The International Currency of the NWO?
Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part, that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”. The mandate for gold and silver coin applies only to the States of the Union. There is no similar constitutional restriction on the currencies that might be used in Washington DC or the territories since they are not “States” of the Union.
I’ve therefore concluded that the use of Federal Reserve Notes would be at least restricted and probably prohibited within the States of the Union, but would be quite legal within any territory of the United States or Washington DC. This distinction between the constitutional venues of currencies is the cornerstone for my contention that “Texas,” “TX” and even “STATE OF TEXAS” do not signify the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” but instead signify a territory. I.e., it’s lawful to use Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in the “territory” of TX, but it would be unlawful to use FRNs within “The State of Texas”.
Thus, it might be that the mere use of FRNs would constitute evidence that you had “voluntarily” left your State of the Union to transact business in a fictional territory. Within the State you would have many rights, but no currency. Within the territory you’d have ample access to a fiat currency, but little or no real rights.
The distinction between being within a State of the Union and being in a territory is seen in a comparison of Article 1 of the Constitution (which grants Congress certain limited powers in relation to the States of the Union) and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 (which grants Congress unlimited powers over the territories). Thus, within a State of the Union each of people of such State are individual sovereigns. Within a territory, the Congress is sovereign, and the territorial inhabitants are (at best) subjects.
Therefore, I contend that if gov-co can deceive you into inadvertently acting as if you’re in a territory, you will have forfeit your standing to claim individual sovereignty and you’ll be suitable for treatment as a “subject” (or even animal).
I.e., if you used a Zip Code in your mailing address, that would probably be construed as evidence that you regarded your venue as within a territory rather than a State of the Union. Similarly, if you used FRNs, that might be construed to imply that you’d entered into a fictional territory rather than transact in gold and silver within a State of the Union.
I’ve been pretty confident about the approximate accuracy of that analysis for most of a decade.
However, today, one of my readers commented on the death of Tom Gipson (R.I.P. Valiant Liberty) and posted links to an article by Tom and another article by a law professor named “Ebsworth”. Both articles dealt with “maritime,” “admiralty” and/or “international commercial” law.
I haven’t yet read either article, but their common subject matter caused an interesting thought to cross my mind.
Previously, I’ve only thought of the FRN only in relation to the “United States”. I.e., the FRN was apparently prohibited within the States of the Union, but lawful within the territories of the United States. I assumed the FRN only implicated a jurisdiction of a US territory.
However, it crosses my mind that the US dollar has been recognized as the “global reserve currency” since WWII. The vast majority of international trade has been conducted with US dollars over the past 65 years. Thus, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to describe the dollar as the world’s only “international currency”. But would such description be only a metaphor or would it be a fact?
I strongly suspect that until Saddam Hussein started selling Iraqi crude for euros in A.D. 2000 (and thereby threatening the US dollar’s hegemony as the “global reserve currency”), the US dollar was earmarked to become the single global/international currency of the New World Order. If that were to happen, anyone using FRNs anywhere in the world might be presumed to be transacting under the jurisdiction of the global government of the New World Order.
Therefore, I begin to wonder if my earlier analysis of currency venues (States vs US territories) may have been too limited. Maybe the significance of the US dollar/FRN is not that it creates the presumption that we are transacting within a US territory subject to exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. Maybe, instead of implicating “territorial trade,” the US dollar/FRN implicates international trade.
If so, use of the fiat dollar wouldn’t merely subject us to the territorial and exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress –it might instead subject us to international law (like the “maritime” and/or “admiralty” law researched by Tom Gipson and the “international commercial law” researched by Professor Ebsworth). Perhaps the FRN even implicates the UN’s jurisdiction.
The critical point is that use of FRNs would support the presumption that we had voluntarily left the venue of a State of the Union. But what venue would we be presumed to have entered? A territory of the US? Or a territory of the UN (or some other international jurisdiction)?
It’s just a thought, but is it possible that the FRN’s legal effect is to subject us to an international jurisdiction rather than US territorial jurisdiction?
I look forward to your comments.
Mike
July 28, 2012 at 6:41 AM
d 24
o 90
l 72
l 72
a 6
r 108
s 114
i 54
g 42
n 84
—————
666
“No State [ condition of person ] shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”.
