north of Pittsburgh. This author has visited said office several times and discovered that the corner of the Vital Statistics building‘s foundation is imbedded in a creek bed, with running water, with a high water mark located about 10 feet up on the building. Inside the building there are displays of 100 and 500 year flood plain maps. This author has visited approximately thirty-five different states’ buildings that issue Birth Certificates and has found that every one of them had high water markers of some kind on or immediately near the buildings. You can be rest assured that the birth records in that building are below the high water mark.
Spirit of the law—the general meaning and purpose of the law as opposed to its literal content. Compare letter of the law. Black’s Law Dict. 8th ed. P. 1437.

The general meaning and purpose is public policies unincorporated association in bankruptcy. Its members considered specifically by the law as weak or flawed for allowing bankruptcy followed by socialism then communism. . Public policy is not grounded in the letter of the law; the letter of the law is damned. Instead there is the spirit of the mind of everybody’s illusions of the way they think things are; or the way they think should things should be; none of which is grounded in the law. Alan Greenspan tried to ground public policy when he stated we must treat a fiat money system as though it was anchored in gold.. So much for Greenspan’s grounding policy, thanks to greedy and power hungry politicians.
Letter of the law—the strictly literal meaning of the law, rather than the intention policy behind it. Black’s Law Dict. 8th ed. P. 924.

The intended policy is public policies unincorporated association in bankruptcy. Its members ushering in socialism to be followed by communism.
When your parents signed your birth certificate, they created a legal fiction called a strawman (see footnote above). In other words, you are dead in the Law of reality, with its letter and strict meaning, to be reborn as a legal fiction in the spirit of the law as a 14th amendment “person” with no sovereignty under the Constitution of U.S.
The birth certificate is first registered with the bureau of vital statistics. Your name being spelled with all capital letters that makes you the fiduciary trustee of the Social Security account. The government then resisters the birth certificate with the U.S. Department of Commerce where the birth certificate becomes commercial paper or a negotiable instrument. At that point in time, that commercial instrument can be claimed by anyone, yes even your parents. The commercial interests lay claim to the instrument. The birth certificate is then treated as an investment security. All the social security numbers are registered at the state level then to Department of Commerce at federal level, then to the Depository Trust Corporation at 55 Water Street in New York City. The certificate becomes subject to the “Committee On Uniform Identification Processes” that is a trademark of “Standard and Poors”, is located on the bottom floor of the DTC building at Water Street in Washington D.C. 9
Paper—A negotiable document or instrument evidencing a debt especially commercial documents or negotiable instruments considered as a group. Black’s Law Dict. 8th ed. [underline bold emphasis added]. See HJR 192 and Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64. (1938).
When you turn 18 years of age, you have the right to disclaim that social security number, without a legal battle, but in the mean time, before you file the disclaimer when you turn 18, if you sign any W-4, W-2, 1040, 1099, government loan forms, or any such forms whereby you use the public debt for your personal benefit, you become “Subject to” the 14th Amendment and its spirit of the law.
With the above in mind, are we not walking on water in the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution as determined by Congress under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2.
With all the facts concerning the birth certificate, it is safe to say that we are born of water in the spirit of the law.
THE BIBLE AND THE LAW IN RELATION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES

People read words that have no idea of the true meaning of those words. A person cannot take the written word of someone unless it is backed up with facts. Idle words are one thing. Describing the law or an event that has important implications is a different story. It is this author’s firm belief, after researching and putting together this document of all the numerous facts that much of the Bible is a history of the law. Take John 3: 1 thru 21. For example, verse 5. “Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. The key words are “born of water”, “spirit”, and “kingdom”. Take “born of water” is just words without any meaning that are not based upon any facts. We could jump to conclusions and say just about anything, based upon our interpretation or illusions or somebody else’s interpretation or illusions.
The following definitions are taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (1890) noted as (STRONG’S) or BLD, (Black’s Law Dictionary). Hebrew in chaldee
John 3:5, 6, 8.
Spirit—Wind; by resemblance breath, i.e., a sensible or even violent) exhalation; fig. Life, anger, unsubstantially; by extens. A region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (include. Its expression and functions); - air, anger, blast, breath, x cool, courage, mind x quarter, x side, spirit ( [ - ual] ), tempest, x vain, ( [whirl - ] ) wind ( - y - ). Strong’s.

Spirit . . . “To aspire, however, was first breath upon (much the same as inspire, inspiration, q.v.) then to breath toward, seek to reach, from L. ad to + spirare, spirat—to breathe—whence also the spirit L. spiritus, originally the breath of life or animating principal in each of us. The various meanings of spirit follow from this, as the evil spirit that direct a person, the spirits summed by a spiritualist. Hence also the use as the basic principal or essence of anything; as the four spirits of the medieval alchemists.” From DICTIONARY OF WORD ORIGINS (Word Origins) by Joseph T. Shipley (1945) p. 365.

Spirit is something that has no physical presence or form, therefore the law has a way of dealing with spirit as evidenced in the 11th and 14th amendments; Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and the separation of powers doctrine along with the Conflict of Laws. Otherwise, people could commit murder without being punished because the spirit would be a total power to itself. With the above definitions of the spirit of the law, it becomes very confusing to the mind. An example is the government. With no grounding to the law of reality we are witnessing the result of the spirit of the law with the turmoil in our state and federal governments. The people want somebody, real or imagined, to solve their problems. Of course that becomes oblivious being they are weak or flawed as in enjoying a quasi corporate privilege in limited liability.
Spirit. See trophy. This is not a mistake. Word for word, this is how the definition of the word “spirit” starts from DICTIONARY OF WORD ORIGINS (Word Origins) by Joseph T. Shipley (1945) p. 365.

Trophy. “A trophy was originally a monument erected where an enemy was turned back. Gr. (Greek) trepein, to turn whence trope, putting to flight, whence L. (Latin) trophaeum, whence Fr. (French) tropee. As solders carried home mementos taken from the stricken foe, the term enlarged its meaning.
A trope, figure of speech, is a turning of a word from its literal sense. The tropic region is that in which the sun turns after the solstice (L. solstitium, from sol, sun + sistere, to stand).” (Word Origins) p. 365.

As noted above: Spirit of the law—the general meaning and purpose of the law as opposed to its literal content. Compare letter of the law. Black’s Law Dict. 8th ed. P. 1437.
Letter of the law—the strictly literal meaning of the law, rather than the intention policy behind it. Black’s Law Dict. 8th ed. P. 924.

The question becomes, has the sun in the sky been turned from its literal sense in the world of reality into the spirit of the law to create the Son of man??? As noted in John 3: 13 to wit:
”No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.”
Comments: It’s quite a surprise to discover that the word spirit originated from trophy. It appears that literally speaking from the law of reality where mathematics rule, the sun in the heavens is light, life, and God. The capital “S” Son relates to a “fictitious person” (Son) with an implied quasi corporate contract acquired in the spirit of the law based on faith. There are no facts to back up John 3:13. Whereas, there is facts in the sun of reality based upon the above named solstice, spelling, and the history and meaning of the word “trophy”, in Greek, Latin, and French.
John 3: 5. Kingdom is one of those words that have a far different meaning than most believe it to be.
Kingdom—dominion the estate (rule) or the country (realm). STRONG’S

Kingdom—a country where an officer called a “king” exercises the powers of government whether the same be absolute or limited. BLD 5th ed. P. 782. [underline emphasis added].
Comments: The Constitution of United States of America does not allow for a king. If the American people are looking for a savior, to save themselves from themselves, they are going to find one, in the form of a dictator under pure communism.
Dominion—perfect control of right of ownership. BLD 5th ed.
Comments: You are the one who has the perfect right of control over your dominion unless you become a volunteer to a third party in the spirit of the law.
Estate—The condition or circumstance in which the owner stands with regards to his property. In this sense, “estate” is commonly used in conveyances in connection with the words “right”, “title”, and “interest” and is, in a great degree synonymous with all them. BLD 5th ed. P. 490.
Comments: You have the absolute right to ownership to personal, and real property, under the strict letter and meaning of the law. As opposed to the spirit of the law where your estate is in the hands of a third party and you as a fiduciary trustee own the estate but have no control over that estate in regard the spirit of the law.
Rule—an established standard. Precept attaching a definite detailed legal consequence to a definite detailed state of facts. BLD 5th ed. P. 1195.
Comments: Capital letters verses lower case letters is a definite detailed state of facts that you must pay attention to when reading the Bible and studying law. Otherwise, your interpretations will give you false conclusions as pointed out in 28 USC Part I Chap. 5 sec. 88. Copy attached.
Realm—a kingdom; country. From BLD 2nd ed.
World. John 3:16, 17, 19.
World—Earth. Strong’s

World— Key 3625—Greek. fem. [femine] part. [pres. pass. [passive] of 3011 (as noun, by impl. of 1093; land, i.e. the terrene part of the globe; spec. the Roman empire: --earth, world.
Key 2889—prob. from the the base of 2865; orderly arrangment, i.e. declaration; by impl. [implication] the world (in a wide or narrow sense, includ. Its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]:--adorning, world.
Key 1093 contr. From a prim. word; soil: by extens. A region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (include. The occupants in each application):, country, each (-ly), ground, land, world. The above keys from STRONG’S. [bold emphasis added]

World—the term sometimes denotes all persons whatsoever who may have claim, or acquire an interest in the subject matter; as in saying that a judgment in rem binds (all the world). BLD 5th ed. P. 1490. [underline emphasis added].