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 7:32 PM
I have no idea what the “i,” “g,” and “n” signify in your construct. You can add any letters you like until the sum is “666″ but those additions won’t prove anything.
I disagree that “State” (as the word appears in Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution) refers to “condition of person”. It means a “State” of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” (as per the Articles of Confederation).
Mike
July 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Dollar Sign, by using the current Dollar we have rejected real money and our status as men made in gods image. i.e. we are no longer “a free people occupying a territory of defined boundaries. Texas vs white 7 wall 700,743
Christian Gains
July 28, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Before 08′ I MIGHT have agreed…now, it’s clear that a far different regime is intended…in this vein, I’ve just begun to research “The Civil religion”. And THAT, I tend to suspect, is more along the lines of what is slowly appearing on the Global horizon. It’s my suspicion that the ENTIRE usa idea & experiment has been determined “expired” or “finished”, and now it’s time to replace it with a broader experiment…more along the lines of Revelation 17:12 & 16…but, that’s just me…
Ben E. Morgan
July 29, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Believe you are on right track, Try this on for size:
******************************************************************
THE RELIGION of CHAOS
Ancient man believed extensively that the universe developed
out of Chaos, and that chaos was accordingly the source of all
creativity and power Social regeneration required therefore the
rebirth of chaos, and this the ancient festivals of which
Saturnalia is best known popularly sought to provide ritually.
During a stated period of time, the festival, all laws of order were
deliberately subverted. Property and marriage, for example, were
rendered null and void. Lucian of Samosata. a second-century pagan
writer, gives us an account of Saturnalia. For Lucian, the golden
age preceded order; it was a time when “all men are good and
all men were gold,” when “slavery was not. “The purpose of Satur-
nalia was to restore briefly that golden age through chaos and to
revive contemporary society in its quest for the new golden age.
Lucian cited the Laws of Saturnalia. Which are a revealing
index to social expectation. The first two laws from the First Table
of laws are especially telling.
All business. be it public or private, is forbidden during
the feast days. save such as tends to sport and solace
and delight. Let none follow their avocations saving
cooks and bakers.
All men shall be equal, slave and free. rich and poor.
one with another. 1
In older forms of the Saturnalia, a condemned prisoner became
king during the festival and ruled, even to possessing the queen.
As Caillois has noted, the festival was the suspension of time,
law and order. “In every way, the primordial age must first be
actualized. The festival is chaos rediscovered and newly created. 2
In some cultures today, the youth enter marriage only after a period
of Saturnalia, a time of required chaos and promiscuity as the only
true means to realizing order.
1.F.G. Fowler, translators: The Works at Lucian at Samosata,
vol. IV, p. ‘I14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.
2.Roger Caillois: Man and the Sacred, p. 112. The Free Press of
Glencoe, Illinois; 1959.
*****************************************************************************************
II
In the Second Table of‘ the Laws as cited by Lucian of
Samosata. the first law required that the rich, before Saturnalia began.
shall record a tithe of their income. properties and clothing.
which tithe must be disposed of on the eve of the festival. The
rich must also pay the rents and debts of the poor. Gifts must be
sent to the poor. and any rich man who having given away liber-
ally. failed to do so with glad countenance. . . be it known to
him that he hath incurred that penalty of the sickle, though he
himself hath sent all he should.”3. The sickle, atharme or magic
knife. is an ancient symbol of’ magical power, whereby the “evil”
ones are instantly dissolved or destroyed by the possessor of‘ the
sickle.4.
In all such Festivals, law, property, and order were offensive
and had to be nullified. Sexual virtue also had to be deliberate-
ly overturned, wives being required to prostitute themselves,
incest and other perversions also being demanded. In some
cultures today, these customs continue. robbing, burning, pillaging,
and raping becoming the law and order of the festival. In refer-
ring to one contemporary tribal culture. Caillois notes.
“Ordinarily, these incestuous unions cause a chill of terror and
abomination, and the guilty are condemned to the most vigorous
punishments Yet in the course of the festival. they are permitted and
obligatory.” They are. moreover, “ritualistic and holy.” 5,
Why obligatory. and why holy‘? The answer is a religious one.
If chaos is the origin of all being. then a religious revival re-
quires a return to chaos, and the festival was and is the annual
religious revival of such religious cultures. Christianity, by in-
troducing faith in the sovereign God and His absolute law as the
source of all creation. made true religious revival a return to God
and to law.
3′Lucian, iv, p. 115,
4-Grillot de Givry: A Pictorial Anthology of Witchcraft, Alchemy and
Magic, p. 90. J.C. Locke, trans. New Hyde Park, N.Y.: UniversityBooks, I958.
5′Caillois, p. 117.
***********************************************************************************************
III
Instead of Chaos, the characteristics of true renewal
or revival are law and order, and the respect of marriage,property,
status, and authorities. For the religions of chaos. play.and
escape from work, is the first step towards renewal. For the
biblical religion faith requires law, work and order as the instrument
renewal. the answer is thus clear. If man worships Chaos.
then social renewal for him requires revolution, the ritualistic
and necessary rebirth of chaos in order to remake man and
society.
In Lucian’s day. the implications of Saturnalia were obvious,
Cronosolon, the original chaos—god and lawgiver of Saturnalia,
had abdicated to Zeus. and therefore only briefly could there be
the demanded “redistribution of property” and the hoped for
freedom from law. But the worshipers of chaos still hoped for
the return of their golden age. when man would be beyond good
and evil, beyond law, order, propertv and religion.
But if man norships the biblical God. then the revolutionary
faith in chaos is the epitome of evil, the essence of lawlessness.
and. as the church fathers and theologians quiickly saw it, the
manifestation of antichrist.
The struggle against these religions
of chaos. in their many local forms. is a central aspect of church
history This alien religion often entered the church in the form
of various heresies. or survived in various carnivals. the
Festival of Fools, the election of boy bishops and outside the
church. in the satanic mass and other cultic practices. Very
early too. however. various groups arose. demanding during the late
medieval and early reformation eras. a revolution against all
morality. property, law. and order as the one means of
regenerating the world.
The link between these ancient religions of chaos and the
modern revolutionary movements is a very close and real one.
The symbols themselves have remained constant throughout the
centuries, among thom being the ancient Phrygian cap of liberty
(i. e.. liberty from law, the liberty of chaos) which cap has found
its way on to certain U. S. coins, the sickle oi atharme, the hammer
(an ancient symbol of the destroying power of lightning on the one hand,
and the antinomiansexual fertilityon the other) and others as well.
——————————————————————————————————————-
chris
July 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM
there is no lawful money because there are no states
there are no ”people” in the states.
all form of government is a political subdivision of the federal government.
even the school district and it’s admin claim the same status, as a political subdivision.
city gov., all state governmental authorities, take their marching orders from the fed.
because no constitutional states exist… it has been over for a long time , over 100 years , in regards to my research…and I do agree with your analogy in regards to a global jurisdiction in relationship the frn’s.
how can a state government operate in a constitional sense, directly in contradiction with the constitution, in regards to lawful money and still be an independent state…I would like to hear your thoughts in regards to a state owned bank , controlled by the individual state ? north dakota? still using frn’s but in quite a bit more control of interest rates, and assets to fund it’s yearly operations and infrastructure..
thanks
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM
I disagree. The States of the Union are, at bottom, composed of the PEOPLE of each such State of the Union. So long as there are “people” (not citizens, inhabitants, occupants, etc.) there are States of the Union. What’s missing are the GOVERNMENTS of the States of the Union. The State of the Union are here, but without gold and silver money, their GOVERNMENTS have been rendered insolvent and unable to function. Under the “emergency” of no gold or silver, a conglomerate of private corporations (probably acting as agencies for the “United States”/Congress) have moved into the resulting vacuum to provide quasi-governmental “services”.
The States of the Union are still here. But under Article 1.10.1 of the federal Constitution, the constitutional governments of the States are not.
There may be some exceptions. It’s possible that a handful of top gov-co employees (say, the state Secretary of State, the state Attorney General, the Governor, etc.) may wear two hats. That is, they are paid employees of “this state” (the territory) but also function as unpaid officers of The State of the Union–probably by virtue of their OATH to support and defend the Constitution of The State (of the Union). But, if this theory is valid, in order to cause these employees who’ve taken an oath to support the Constitution of The State of the Union, you must first identify yourself as one of the “people” (not “citizen,” “inhabitant,” etc.) of your State of the Union and invoke their oath-based assistance.