In other words, if you have a vested interest in the public debt, (public debt is the subject matter), you are a 14th amendment “person” “subject to” private international law in the spirit world. Any judgment in rem (against the thing like a fictitious person), can be enforced throughout the world.
Light. John 3: 19-21.
From the book TUTANKHAMUN PROPHECIES by Maurice Cotterell.
The adept becomes pure light. This means that man can become light and in so doing becomes God. That Bruce Cathie’s figure for the speed of light suggests that prophecies of the Maya, Egyptians and the Bible, in regard to 144,000 refer not to those who have 144,000 written on their forehead, but instead to those who radiate light (144,000) from their forehead. After all, the purified in all religions through history are depicted radiating light from the head, halo-like.
Tutankhamun, the mystics of Tibet and India, and Bruce Cathie’s calculated value for the speed of light subscribe to the notion that 144,000 are synonymous with light. Bruce Cathie’s new calculations showed that the speed of light, as predicted by Albert Einstein in his Theory of Relativity (300 million meters per second) amounts to 144,000 minutes of arc per second (there are 60 minutes of arc in one degree) and that speed would vary around this figure as light crossed grid pathways that envelope the earth.(See the following books: Harmonic 33, Harmonic 695, The Pulse of the Universe, Harmonic 288, the Bridge to Infinity, Harmonic 371244 and The Harmonic Conquest of Space by Bruce L. Cathie.
Cathie’s figure of 144,000 minutes of arc equals 6.66 revolutions of the earth. This simply means that light travels 6.66 revolutions of the earth in one second (144,000) divided by 60 minutes divided by 360 (degrees) equals 6.66 revolutions. All the above authorities on light prove their statements with mathematical formulas in the law of reality.
Jesus speaking of the spirit in John 3:9 prompted Nicodemus to ask at:
John 3:9. “How can these things be?
John 3:10. Jesus answered, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?
John 3:11. “Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness.

Notice that “We” is spelled with a capital “W”, but in John 3: 2 “we” the “w” is spelled with a lower case letter. Here is another example of conflict of law of two different law forums. Ancient Jewish law and the law of the New Testament in the Bible. Ancient Jewish law would not recognize Christian law based upon what they seen because there was no facts to support what they had seen, that faith did not satisfy the Pharisees.
Should there be any further doubt about capital letters verses lower case letters as noted in 28 USC Part I Chap. 5 sec. 88. Get a copy of a letter head from a township, city, county, borough, state, or federal government. Look at the spelling. You will find that those entity names begin with a capital letter, or in some cases all capital letters. The original documents that created those entities, begin with a lower case letters. Example, “freehold Township”. Has been transformed into FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP, or Freehold Township, or Township of Freehold. Any of the proceeding three names is a hoax and a fraud to the incorporated entities of the nation in the law of reality. I have been saying for years that the oppression of the spirit of the law is going to filter down to the smallest governmental subdivision. If the people think that is a joke, they should get a copy of the law pertaining to “Soil Erosion and Sediment” from their county commissioners office. That law is pure communism as it directly controls the substance of the common law. That land is reality and the environmental socialist has become the pure communist that was their purpose all along the way. Yes, home grown communism right in your own back yard promoted by the very people you voted for. Here is a perfect example of putting faith in one hand and social/communist environmentalist in the other, then see which one has the success. The facts are very clear as to who is the winner, and why haven’t the people not been saved from the ruthless communist state???? The truth of the matter is none of those commissioners have any power of enforcement other than you volunteering. Neither of the other bureaucracies have any power also. This is why most laws if not all laws; do not have the proper enacting clauses because they are the product of an unincorporated association. Said association formed under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment to the Constitution of United States. That unincorporated association is comprised of bankrupt “fictitious persons”, in the spirit of the law guided by faith that is not grounded in facts, only illusions of their socialist minds, thus not considered a legal entity or a sovereign people.10 See attached copy of FUMDAMENTALS OF LEGAL RESEARCH. See also, footnote 18, at page 3. Remember reading in the above, that people can release the choking of themselves any time they are ready.
The original documents that created those incorporated entities beginning with lower case letters are hard to come by. The incorporated entities are a product of Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States.
John 3:12. Quote omitted. Pertains to a conflict of law.
John 3:13. See above.
John 3:14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man is lifted.

John 3:15. That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Eternal—the front of place (absol) absolute, the fore part rel. (relative) the east) or time (antiquity); often used adv. (adverb) (before anciently, eastward);--a foretime, ancient (time), before, east (end, part, side,--ward) external, x ever(--lasting), forward, old, past. STRONG’S.

Comments: regarding John 3:14. The subject of Moses has been omitted as being to lengthily. The sun of man is lifted in the east every morning. Regarding John 3:15, Did you notice the capital letter in Him? There are no facts to define who Him is. Is Him really a fictitious “person”? If so, that fictitious “person” will not perish but will have eternal life in the spirit world of the mind of the unincorporated association. As the facts appear, 3:15 has no relation to the sun in the sky. The capital “S” Son in 3:14 relates to a “fictitious person” with an implied quasi-corporate contract. See quasi contract at footnote 11.
The next word to flush out is perish.
Perish—implied to destroy or consume; specifically to covenant. Strong’s. [underline emphasis added].

Perish—to come to an end; to cease. BLD 5th ed

Comments: An implied contract such as HJR 192 can be destroyed by the people anytime they are ready. The alternative is to do nothing and the contract in the spirit of the mind under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment with no grounding will continue eternally.



John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Everlasting—prop (probably) concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; gen. (generally) time out of mind (past or fut.) i.e. (practically) externity, freq. adv. (espec. With prep pref) always.—always(s), ancient (time) anymore, continuance, eternal, (for, [n]) ever (--lasting, --more, of old), lasting, long (time) (of) old (tme), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of time) world (+ without end). STRONG’S

Although Him is not included in 3:16 Him is included here along with He and His contain no facts to identify the proper names, other than having capital letters, and the fact that the mind invents a presumption as to who is He, His, and Him. Thus it appears from the above facts, that God is used as a proper name. Notice in 3:21, the word God is used in context with he and his with lower caption letters. Under such circumstances, God is used as a proper name. When God is used along with capital letter names such as He, His, and Him signifies god as a ”fictitious person”. From the facts presented, that is the correct interpretation.
World. “sometimes denotes all “persons” whatsoever who may have claim, or acquire an interest in the subject matter.” BLD 5th ed. P. 1490. [Underline emphasis added]. The subject matter is the “fictitious person or persons” in the unincorporated association under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of United States. See perish and Comments above.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Comments: As mentioned above, did you notice the capital letter in His? Then there is the word Son. There are no facts to define who is His, but the facts have already been established that the Son is in reality, God’s sun in the sky. As mentioned in 3:16. Is He and His really fictitious “persons”? If so, does those “fictitious persons” relate to an implied or quasi-corporate contract. See quasi contract at footnote 11. There are no facts to define what world is being mentioned as there is different worlds, and who is His? Continuing with 3:17. “through Him might be saved.” Saved from what? It gives no facts concerning the word “saved”. The reality of the word saved is to be saved from the law of reality in its letter and strict meaning and interpretation under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1; as opposed to the spirit and true meaning under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of United States.
Whereas, The spirit of the law under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2; and the 14th amendment confers limited liability on “fictitious persons”, thus saving those persons from the letter and strict meaning in the law of reality to live in the world of make believe and to have faith with no grounding to the law of reality.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Comments: Again, there are no facts regarding who is He or Him. It has already been established in facts who are He and Him. Here again is a conflict of law. Is He or Him really “fictitious persons” as in a corporation or quasi corporation that becomes a creation of the people in the spirit of the law? If a person establishes a contract as a bankrupt with the unincorporated association, the association will not condemn Him or He for that contract. But if a person does not believe in the Son of God, i.e., spirit of the law; as opposed to the law of reality where the sun is the sun, then there is a conflict of two different law forums that one does not recognize the other.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds where evil.

Comments: Again there are no facts, just words that can mean anything that the mind with its illusions invents as being the truth. The idea of the unincorporated association is to keep men unenlightened so as to keep them in darkness. Light is the reality of life; instead of corporate communism with its darkness in materialism and the dictator that lies ahead.

John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. See 3;19 Comments.

John 3:21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

You ask why the symbolism? The government will not come forthright and tell you you’re under admiralty-maritime law because public policy is not the law that applies to everyone. You enter the law of your choice using your right to contract law whether it is the law of admiralty-maritime or the common law of “the state”.
If you chose public policy, with its convenience and expediency, the answer lies in what the court noted in DeLivio v. Boit 7 Fed. Case 418;* (l815) U.S. App. LEXIS 162,**; 1997 AMC 550; 2 Gall. 398, October 1815 Term. [**13] That commercial convenience and necessity required the courts of England to proceed [not in the courts of common law] but in admiralty-maritime to be governed by the rules and forms of the civil law. Those admiralty-maritime rules and forms were established [**111 [underline emphasis added]
In the charter of Massachusetts, in 1692, there is an express reservation of the exclusive right in the crown to establish admiralty courts, by virtue of commissions issued for this purpose. See, also, Colon. Acts 1668, 1672; Mass. Col. & Provo Laws (Ed. 1814) p. 716.

According to Stoke’s History of Colonies (Chapter 4, p. 166), there is authority for the governor, the latest being the governor of the royal province of New Hampshire in Geo. III, “to take cognizance of, and proceed in, all causes civil and maritime, and in complaints, contracts, offences or suspected offences, crimes, pleas, debts, exchanges, accounts, charter parties, agreements, suits, trespasses, inquiries, extor*tions, and demands, and business civil and mari*time whatsoever, commenced or to be com*menced between merchants, … and merchants.” [See Title 15 USC Trade and Commerce Chap. 41 Sec. 1602 (c,) (d), (e)] in part to wit:
(c) The term ''organization'' means a corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, trust, estate, partnership, cooperative, or association.
(d) The term ''person'' means a natural person or an organization.
(e) The term ''credit'' means the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment. [Bold emphasis added] [“forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors”]

When engaged in commerce through the banking system, you are a merchant, either as a debtor or creditor. Each has agreed not to demand payment from each other.
Delivio v. Boit, further declares the jurisdiction to extend “throughout all and every the seashores, public streams, ports, fresh waters, rivers, as well of the sea, as of the rivers and coasts whatsoever of our said province, &c. In point of fact the vice admiralty court of Massa*chusetts, before the Revolution, exercised a juris*diction far more extensive, than that of the admi*ralty in England. See, also, The Little Joe, Stew. Vice Adm. 394.”
Have you ever wondered why Massachusetts is a leading state in socialism? The law of the sea, admiralty-maritime does not deal with the realities of life such as the family unit, morality, absolute ownership of land, and if you think you own your land then why are you discharging taxes on that land??? Why is the Deed written with your name in all CAPITAL letters??? The reason in fact and in law you own it, but you do not have control over the land. The land exists in reality under Article IV Section 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States; and you as a fictitious person exist in the spirit of the law subject to Article IV Section 3 cl.2; the 11th and 14th amendments as a fiduciary trustee. The same can be said of all your personal property also.
Instead, we have privileges and immunities, communal living on a ship such as spaceship earth, seas that are constantly in motion just like the debt/credit system, police cars called cruisers, policies of insurance instead of insurance policies, high seas and highways, six man (person) jury, commissioners etc, the admiralty-maritime nomenclature is everywhere.
Continuing with Delivio v. Boit, Mr. Justice Winchester (speaking with ref*erence to contracts) has very correctly [**113] ob*served, that “neither the judicial act nor the constitution, which it follows, limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the district court in any respect to place. It is bounded only by the nature of the cause, over which it is to decide.” Stevens v. The Sandwich [Sandwich is the name of a ship] [Case No. 13,409]. “The lan*guage of the constitution will therefore warrant the most liberal interpretation; and it may not be unfit to hold, that it had reference to that maritime jurisdiction, which commercial convenience, public policy, and national rights, have contributed to establish, with slight local differences, over all Europe.” Underline bold emphasis added]. [**6] “that every contract between merchant and merchant or within the flood mark shall be tried before the admiralty and not elsewhere.” [footnotes omitted] [Underline emphasis added] The court further acknowledged [**36] that “things not in their own nature maritime, such as a contract for payment of money”11 … Last but not least, [**118-119] “what are properly to be deemed ‘maritime contracts’ … contracts and quasi contracts respecting contributions … and; policies of insurance.”12 [Bold emphasis added]. The DeLivio case was rendered under (j)udical (P)ower of Article III Sec. 2 cl.1 in the admiralty-maritime law of reality based upon bilateral contracts when there was a meeting of the minds with no silent third parties such as the government.
To the contrary; in the spirit world of make believe, we have one sided unilateral contracts involving admiralty-maritime that are enforced; not under (j)udical (P)ower of Article III; but rather (J)udical (p)ower of Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2; 11th and 14th amendments where the government becomes the third party through Title 12 USC 95(a), Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602, (c), (d), (e).
With the above in mind, one can see the results of HJR 192 in that there is no money, no payment of debt and no separation of powers doctrine. Instead the nation has in the ‘spirit of” make believe under Article IV Sec. 3. cl.2, that combined the civil law with its privileges and immunities under admiralty-maritime along with private international law and the common law as noted in Delivio v. Boit. The province of Massachusetts (before the Revolution), combined the admiralty-maritime civil law with the common law to create a state of “subjects” for the King of England. After the Revolution, with the signing of the “Declaration of Independence” and the drafting of the Constitution with its Article I Section 10 in “Payment of Debt”, the province of Massachusetts became “the state” of Massachusetts that separated the common law from the civil law of admiralty-maritime. This separation of the different law forums created what is known as the “Conflict of Laws” doctrine. See attached copy of Conflict of Law by AE Antone. See also Conflict of Laws in the Bible under Ezekiel, in the Old Testament; and Matthew, Mark, John and Luke in the new testament discussed on the next page at 33.
HJR 192 transformed “the state”(s) of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3. cl.1, with its separation of powers doctrine to “this state”(s) of federated states under Article IV Sec. 3. cl.2 that has no separation of powers doctrine. In other words, HJR 192 nullified the Revolution, not to the extent that the people are governed by a King; but to the extent the people are now governed by quasi corporate privileges and immunities that greased the rails for the socialist state through contributions. Said contributions became public policy under the new contract/proclamation/testament for the sake of commercial convenience and national rights.
Public policy decided that hard coin in payment of debt was an inconvenience that restricted the production and shipment of goods in commerce because there had to be a shipment of the hard coin from place to place. Additionally, you cannot create multiples from that hard coin, otherwise the coin is not what it declares to be worth. It was what it represented to be. “Payment” of debt meant the courts must construe the Constitution under the letter and strict meaning of the Constitution under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1; As opposed to today’s spirit world of HJR 192 and public policies new contract/proclamation/testament. There is no transfer of wealth, (gold or silver), only electronic markers stored in a banks computer system for the sake of commercial convenience under Article IV Sec. 3. cl.2. See Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c), (d), (e), Title 12 USC 95a. In fact there is no gold and silver backing in the Federal Reserve Banks. HJR 192 gave the public a fiat money system13 based upon faith. If you believe most politicians can be trusted with faith, then you do believe in the tooth fairy. But then the people prefer to make gods out of warped Hollywood types, greedy sports players, greedy corporate executives and the list goes on, that is concentrating the wealth in the hands of the few. See Alan Greenspan’s book “The Age of Turbulence”.
Regarding Conflict of Laws mentioned on the previous page, it appears that the ancient law forum was not only followed under Admiralty-maritime but also in land bound areas as evidenced in the Old Testament in Ezekiel; and the new testament under Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the New Revised Edition of the King James version of the Bible, Nelson Publishers. Matthew 19:24 says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom heaven. The question becomes, does that statement represent a conflict of law regarding reality in the law and; spirit of the law or both?
Is the eye of the needle as noted in Matthew 19:24 referring to the fact that certain market places were just that, a place where people took their goods and services for buying, selling, and trading using hard coin in every transaction. This was the law of reality under the Old Testament. Was the Old Testament the forerunner to Article I Section 10, Article IV Section 3 cl.1 to the Constitution to the United States???. As commerce started to expand, there became a need for larger market places, thus was born the large commercial trading centers? What separated these commercial trading centers from the general market places was the fact they were gated centers that only allowed within that center, to the exclusion of the general population, merchant traders that took a oath that their word was as “good as gold”. That oath was based upon the fact that the merchants deposited hard coin with a third party who was a member of the center that settled all accounts at the end of the day. These merchants could then buy, sell, and trade without the use of hard coin being involved in every transaction within that gated center, thus speeding up the commercial trading process to become the forerunners to today’s debt/credit system. These commercial trading centers become known as the lex merchantoria or law merchant that is reflected in today’s Uniform Commercial Code. The eye of the needle was the shape of the gates to allow passage of the merchants and their camels with its cargo and high profile in and out of the commercial centers. The eye of the needle is also a very strong and stable structure that represented the strength of the commercial centers.
The next time you pass a courthouse, especially the older ones, take notice of the shape of the windows and doorways. Do you see the eye of the needle? The ancient common law in England never recognized the commercial law until the year 1707. See attached copy of Conflict of Law by A.E.Antone. In order to announce that the common law would now adjudicate commercial disputes within its walls, the eye of the needle is displayed in its windows and doorways.
The question is, was those gated centers the forerunner to Article IV Section 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of the United States??? With the evidence of the courthouse windows and doorways, and the numerous law journal articles that discuss Conflict of Law, the answer is in the affirmative.

7 The gift tax statutes of 1939 were passed after Erie RR v. Tompkins in 1938.
Intangible means, there is no record that you owe the tax, only a presumption. The intangible is the debt res (or object) that the courts construct a trust upon.
In trust refers to a constructive or implied trust.
Indirect refers to the fact that there is no direct evidence, such as a bilateral contract or a physical privilege or franchise issued out of the secretary of state’s office.
Real and personal property is referring to what is gifted to the trust.