As to “state-owned banks” etc., I doubt that anything paid for with FRNs can be “owned” by a State of the Union. I doubt that anything paid for with FRNs can be easily proved to even exist within a State of the Union. If you see any modern “state-owned” banks, they are probably owned by some kind of “state” (or territory) other than a State of the Union.
Anon4fun
July 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM
A fine example of logical reasoning, though I think you may be over-applying the principle just a bit.
It seems to me that this gold and silver provision does not limit the people, only the states. That is, it’s okay to use funny money within a state of the union, as long as the state itself is not party to the transaction. The states still exist, because the people of the states still exist and have not reversed the expressions of will by which they created their respective states. It’s just that the states are commercially dormant due to the unavailability of the right forms of money.
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM
I agree. It may be lawful for you and I to enter into private transactions with FRNs, but it appears to be absolute prohibited for the GOVERNMENTS of the States of the Union to impose taxes, fines or fees–or pay their employees, officers, and creditors–with anything other than gold and silver. The States (meaning the “people”) of the Union are still here; but the governments of the States of the Union appear to be missing or at least vacant. If anyone is working as a “state employee” but being paid in FRNs, he appears to be employed by some entity other than the government of a State of the Union.
If so, we are not subject to authority of such “employee” because he has no authority over us–unless we consent to his purported (but non-constitutional) “authority”. This probably gives rise to the “de facto officer” doctrine whereby the courts have ruled if you recognize someone AS IF he were an “officer” of the government, then that purported “officer” has “official immunity” EVEN IF he is not, in fact, an officer under the State’s constitution.
Yartap
July 28, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Maybe we should ask any government employee, “Do you receive gold or silver as payment for your services to the State or do you receive FRN’s as payment for your services to “this state?” Then, the answer will reveal who we are dealing with. Once revealed as not being an employee of a state in the Union, we can declare them as a fraud and remove ourselves.
What do you think?
Southern Grey
July 28, 2012 at 9:07 PM
That is an excellent question to ask of a judge and it cuts to the heat of the matter. Thank you. If it’s not gold and silver he’s not a lawful State employee, but is on the payroll of something else.
Now that we’ve gotten this far, can there be coincident jurisdiction between the State and the STATE?
Southern Grey
July 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM
How might one use this advantageously in a court styled: THE STATE OF __________ (fill in the blank). It would seem that where there’s concealed (however pitifully) fraud that there should still be a remedy.
What questions might one ask of a judge to trap him into revealing the fraud being perpetrated?
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM
You appear to be asking for an answer that’s just a couple of sentences long. In fact, we’ve been looking for answers to your questions for years and I don’t know of anyone who has an absolute answer.
But, I’ll say this, if you’re asking questions of the judge, you’ve already screwed up. If you’re smart, good or blessed, you’ll have stopped any proceeding against you long before it gets to court. Once you get to court, you’ll have admitted or be presumed to have admitted the court’s (and therefore this “system’s”) jurisdiction over you.
I believe your questions must be posed as soon as possible after your first encounter with your potential adversary. I look to ask questions quickly about any paper notice such as a traffic ticket. Within limits, you may be able to ask questions of the police officer who stops you, but if you go far, he may arrest you.
The objective in all of these questions is to CREATE EVIDENCE that you’ve asked questions that were not answered. That means that you pose your questions in writing and perhaps by registered mail so as to create admissible evidence that 1) you have asked questions; and 2) they did not answer. In my opinion, if they don’t answer your relevant questions, they are depriving you of sufficient “notice” and therefore denying you procedural due process”–which consists of 1) notice and 2) opportunity to be heard.
This theory is explained more fully in the articles I’ve written on “Notice”. You can find those articles listed under the Notice CATEGORY listed on the right column of this blog.
If your questions are sufficiently insightful and posed very early in the conflict, you may wind up asking questions that are so politically explosive that the “system” dare not answer. If so, your case may tend to disappear.
But there are no simple answers to the questions you’ve posed to this blog. The answers to your questions to this blog may have already been answered, but it may require some considerable study on your part to understand those answers.