8 ILLEGAL ALIENS
One thing that must be keep in mind about a public trust is the trust must keep expanding or the trust will collapse.
In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s we faced the problem of not having enough gold to meet future delivery demands.
Today we are facing the added pressures of the retiring baby boomer generation which means less performers to fill the private contracts the boomers made for future delivery of goods and services for themselves. In a debt/credit system there is no money in a lock box only human performances to fulfill the needs of the future non-performers. The same applies to Social Security. In order to solve this problem, the powers that be bring in illegal aliens so the debt/credit system can monetize them as “persons” “subject to” the 14th amendment. In other words, once the government acquires the aliens signature on a U.S. government document, the government acting under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of U.S. will restate the aliens signature name to all CAPITAL letters. At that point in time that alien will be given a Social Security account number and that account number (Social Security number) will be monetized through the Federal Reserve System in a debt/credit account and that “person” is no longer an alien. In other words, he or she becomes CAPITAL in the debt/credit system under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2 with quasi corporate privileges and immunities. If the government can monetize enough aliens it will ease the future contract obligations and Social Security benefits for the future non-producers. Otherwise, to do nothing could result in the future retires receiving nothing should the debt/credit system collapse not to mention the government has intervened with your right to contract for such services.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is liberal politicians believe in liberal policies that accelerate the rate of credit hand outs therefore, there has to be more performers (CAPITAL) brought into the debt credit system. Whereas, conservative politicians believe in a slower more conservative policy of spending the credits of the association. Either way, the CAPITAL will come from the citizens of United States, illegal aliens or foreign investors through the World Bank that the Federal Reserve System is a member. With zero growth in paradise under Marxism that means there has to be open borders to bring in illegal aliens so they can be converted into CAPITAL to keep the association from collapsing.
It is my firm belief that the reason why corporations are leaving United States is the fact that the U.S. citizen is so encumbered with debt, that he or she can no longer be considered CAPITAL to the corporation. The corporations need assets in order to borrow credit as operating CAPITAL. Foreign countries offer unencumbered human resources.
The question becomes how much oppression and loss of Constitutional rights including the first 10 amendment liberties are the members of the association willing to tolerate and pass on to their offspring??? This is particularly true of giant corporations such as the auto industry. There is going to be a heavy price to pay for members of the association for such policies. Politicians can only steal from the producers and give to the non producers and in the process they become rich and powerful and in return the masses worship them as their god and we wonder why we have the massive catastrophic problems we have in this country.
Consider your name. It consists of one or more Christian or given names and a family name (patronymic). If you are baptized look at the record and you will see the proper spelling of your name. In the state of "We the People" your name would be spelled with a capital letter followed by lower case letters. This would apply to your first, middle and
last name. A description or abbreviation is not the equivalent of a name.
Fictitious name. A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.
Counterfeit. To forge to copy or imitate, without authority or right, and with a view to deceive or defraud. From Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed.
You now know the correct spelling of your name and also that any alteration is a fictitious name meant to deceive or mislead. When your name is spelled with abbreviations or differing in some essential particular such as being spelled with all capital letters it is a fictitious name.
Why does your name appear in all CAPITAL letters on all your legal documents? Look at your drivers license, deed, certificates, marriage license etc. When you are summoned into court for whatever reason look at how they spell your name, check the property tax bill for your property. The CAPITAL letters signifies you are a fiduciary trustee of all your property.
U.S. Congressman, James Trafficant from Ohio stated United States is going through the biggest bankruptcy and reorganization in its history. He is the only public figure to make that statement to the public along with other public statements that prompted the federal government to prosecute and convict Trafficant with criminal charges.
To illustrate a bankruptcy in simple terms, a point in fact. A private person declares bankruptcy. A bankruptcy judge is appointed to handle the case. The judge then appoints a trustee who will manage that person estate. At that point in time, that person has lost control over his estate. He still owns the estate but has lost control over the estate. That person’s financial affairs are in a state of reorganization along with his freedoms. There is now a third party to his life during the bankruptcy.
In a public bankruptcy as expressed by the United States in 1933, Congress under Article IV Section 3 cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution is appointed trustee in the reorganization of the U.S. The bankruptcy and reorganization applies only to those individuals who have volunteered to that jurisdiction under Article IV Section 3 cl.2; 11th and 14th Amendments. The evidence that you volunteered is your name spelled in all CAPITAL letters on any legal or taxing documents. A point in fact and in law. See Title 28 United States Code Part I Chapter 5 Sec. 88. Copy attached. Note the capital letter spelling of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to “district court of Untied States for the District of Columbia”. Then the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia on one hand and the district courts of United States and the court of appeals on the other. What you are seeing is the result of the bankruptcy in 1933 and the resulting change in the court system as spelled out in the O’Donoghue case. The original capital letter courts have been set aside, but not abolished, in favor of lower case letter courts. Proof that there is a big difference between documents spelled with capital letters verses lower case letters. The capital letter personal name today can also be used in the context of strawman, res, resident, quasi in rem, quasi corporate privilege, and as “other property”. Before 1933, there were very few people of the United States who had any contact with the federal government, therefore there was no need for the United States Supreme Court that we have today.

Strawman as a fictitious person, specifically one that is weak or flawed. . . .. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal to accomplish something that is otherwise impossible. Compare with Dummy. From Blacks Law Dict. 8th edition at p. 1461. [Bold underline emphasis added].

Now you know how and why the government from the lowest municipality, township, city, county, state, and the feds runs your life and why the courts rule like they do even down to requiring you to wear seat belts. After all the government has a vested interest in you in social security, Medicare, Medicaid that you volunteered into.

9 From Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations. Credit is given to Gene Keating for his work on this subject.

10 Sovereign—A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other with limited power. BLD 5th ed. P. 1252. There are those persons who say there is only one King and that is the King in heaven. With that admission in the spirit of the law, is that not volunteering to give up your sovereignty for a lesser station in life?

11 That is a common law contract exclusive of silent third parties and the civil law in admiralty-maritime jurisdiction.

12 Contribution. In the civil law, a partition by which the creditors of an insolvent debtor divide among themselves the proceeds of his property proportionally to the amount of their respective credits. Division which is made among the heirs of the succession of the debts with which the succession is charged, according to the proportion which each is bound to bear. Underline emphasis added.
Quasi contract. An obligation which law creates in absence of agreement; it is invoked by courts where there is unjust enrichment. Andrews v. O'Grady, 44 Misc.2d 28, 252 N.Y.S.2d 814, 817. Function of "qua*si contract" is to raise obligation in law where in fact the parties made no promise, and it is not based on apparent intention of the parties. Fink v. Goodson* Todman Enterprises, Limited, 9 C.A.3d 996, 88 Cal. Rptr, 679, 690. See also Contract. Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed
In the civil law, a contractual relation arising out of transactions between the parties which give them mutual rights and obligations, but do not involve a specific and express convention or agreement between them. The lawful and purely voluntary acts of a man, from which there results any obligation whatever to a third person, and sometimes a reciprocal obligation between the parties. Civ.Code La. art. 2293. Black’s Law Dict. 5th Ed. p. 293.
FICA, Federal Insurance Contributions Act is Social Security that is a policy of insurance under the civil law of admiralty-maritime law.

13 A few years ago, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve System testified before a Congressional hearing, that even a fiat money system should be treated as though it was backed by gold. See also Alen Greenspan’s book , “The Age of Turbulence.”

From the Old Testament Concerning the King of Tyre:

Ezekiel 26:7 “for thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadrzzar king of Babylon, with horses, with chariots, and with horseman, and an army with many people. 26:9 He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 28:18 “You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities. By the inquiry of your trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midist; It devoured you, And I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you.
The following definitions are taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (1890) except BLD.

Hebrew in chaldee
Trade-Peddler, merchant, traffic. Traffic-commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise bills money and a like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for a equivalent in goods or money. BLD 5th ed.

Iniquities-(moral) evil, fault iniquity mischief punishment (iniquities) sin. STRONG’S

Defiled - to be foul, especially in a ceremony or moral sense (conteminatned), pollute.. Defiled-to corrupt perfection of; to debase, to make ceremonially unclean; to pollute. BLD 5th ed. P. 380.

Santuaries - a consecrated thing or place. In old English law a consecrated place which had certain privileges annexed to it. BLD 5th ed. P. 1203. [underline emphasis added]

LORD/LADY
A lady may seem removed from kitchen tasks, but in the days when she was just the head farmer’s wife, (as any farmers wife today will tell) she has quite a job baking bread for all the helpers. In truth, that occupation gave her her name (OE. [Old English] Hlaefdige, from hlaf, loaf + dig, to knead). Dough is from the same source (AS [Anglo Saxon] dag; ON [Old Norse] deig), which also gives us dairy (ME. [Middle English] deyerie, from ME. dey, woman from AS. Daege, from dig, to from ME. Dey, woman from AS. daege, from dig, to knead). By equal right, the lord is the loaf-ward (OE, hlaford, from hlafweard; OE. weard, whence End. Ward, warden. Reward, however, is from OFr, [not listed. Presumly Old French.] ONFr. Is listed as Old North French.] reguarder, to regard, heed, hence repay). And the servant was the loaf-eater (OE. hlafaeta, servant)! A steward was originally a keeper of the pigs (AS. stigu, sty + weard). A knight was orginally a youth (AS. cniht), then a servant, then a servant of a noble. A knave (AS cnafa, Ger. Knabe) was at first a boy, then it became a term of scorn.

In Lady-bug, Lady-Day, and other combinations, there lingers the AS. use of Lady to mean the Virgin Mary14 [bold emphasis added] Take note the words that come from English law as in the King James the First, 1603-1626, Bible. Keep in mind also that William the Conquer from Normandy (Northern France) conquered England in 1066. From DICTIONAY OF WORD ORIGINS, p. 207, by Joseph T. Shipley (1945).