Yartap
July 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM
The question you raise, “Are we under Federal control or International control by way of the FRN’s?”, is an expanded theory indeed; but, I feel that we should expand even further. The limits do not stop at the governmental levels of control (Congress or U.N.), but rather the Powers that Be which are international and private. They control the governmental levels with their parallel created governments of the world.
Without these “private” central bank currencies of the world, it is hard for one to do commerce (Rev. 13:17).
It seems that every time we accept these currencies the rules change for our Constitution(s). States no longer have to use gold and silver to pay debts, there does not have to be a Representative for every 30 thousand inhabitants, infringements upon the 2nd Amendment is OK, infringements upon privacy is OK and so on. But, it’s just not us, it is the entire world. If we use any private issued currency, then we have to play by the owner’s rules. To find another form of currency is the hard part, but it can be done (but, it’s very difficult).
Can we jump in and out of the PTB’s system? Maybe. But, we are promised by God that those who participate in the system and created the system (PTB) shall be consumed by the system (Rev.13: 9-10). I believe that the support and use of the system places us in jeopardy. We walk a very fine line. Further, we are told to “come out” of the system for our protection (Rev. 18: 4). God places the blame squarely upon the merchants of the world using “sorceries” (usury) to deceive the nations (Rev. 18:23).
chris
July 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM
I would say we basicaly agree,but my attempts to inform people of some of the issues we have discussed just in this thread, are at best impossible..to try to explain to someone that the federal gov is an incorporation , is like speaking greek, issues in relation to jurisdiction, territories, states STATES, etc are pointless, let alone getting anyone to understand what the ”united states ”is..an ss5, a 1040, an I9 form , an affidavit..jesus christ , I can not find one person that I can even have a debate with in person, I actualy worked for texas rep for over 2 years..and engaged in -in depth debates in relation to drivers liscenses, federal jurisdiction, vehicle registration etc..the point is he was not ”playing dumb” that is why I say there are no people in the states. until the public can be brought along , at least to the lowest common denominator , in relation to understanding anything besides , football is on sunday , payday is on friday , there are no ”people”…god save us.
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 9:26 PM
There is at least one member of the “people” of The State of Texas down here: me. Why? Because I say so.
The preamble to The Constitution of The State of Texas declares, “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the PEOPLE of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares in part, “All political power is inherent in the PEOPLE, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.” The word “benefit” tells me the Constitution of The State of the Union is a TRUST in which the PEOPLE are the beneficiaries and the officers and employees of government of The State of the Union are the fiduciaries.
Note that the “people” are the beneficiaries. Not the “citizens,” “inhabitants,” persons,” etc. If you want to be treated as one of the beneficiaries of the constitution of The State of the the Union, I believe you must first expressly identify yourself as one of the “people of The State of Texas” (or one of the “people of The State of Nebraska,” etc.). If you so identify, I believe that anyone who’s taken an Oath of Office to support and defend The State is your fiduciary and obligated to administer the trust (the Constitution of The State) on your behalf.
Similarly, The Constitution of the United States begins with the phrase, “We the People of the United States” (I’m sure they meant the SEVERAL “United States”).
If I expressly declare and identify myself to be one of the People of The State of Texas (and/or even one of the People of the several “United States”), what judge or even cop can effectively deny that declaration on the record? The courts don’t dare expressly deny that you or I are one of the “people”–provided that you expressly identify yourself as such and do nothing to compromise your claim. But if you have a drivers license, bank account, SSN, etc., etc., you may have unwittingly allowed the court to presume that you are a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “occupant” or “person” of “this state” (something other than The State of the Union).
If this theory is valid, it’s all up to you. Can you devise a way to effectively claim to be one of the People of your State of the Union? Can you explain or refute any presumption that you are something other than one of the “people” that’s based on your having a drivers license, SSN, bank account, etc., etc.?
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that the “people” need drivers licenses. Conversely, if you have a Drivers License, it’s probably construed as evidence that 1) you are NOT one of the People; or 2) you are one of the People, but you have voluntarily chosen to act in a capacity other than that of one of the People. In either case, whatever passes for government will “entitled” to abuse or exploit you based on your standing as something other than one of the “People”.