Warden. The chief administration officer of a prison. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, 21st Century, Fourth edition. There are no facts to describe who or what is the Lord. It appears from the Origin of Words on the subject of Lord/Lady the Lord is the warden of the minds of public policies unincorporated association of “persons”. Said “persons” comprise the association when there are no facts grounding those “persons” to the law of reality? How many of those “persons” realize that each one of them is considered a fictitious person, specifically one that is weak or flawed and not considered a sovereign???

The next buildings displaying the eye of the needle windows and doorways are the churches. It would appear after studying Ezekiel above, that those displays are a direct result of the teachings of the commercial law in the Bible.
Certain market places were just that, a common place where simple people took their goods and services for buying, selling, and trading using hard coin in every transaction without third parties. This was the law of reality under the Old Testament.
Then appeared the large commercial trading centers or Fairs with their walled and gated centers that would only permit privileged merchants to partake in. The Lord, referring back to Ezekiel, said in essence, this kind of commerce is contrary to the law of reality and he would have nothing to do with it. That eventually it will collapse as all commercial systems do, because it is artificial in addition to the greed, lust, incompetence, and just plain stupidity. In other words, the Lords statement is a metaphor to drive home a point of the conflict of law of two different law forums.
It appears the Old Testament/ contract/proclamation dealt directly with payment of debt with hard coin reflected in Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, and Article I Section 10 that gave we the people access to (judicial) (P)ower under Article III courts to the Constitution. The law of reality has no privileges and immunities.
Whereas; the New Testament deals primarily with special privileges and immunities in the spirit of the law that has given the citizen “subjects”, legislative courts that exercise (J)udical (p)ower under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2; 11th and 14th Amendments for the sake of convenience, and expediency. In other words, Article I Section 10, Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States = the Old Testament. Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of United States = the New Testament.
There is a major problem with a fiat money system, it is based upon faith (in the spirit of the law with no grounding). That faith can disappear overnight. Of course the Marxists tell you a financial collapse as happened 1929 will not happen again. Just like Russian communism was the final answer. If you believe in that hog wash, you do believe in the tooth fairy. As mentioned above, and is worth repeating. You will never control man’s greed, lust, incompetence and just plain stupidly. That is why we are a nation of laws, not of men. It is up to us to see that it will remain that way.
Regarding the debt/credit system concerning multiple demands upon what is deposited in the bank, for example, there is $100 deposited with the bank. The bank then collateralizes that $100 to 1000’s of dollars through the banking system what is known as “Fractional Reserve Banking”. The question arises, is Article IV Sec. 3. cl. 2; Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec. 1602 (c), (d), (e), Title 12 USC (95a); HJR 192, reflecting Matthew in the New Testament of the Bible to wit:

Mathew 14:15 When it was evening his disciples came to Him, saying, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” 14:16 But Jesus said to them, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” !4:17 He said to Him, “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fishes.” 14:18 He said, “Bring them here to me.” 14:19 Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass. And He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave to the multitudes. 14:20 So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of fragments that remained.
WALKING ON THE WATER



14:25 Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 14:26 And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out for fear. 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke unto them, saying, Be of good cheer! it is I;. be not afraid.14:28 And Pete answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is you command me come to you on the water.” 14:29 So He said, “come”. And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. 14:30 But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me!” 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand, and caught him, and said to him. “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”

Peter was a commercial fisherman. He made his living above the high water mark while in his boat under the letter and strict meaning of the ancient admiralty-maritime law as a merchant and trader in law whereby he was “paid” in hard coin for his goods and services. He lived in the world of reality engaged in bilateral contracts with no privileges or immunities. In other words, Peter was not considered a strawman, instead he lived in the natural world that is harsh. He was being responsible for his actions such as “paying” for his debts, thus no third parties to satisfy. Jesus prompted Peter, but Peter was afraid of the boisterous wind that created a conflict as to what law forum he wanted to follow. The world of reality under the letter and strict meaning of the law; or to enter into the spirit of the law below the high water mark where he would receive privileges and immunities from third parties. Those third parties would limit his liability for his debts but would cost him some of his freedoms. Also, you can only walk on water in the spirit of the law.
The new contract (HJR 192) concerning commercial and communal limited liability with its high water mark flooding over the land has created the upside down world of make believe that defies logic. Today that is the mind of public policy’s Marxist materialism. More on this infra.
Public money for payment of private debt was the breast of the dam that guaranteed the separation of powers under Articles I, II, III, to the U.S. Constitution, which withheld the admiralty-maritime from flooding over the substantive common law of the incorporated states of the Union producing limited Government.
To the contrary, private money in “discharge” of public debt has flooded the land in the spirit of the constitution, thus the water marks and unlimited government. Admiralty-maritime is what gave us quasi in rem jurisdiction on land, i.e., attaching the ship, the thing (debt res), to force the appearance of the owner of the ship, (you). Today, instead of res the new term is strawman, owner of the debt to appear before a government agency.
The truth of the matter is that all courts enforcing taxes today are in reality, admiralty-maritime courts.
Readers beware, “The Law of the Sea Treaty” is very dangerous to the United States and all it will take is a few liberal judges then look out.
It is hoped you are beginning to see the picture as to what is happening to the people of United States. Remember, everything is possible under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2.
CUSTOM OR DUTY TAXES

The taxing authorities go to the banks to get your records as evidence that your cancelled checks and credit card receipts have traveled interstate commerce.
A part of the income tax liability, i.e., Custom or Duty taxes comes about when the checks and credit card receipts that you create circulates as money in interstate commerce. Said credit is foreign and antagonistic against the incorporated state and its’ grounded substance and the general (commercial) federal common law as evidenced by lawful and legal tender notes. Said notes must be protected by Congress and the courts because those green backs represent the gold being held in Fort Knox.. Federal Reserve Notes are gold notes, but not upon demand. You must keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution of U.S. that forbids Congress from making notes that are lawful and legal tender. The injunction in “Payment” pertains to “the states”. When you create debt/credit, the debt/credit that you create travels interstate commerce. The local, state, and federal governments can impose a tax on that debt/credit because debt/credit is neither legal tender nor lawful money produced by the United States Government under Article I Sec. 8. Debt/credit is foreign commerce and a detriment to the grounded substance of “the states”, and the general (commercial) federal common law. You and the unincorporated banking association are in a conspiracy against the grounded substance of the states and the general (commercial) federal common law and must be controlled thus we read:
“The tax under consideration is a tax on bank circulation, and may very well be classed under the head of duties.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 547.(1869)” [underline emphasis added]
“Congress may restrain, by suitable enactment’s, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.” Id. 533, 549. [underline emphasis added]

Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment. Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby “printing” their own money. From Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, p. 3 last column February 2001. [Bold emphasis added].

“But in the case before us the object of taxation is not the franchise of the bank, but property created, or contracts made and issued under the [privilege], or power to issue bank bills. . . . it will hardly be questioned that contracts of [debt/credit] are objects of taxation within the powers of Congress. And it seems difficult to distinguish the taxation of notes issued for circulation from the taxation of these [debt/credit] contracts. Both descriptions of contracts are means of profit to the [individual] which issue them; and both, as we think, may properly be made contributory to the public revenue.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S 533, 549. (1869). [underline emphasis added]
If you think printing your own money isn’t limited liability for the privilege of discharging debt outside the 16th amendment, think again. Remember, we are dealing with your right to contract. See Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c, (d), (e), Title 12 USC 95a.
Chancellor Kent observes, that Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. 3 p. 19, . . . the prohibition (of bills of credit) does not extend to bills emitted by individuals, singly or collectively, whether associated under a private agreement for banking purposes, as was the case with the Bank of New York, prior to its earliest charter, which was in the winter of 1791, or acting under a charter of incorporation. Id. 553, 554. [Underline emphasis added] See also The United States Bank v. Planters Bank supra; Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c, (d), (e), Title 12 USC 95a.
“It will be observed, the tax . . . upon the bills in circulation is not a tax on the property of the institutions. The bills in circulation are not the property, but the debts of the [unincorporated side of the bank, and, in their account of debits and credits, are placed to the debit [and credit] side. Certainly, no government has yet made the discovery of taxing both sides of this account, debit and credit, as the property of a taxable person or corporation. If both these items could be made available for this purpose, a heavy National debt need not create any very great alarm.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 554, 555. This is why there has always been a heavy national debt since the 1940’s. The government taxes both sides of your debt/credit account. See Title 15 USC Sec 1602. It must be noted there was no private foreign banking interest as third party with our public money for private debt.
The Court in Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. supra, 113 noted, Looking, [p* 126] then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that, when private property is "affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only". This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg.Law Tracts 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control. Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. supra, 113. [Bold under line emphasis added]

THE 16TH AMENDMENT—FACT OR FICTION

The Court in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 noted: “the whole purpose of the Amendment [16] was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the [Pollock v. Farmer Loan & Trust 156 U.S. 429 (1895), and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment” [Italics emphasis added].
The Pollock case was decided when we had our National “Standard” money in “Payment” of Debt. That “Standard” money in “Payment” of Debt was the very substance of the Common Law that was owned by the people that came from their land, i.e., we had public money for private debt. Today we have private money for public debt. You must also keep in mind, there was no public policy concerning commercial paper under the Federal Reserve System at that point in time, only our National “Standard” money therefore, as stated in Pollock, taxes on real estate or rents or income of real estate were direct taxes. Taxes on personal property or income derived from personal property were also direct taxes.
Washburn on Real Property, it is said that “a devise of the rents and profits of land, or the income of land, is equivalent to a devise of the land itself, and will be for life or in fee, according to the limitation expressed in the devise.” Volume 2, p. 695, 30. Quoted in Pollock 589.
In Jarman on Wills it is laid down that “a devise of the rents and profits or of the income of land passes the land itself, both at law and in equity; a rule, it is said, founded on the feudal law, according to which the whole beneficial interest in the land consisted in the right to take the rents and profits.” Quoted in Pollock 589.
Coke upon Littleton says: 'If a man seized of lands in fee by his deed granteth to another the profits of those lands, to have and to hold to him and his heires, and maketh livery secundum formam chartae, the whole land itselfe, doth passe; for what is the land but the profits thereof?' Lib. 1, p. 4b., c. 1, 1. Quoted in Pollock 590
In Goldin v. Lakeman, Lord Tenterden, Chief Justice of the court of the king's bench, to the same effect, said, 'It is an established rule that a devise of the rents and profits is a devise of the land.' And, in Johnson v. Arnold, Lord Chancellor Hardwicke reiterated profits of lands is a devise of the lands themselves' profits of lands is a devise of the lands themselves'. Quoted in Pollock 590.
In other words, under Pollock the federal Government was trying to put a direct tax on income derived from the substance of the Common Law of “the States” without apportionment among the several states, which was declared unconstitutional. The federal Government could not collect a direct tax on income unless done through the states by apportionment because income taxes were direct taxes and “paid” in the substance of the land in Hard Coin of the Common Law of “the State” to the U.S. Treasury. The federal Government cannot collect a direct tax without apportionment from individual sovereigns because, there is no federal common law, Wheaton v. Peters supra.
With the coming of the 16th and the 17th Amendments in 1913, and the Federal Reserve Act in 1914 creating Federal Reserve Banks under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 with its commercial paper.
Brushaber’s income was derived, not from the substance of the land of the Common Law, i.e. hard Coin but from the profit and gain from stocks and bonds through the use of commercial paper issued by Union Pacific, a private corporation. Said stocks and bonds are not “Standard” lawful money, lawful money, legal tender of the United States or, “payment” of a debt but only a “discharge” of an obligation as per HJR 192 via private international law, thus subject to excise or indirect taxes. Brushaber’s wages under the Common Law were not taxable but the profit from his stocks was taxable under private international law. Brushaber became a volunteer to private international law when he purchased stocks and bonds from the federally charted Union Pacific RR. In other words, Brushaber voluntarily reached into a private corporation to receive an additional advantage in monetary gain from the efforts of others.
"’The question whether it is a direct or an indirect tax cannot depend upon those special events which may vary in particular cases, but the best general rule is to look to the time of payment; and if at the time the ultimate incidence is uncertain, then, as it appears to their lordships, it cannot, in this view, be called direct taxation within the meaning of the second section of the ninety-second clause of the act in question.’" Attorney General v. Reed, 10 App. Cas. 141, quoted in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 601, 632 (1895) as the test to be applied for determining whether a tax is direct or indirect. [Bold underline emphasis added]

HJR 192 states that it is against public policy to demand “Payment” of a debt; that the debt can only be “discharged”. Public policy has amended the constitution without the proper process that is illegal under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 but not illegal under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. That being the case in fact and in law, the ultimate incidence is uncertain. Therefore, the only federal taxes that can be collected today are indirect taxes. It must be noted here that a truck load of gold or silver “Pays” nothing. Gold and silver whether it be coin, bars, ingots or whatever are a commodity that only “discharges” an obligation just like commercial paper.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and other such arguments are frivolous. The 16th Amendment cannot be properly ratified pursuant to the Constitution because the amendment represents private international law. In fact and in law, the 16th amendment became a moot issue with the advent of HJR 192 in 1933.
Note: where the Court stated in Pollock and quoted supra, that “the 16th Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future upon which the Pollock case was decided.” The Court knew that the National “Standard” lawful money would meet its demise by the yet to come Federal Reserve Act which would, by its provisions of creating a commercial paper society in private international law, drive out of circulation the National “Standard” lawful money of the Common Law. In other words, the people would give up their Law which they did in 1933, and is the reason the Government confiscated the Gold in the 1930’s. The Gold was the Law and the people gave it up along with its Liberty under the philosophy of George Hegel, 1770-1831, a German materialist. He devised what is called the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In other words, you have a problem. Under Hegel’s ideas, you do not treat that problem instead, you create another problem that mirror images the original then offer a solution to the created problem therefore, the original problem is never solved. Hegel’s dialectic appealed strongly to the socialist and was developed into Marxian dialectical materialism.15 Taken from THE COLUMBIA VIKING DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA Third Ed. 1968. It is interesting to note that every year, a college or university has Hegel day. And we are led to believe that communism only exists today in China and Cuba. United States is next in line.
The question thus becomes, why repeal the 16th amendment??? I will tell you why. The Hegelian dialects. Thesis-There is a problem, the nasty intrusive IRS and the income tax. Anti thesis-offer a solution. Abolish the 16th amendment. The masses rally and repeal the 16th amendment and in its place the fair tax, flat tax, value added tax, national sales tax or whatever you name it. Repeal of the 16th amendment takes place on such and such a date and the new tax will take effect the following day. Several weeks later the masses receive their pay checks and guess what? The income tax is still being taken out. All hell breaks loose. Any number of law suits is filed. The courts including the U.S. Supreme Court rule the repeal of the 16th amendment is frivolous. Synthesis-The solution. The problem is the solution offered does not deal with the original problem and that is, the income tax is primarily based upon a gift that you as a individual have created through contract law. The masses have been swindled into creating a dual national taxing system just like they have in Great Britain.
Remember, your contracts rights are launched from the state level, not from the federal level as noted in footnote #3 supra. You have a right under contract law to:
No. 1. Give a gift to the government. It just so happens that by operation of law, (see footnote #5), as explained above, that gift makes you “any person required to file or make a return” under Title 26 USC (Internal Revenue Code) Sec. 7203. Said gift is the largest chunk of the income tax and you did it with your own hand, VOLUNTARLY.
No. 2. That Social Security (FICA) is a maritime insurance policy. That a maritime insurance policy is a contract under maritime jurisdiction.
Here is the kicker concerning the 16th Amendment. No Congress, President or Supreme Court can nullify your, or the association’s common law contracts rights to sign a “Wage Withholding Certificate” that is considered a charitable subscription whereby you or the association have legally entered into the commercial world for whatever means, good or bad.
A “Wage Withholding Certificate” is the area of contract law called “third party beneficiaries”. The problem is, the contract does not spell out what the terms and conditions of the contract are, such as, who is the third party beneficiaries let alone who is the second party? who is liable for what? where is the contract to take place? what law is to be applied? etc. There is none of the above terms and conditions contained in the “Wage Withholding Certificate”. The same can be said of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
Therefore, the courts will determine such instruments as having charitable effects, thus applying natural law and justice in the form of natural equity that you, or the association of “persons” intended to create a charitable subscription as outlined in this document.
From Emanueal Law Outlines 324 supra, p. 21 above.
The third party beneficiary chapter goes on to show how the common law rule was that a third party beneficiary could not recover on the contract, but that this rule has been generally abrogated if one is the intended beneficiary. [You are the intended beneficiary]

Joseph Story in his Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, 1: p. 21. noted:
…charities, arise from natural law and justice, and of freeing itself from all regard to former rules and precedents, it would be the most gigantic in its sway, and the most formidable instrument of arbitrary power, that could well be devised. It would literally place the whole rights and property of the community under the arbitrary will of the judge, acting, if you please, arbitrio et bone, according to his own notions and conscience, but still acting with a despotic and sovereign authority.

The facts in the law are very clear and precise that: Repeal of the 16th Amendment in no way, shape, or form, can interfere with you or the association of “persons” from contributing or subscribing to a charity regardless, whether it be a “Wage Withholding Certificate” or Federal Contributions Act (FICA}. Said charities come into effect by operation of law, (see footnote #5) through HJR 192. Such contracts invoke natural law and justice that absolutely prohibits government or public policy from interfering with those natural rights.
The repeal of the 16th amendment will accomplish absolutely nothing except we will still have the same taxing system we now have. Additionally, we will have an additional tax by whatever name you call the tax in order to create another tax that will be a total hoax and a fraud in fact and in law.
To pass such law will create more tyranny and violate the constitutional separation of powers in that the law will subject those individuals who have not volunteered to be “subject to” the 14th amendment and considered “other Property” under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2. There are such individuals. State sales taxes are clearly unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers doctrine in that the states impose a tax upon individuals who are not residents of the United States under federalism. The road to hell has been paved with many good intentions. The separation of powers was the very cause of the American Revolution16 that has led to the conflict of law between the common law of “the states of the Union” and the private international law.
Yes, the repeal of the 16th amendment will maintain the present day income tax and create a flat tax by whatever name you want to call it and it will be done by the peoples’ own hand. The only way the state or federal government has any jurisdiction over you is by the fact that you have voluntarily reached into that private forum under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2. Otherwise you are free but that freedom comes at a cost; you must take responsibility for your own actions.
If the American people think they have access to the United States Constitution and its’ Bill of Rights as was originally intended under the letter and strict meaning; as opposed to the spirit and true meaning and that spirit and true meaning must be so apparent as to override the words which the framers have employed as in Article IV sec. 3 cl. 1. How can the “persons” override the spirit and true meaning when in fact and in law they are drowning in a sea of debt, both public and private that is owned by foreign interest under the corrupt Marxist United Nations. The people truly live in a make believe world based upon faith.
Public policy has it that your wages are not absolute property because it is presumed that you receive no wages17, only income from the unincorporated association in private international law. As a result of public policy, there are no states in the common law under Art. IV Sec 3 cl.1, and is the reason the border lines in the states’ constitutions have been removed.18 (check your state’s constitution), leaving only federal states in private international law with no charter of incorporation that spells out just what the duties and liabilities of this new unincorporated social association are, therefore the government presumes the people wanted to set up a charitable trust. Because the trust has no charter, the administrative courts acting under Article IV sec. 3. cl.2, treat the trust and you as “other property” or any other means at their disposal to measure the liability of you not performing in a communal fashion. Members of the public trust are treated as being incompetent and in a conspiracy against the grounded substance of “the states” because the people have formed a new political society and have not formulated a charter thus, leaving it to administrative bureaucrats to be governed by private international law. It is said the people get the government they deserve. One thing is for certain, the people must start providing for our own welfare and not depend on government to solve our problems.

14 Highly recommended for reading. “The Warriors and the Bankers” by Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe ISBN 096835672-9. See also “The Knights Templar Revealed” by the same authors. There are two ISBN numbers. 13: 978-0-7607 8118-4; 10: 0-7607-8178-8, Barnes & Noble Books. These are not conspiracy books but books based upon facts in history. In fact, the two authors have not a clue as to what they have revealed. The Knights Templar is what is behind the New World Order under a One World Corporate Communist Monolith untouchable by any government.

The Templers gave us the allodial land titles in order to break the strangle hold the Church of Rome had on the Europeans. Although the Templers favored holding everything in common, they recognized that man must also have a choice to be free. Whoever owns the land controls the people.

15 Under Article IV sec. 3 cl.1 we worshiped a spiritual God where the family unit was the cement that held our nation together in body, mind, spirit. We have traded body, mind, and spirit for body, mind, and materialism where there is no morality for “persons” because you have quasi corporate privileges and immunities. In other words, you are a creation of the government because you enjoy limited liability for the payment of debt under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2 and worship the material god of materialism. The Marxist debt/credit system has turned the family unit into warring cannibals and society into a vehicle of hate greed and the great I am.

16 It remained for Lord Mansfield, borrowing to a large extent from the Roman Law, to extend the action to cover a whole new field, and thus to create a new branch of the law—a new set of rights under the pretense of simply determining whether, the plaintiff could use a new form of action. It was the celebrated case of Moses v. Macferlan 2 Burr. 1005 (1760), that Jefferson was vehemently opposed which sparked the American Revolution and not the tax on tea that we are lead to believe. Mansfield said: "The first objection is that the action of debt would not lie here and no assumpsit could lie where an action of debt might not be brought. . . . . If the defendant be under an obligation, from the ties of natural justice, … the law implies the debt, and gives this action, founded on the equity of the plaintiff's case, as it were upon a contract ('quasi ex contractu' as the Roman Law expresses it)." In other words, Lord Mansfield, infused the civil law of Scotland that was derived from the admiralty-maritime into the common law that changed an action of assumpsit whereby a twelve man jury trial could be demanded, into an equitable action to be determined according to natural justice and natural equity. Thus, a person ought to pay a sum of money that the law imposes a duty upon him to do so. In addition, in order to compel the performance of the duty, the law implies a fictitious promise to do so, so that compelled performance may be brought for the breach of the fictitious or implied promise.

17 Today’s public policy considers wages as one and the same under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 but not under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, there is a difference.
18 A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law since by its constitutional status it does not have capacity to conduct foreign relations. United States alone, not any of its constituent States, enjoys international sovereignty and nationhood. "In respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear. As to such purposes the State does not exist." United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, (1937).

“[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co., 1906), vol. 1, pp. 45-47. See also footnote no. 2.

If you have any doubts as to what you have read, let me refer you to FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL RESEARCH by Ervin H. Pollack Professor of Law and Librarian, Ohio State University. (copy attached).
The United States Code is arranged in 50 Titles. Said Code is the current compilation of federal laws that is a combined editorial product of a Congressional Committee and the West Publishing Co., a corporation. It’s very upsetting to see people put in prison and have their property stolen from them based upon an editorial product of a committee and a corporation. This is the cold harsh reality of debt under Article IV Sec. 3. cl.2, but it is only prima facie19 evidence of the law rebuttable by the United States Statutes at Large and Statutes Annotated, or Revised Statutes. Take note that 48 Stat 113 (HJR 192) can only be prima facie evidence of law because there is no enacting clause as found in the National Coinage Act, therefore rebuttable by the National Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 at Statute I United States Statutes at Large Chap. XVI Section I that contains the words, “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, . . .”20
Now go back to p. 20 Vol. 53 Part I United States Statutes at Large, there is no enacting clause by the House and Senate of United States of America in Congress Assembled. Proof income taxes are 100% voluntary. Chap. 4 Gift taxes Sec. 1000 Imposition of Tax Sec. (b) reads in part: “but in the case of a non-resident not a citizen of the United States shall apply to a transfer only if the property is situated within the United States”, i.e., debt res or strawman. [underline emphasis added] See Title 26 USC Sec. 7203 of the code states “any person required to file or make a return.” It doesn’t say everybody is required. Title 26 USC Sec 2502(d) also states that when a gift is made (charitable subscription debt acknowledgement) the gift tax liability falls upon the donor.
But then the IRS Code is only prima facie evidence of liability. If you have no public debt res as “other property” as the term is used in Art. IV Sec. 3. cl.2 in the United States, you are primarily a citizen of “the state” wherein you are domiciled. Secondarily you are a United States citizen. The term resident comes from the word res that pertain to insolvency or debt as stated on pp 16-17 supra. The facts and the law are very clear beyond any doubt that the taxing system is 100% voluntary. To pass a fair tax, flat tax, national sales tax or whatever you choose to call it, will be based upon repeal of the 16th amendment. The repeal will create a mandatory additional tax which there will be no escaping the liability for those who are not subject to Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec. 1602, (c), (d), (e) and Title 12 USC 95(a).
This author has been asked many times, what is my opinion of the New World Order?

CORPORATIONS, QUASI CORPORATIONS, MARXISM, AND HEGELIAN DIALECTICS

The people are confronted with two very troubling issues that are fast coming to a head.
No. 1. The mega national corporations are in the process of setting up a one world corporate monolith under corporate communism. Corporations enjoy two distinct privileges, limited liability for the privilege of discharging debt, i.e., corporations are not responsible for their debts should they fail, and perpetual succession, i.e., they live forever unless the government revokes their charter.
Likewise, public policy of the unincorporated association has agreed not to demand payment as per HJR 192 and Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec. 1602 (c), (d), (e). In other words, the association enjoys limited liability for the discharge of debt and perpetual succession, i.e., will live forever unless the government revokes HJR 192.
No. 2. Hegelian dialectics has turned into Marxist materialism. You cannot have a problem in reality then treat that problem with another problem that mirror images (in the spirit of) the real problem that is never solved and not expect a collision of the two sometime down the road. A perfect example is the mortgage collapse. Problem. Not everybody has a nice home. Solution. Not everybody is entitled to have a nice home. They simply do not have the skills to support the purchase of that home. That is the reality of life. But in the “spirit of” everybody having a nice home the banks, and lending institutions created another problem by financing homes that should not have been financed in the first place. Now the ripple comes into effect and starts to collapse the whole real estate base. But it does not stop there.
The next shoe to drop will be those insane in the spirit of retirement plans that pays people the same amount or near same amount when retired as when they were working. This is particularly true of government employees, where 25% of the mandates are non-funded. In the world of reality those retirement plans do not exist. The real estate market was the pillars that upheld those retirement accounts along with pharmacy and oil investment accounts. Of course, the main ingredient to all this is GREED. As Alan Greenspan noted at a Congressional hearing: We should treat a fiat money system as though it was anchored in gold. The people and the government haven’t taken Greenspan’s advice, now we are going to suffer the consequences.
There is no better example of greed than the article that appeared in the Saturday June 28, 2008 issue of the TIMES HERALD, PORT HURON, Michigan newspaper at page 6A, titled, “You May Be One of the Oil Speculators’” by Matthew Perrone of the Associated Press. The article goes on to say that large investors such as pension funds, investment bank, mutual funds and private hedge funds are using the commodity markets in oil to evade the failing value of the dollar. There has been $139 billion funneled into energy commodities by the end of March 2008.
Rep.Bart Stupak D-Mich. Heads the Oversight and Investigations Committee of Energy and Commerce said: “Your pension fund manager may be using your retirement money to drive up the price of oil”.
Sen. Joe Lieberman I- Conn. Proposed banning pension funds and other large investors from commodities altogether. He dropped the idea after vigorous opposition by the association of public and private pension funds.
There you have it, another association raising havoc and mayhem all in the name of profit under limited liability.
As noted above in this document, it is the absolute duty of Congress to protect and defend the Constitution to the United States of America and that includes Article I Section 10, Article IV section 3 cl.1; and the common law of “the states (s)” as evidenced by the gold in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Regarding the gold, as it stands today, the public could not return to our public National “Standard” lawful money because of many factors. One of the factors is the use of illegal drugs. It wouldn’t be long before our public gold and silver would end up in the hands of drug lords in the United States and foreign countries. Those drug lords would become even more powerful and destroy the economic base of United States, not to mention the grounded substance of the common law of “the states” that in reality are still there.
Corporations are “persons” but not citizens with a charter from the secretary of state’s office, therefore have access to Article III courts.
Whereas, the people of the unincorporated association are citizens and “persons” that have no charter and no legal identity,21 thus classified as “other property” or fictitious persons. Said “persons” only have access to legislative courts governed by a committee and a corporation of compelled performance to a culture of Marxist materialism. The Marxist government is designed to replace the male as head of the nuclear led family unit worshiping a God with its morality in body mind and soul; into a sectarian society of unidentifiable fatherhood worshiping the god of materialism produced by the corporations. Corporations do not live in a state of reality. You cannot see them, or touch them. All you see is a sign that has the name of the corporation on it, or see its property. It truly exists in the “spirit of” world of make believe.
The masses of asses then divide into outspoken splinter groups that are not grounded in reality, but feminism with their insane and lunatic ideas that are composed of their illusions of the way they think things are, or the way they think things should be, guilt, prejudices, bias, and hate for the Constitution and how to control other people with their brand of lunacy and insanity. Their stupid identity is shown with the blame game accusing something or somebody for their own problems, then expects that something or somebody to solve those problems. There are those who build homes in flood plain areas, when they get flooded out, get the taxpayers to bail them out. Then add insult to injury by rebuilding on the same flood plane to be flooded out again at taxpayers’ expense. In the world of reality you don’t build in flood plain areas, and if you do, you’re on your own, that is reality; but in the spirit of the law that is ok because somebody else is responsible for those who got flooded out. That’s an example of the insanity and lunacy of public policy and limited liability for the discharge of debt that creates a quasi corporate privilege. People then complain of not getting the justice they think they deserve.
Their better ideas are heavily steeped in what eventuality lead to pure corporate communism untouchable by any government. The fact that we are a nation of laws and not of men is damned. Their motto is “If it feels good, do it.” Even commit murder and take illegal drugs to escape what they think is reality when in fact, they are trying to escape public policies unincorporated association that is run by insane lunatics and fanatics.
The rails are already greased in order to accomplish such lunacy and insanity by the creation of alphabet soup agencies, bureaucrats, and environmental extremists that draw up the association’s rules and regulations. Those rules and regulations are used to control the individual and the association to the exclusion of you,22 as a individual having access to Article III courts. As long as the individual remains a volunteer as a 14th amendment citizen “person” your only recourse to the federal court system is Congress’ legislative territorial courts under Article I. Said courts created under Article IV Section 3 cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution
The more debt we create, the more watered down the Bill of Rights become, then eventually disappear completely. The recent 5 to 4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment proved that four justices were willing, at the stroke of a pen, abolish the 2nd Amendment. What amendment is next?
The first 10 Amendments were designed to protect the absolute property rights of the individual while engaged in Interstate Commerce from government intervention upon that individual protected by Swift v. Tysen 16 Peters 1 The problem is there is nothing to prevent a judge or judges from taking judicial notice of public policies bankruptcy and the individual as being a fictitious person. In other words, you do not exist in reality under the letter and strict meaning to the Constitution and Bill of Rights but; reside as a res-a-dent in the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the real world of years past when somebody died, the term used was that he or she died, i.e., a physical death. Today in the world of make believe of privileges and immunities it is said we pass on, to where? the cemetery that has what? Perpetual care, i.e., in the spirit of, we never die.
IT IS THE HEGELIAN/MARXIST DIALECTICS THAT IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE RETIREMENT PROGRAMS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE THAT ARE HEAVILY STEEPED IN PHARMACEUTICAL AND OIL STOCKS. THIS IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSES CHEAP ENERGY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE. DIALECTICS IS WHY MOST GOVERNMENT, AND A LOT OF PRIVATE PROGRAMS ARE A DISMAL FAILURE. THOSE PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO TREAT SYMPTOMS AND NOT CAUSES WHICH KEEPS EXPANDING THE PUBLIC TRUST; OTHERWISE IT WILL COLLAPSE.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contact of freedom … go home from us in peace We ask not your counsels of arms … crouch down and lick the hands that feed you … May your chains set lightly upon you … May posterity forget that ye are our countryman." -
Samuel Adams, 1722-1803.

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." Somerset Maugham English Novelist and Playwright, 1874-1965.

From Dictionary of the History of Ideas Vol. I, 1973 on Democracy. Alex De Tocqueville a French Politician and Statesman, 5 Volumes 1805-1859

The tyranny of public opinion, Tocqueville argued, could prove more burdensome than the tyranny of any monarch. New values would predominate in a democratic society; the desire for riches would take the place of the desire for glory; there would be few totally uninstructed men but few learned ones. The prejudices, passions, and interests of the multitude would always have great weight, and this would generally militate against the type of political careers possible in more Aristocratic" societies. Government would not attract great talent, precisely because the interest in equality would make any kind of superiority irksome. Men of wealth would be preoccupied with their own affairs and not with those of the state. Democracy does not guarantee efficient government; it does provide freedom for the pursuit of one's own interest, subject always to the tyranny that comes from the majority insisting that its values and ideas should be safeguarded. Democratic societies have a taste for easy success and present enjoyment; this is their strength and their weakness.
Equality, Tocqueville insisted, tends to isolate men to cause them to concentrate on themselves only; it gives them an inordinate desire for material goods and comfort. For him, the liberal French aristocrat, the important question for the future was how to avoid the new kind of despotism that might be based upon popular opinion, with the state's power being “absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild." Tocqueville saw the new state power as rather like that of the parent, except that the parent prepared the child for manhood; the democratic state was interested in perpetuating childhood in man. It would provide for his necessities, facilitate his pleasures, and direct his industry. What remains, Tocqueville asked, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
3. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by exciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
First printed in 1916 by Reverend William John Henry Boetcker from Erie Pa. Born 1873.

PLATOISM. The philosophical position which says that universal truths existed as ideal substances before creation, exterior to creation, and that there is nothing of these truths in nature except as they reflect the universal, Hellenic proto-Lockeism, maintaining that humans are of no value except as blank tablets to be writ upon by others, and so echoed in Marxian dialectic and the theory of compulsory consumption of the wares promoted by an elite. Environmentalism. Pygmalionsim, Socialism.
Aristotelanism. Fundamentally, the philosophical doctrine that knowledge of universals (such as ‘good’, ‘man’, ‘truth’) and of all reality arises and is discovered out of individuals. The opposite of Platonism. Postulates personal appreciation.
Please do not make a religious argument of the above. I’m trying to give you the correct perspective based upon facts surrounding the law. It has been my belief for years that the Bible is a history book of the law but could not come to that conclusion until I discovered what our Constitution is all about.
The choice of law is up to you. If you find the above disturbing, trash it.

ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN IN THIS WORLD, YOU ARE GOING TO GET WITH WHAT YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT UP WITH.

I do not want people to make a religious argument out of the above. I am merely trying to show that the Bible is what I believe, based upon facts presented, to be a history book of the law. Religion is a personal issue within oneself and has no place in the letter of the law. Today’s public policy is an unincorporated association that is not considered a legal entity under the common law. If public policy was grounded in the letter of the law, we would not have every bodies religion mixed in today’s public policy with its spirit of the law.
I have folks studying my materials who are very religious people and they have told me that my materials make their religious beliefs even stronger in that they look within themselves instead of looking outward to something or somebody. Remember, we are a nation of laws, not of men. We must keep it that way.

©

Lee Brobst
eagleeye@pennswoods.net This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

19 At first glance, rebuttable by other evidence. Black’s Law Dict. 5th ed.

20 The Pa Judicial Code is only prima facie evidence of the law if there is no enacting clause.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enables the General Assembly to enact only certain public statutes and specifies how these statutes are to come about: Pennsylvania is enforcing federalism through the bankruptcy subject to the following

and for the more perfect satisfaction of the public, the reasons and motives for making such laws shall be fully and clearly expressed in the preambles. (Section the Fifteenth.) :
The stile of laws of this commonwealth shall be, “Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted by the representatives of the freemen of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in general assembly met, and by the authority of the same." How many laws conform to the above mandates? How can Pennsylvania circumvent the above and the National Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 at Statute I United States Statutes at Large Chap. XVI Section I. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, . . .” See also Sec. 14 and 16 of said Act. [Italics in original] and, Article I Section 10 in order to implement federalism. But then it is easier to complain than do something about it.
21 An unincorporated society; a body of persons united and acting together without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise. Clark v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 328 Mo. 1084, 43 S.W.2d 404, 408. It is not a legal entity separate from the persons who compose it. See also Affiliation.

22 Please take note that the book titled THE LAW by Bastist pertains to Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States. Bastist’s book does not deal with an unincorporated society with special privileges and immunities such as limited liability and perpetual succession as does Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution
..........