Chris
July 28, 2012 at 8:41 PM
I don’t see how you could shift jurisdiction to a territory from a state by using a FRN. Your essentially just trading a two party promissory note to a fourth person. I am assuming the promise to pay is between the treasury and the federal reserve.
If the states are not in fact states but territories they may get away from the constitutional requirement. However they still call themselves States so they should be paying their debts in gold and silver coins. I am not sure how they get away with not following the constitution. That needs a more in depth study. Perhaps someone with a camera should start asking questions.
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM
I agree. This is a THEORY. It requires more investigation.
Jethro
July 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM
It would seem use of the FRN creates problems not only for the several States, but also for “private” use. Suppose you dine at a fine restaurant — they provide you real food and service and in return you give them an inherently worthless, irredeemable piece of paper (e.g. $100 FRN). They didn’t get paid, so why can’t they haul your butt to jail? Enter legal tender laws where people can be compelled to play a giant game of make believe that worthless paper is worth something. So if the restaurant doesn’t take your paper, it appears there is a “discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender”. Are such laws (in what plane do they operate?) a “benefit” to the extent they impose a reciprocal duty on those “benefiting”, like income tax?
As for what constitutes a “state”, I’ve seen definitions of that term so loose that almost anything could be a “state”. However, the “State” created by a People has a particular name, e.g. the A.D. 1835 Tennessee constitution declares the name of the state is “‘The State of Tennessee’”. However, the “state” doing business now calls itself “State of Tennessee”. What’s the difference between the two?
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 8:53 PM
YARTRAP. Asking whether an employee is paid in FRNs or gold & silver is a central issue. But knowing it, and proving it are two different things. Easier said than done. Still, I believe you’re on the right track.
Yartap
July 29, 2012 at 5:04 AM
To: Southern Grey and Alfred,
I’m sorry guys. My statement about the gold and silver verses the FRN for state employees as being a requirement for being “lawful” employees of a State in the Union or “this state” may be basically wrong. Further discussion is needed.
Article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says,
“No State shall….coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;…”
The way I read and understand Article 1, Section 10 is: 1) The states are restricted from coining any type of Money. 2) “emit” (to issue with authority) Bills of Credit (currency, promissory notes, a state’s full faith and credit) I question the legality of bonds issued by a state and believe them to be Bills of Credit. 3) And the states have to “Tender” (offer) gold and silver Coin for their debts. “Tender” means offer, and “legal tender” means a currency or Money. The implication of a state’s payments for debts is there, but can the meaning for this phrase be construed to have a different meaning?
Questions:
1. Does the word “make” mean coin or to create something in Art.1, Sec. 10? Or does the word mean transfer, order of exchange, to cause to exist or happen, or to declare and/or to establish?
2. If the state cannot coin money or currency, then who does it? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have the Power….To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,…” But, the Constitution does not say what type of Money or its substance. The restriction placed upon the state for payments or creation (this is the question) to be made in gold and silver are not placed upon the Federal government. This train of thought brings the assumption that the national government is to make only gold and silver as legal tender, if the states cannot coin Money. But, it does not say that!
3. Could it be that Congress can coin steel coins and the states are required to “make” (create, manufacture, coin) only gold and silver coins? I don’t think so. Congress can also “borrow” Money. Why would Congress have to borrow Money when they can coin it? Could it be that the substance of the coinage is in short supply, like maybe gold and silver? I think so. In the time of the creation of the Constitution, gold and silver coins existed; who in the world would want a steel or clad coin made by the national government? Nobody! It was either gold, silver, silver clad or copper.
4. Is the Constitution saying that the states are to use the national coins to pay their debts?
5. Or is the Constitution saying and implying that Congress will make or coin only gold and silver coins?
6. But please note, Congress restricted the states from emitting Bills of Credit; but guess what, Congress does not have the Power to emit Bills of Credit, either. What does this mean or its implications?
7. Congress does have the Power to borrow Money upon its “Full Faith and Credit,” but does it have the authority to issue Bills of Credit (fiat currency, promissory notes, notes, Congress’s full faith and credit) without the backing of a lawful Money or substance? I don’t think so. Congress does not have that Power nor was it granted to Congress by the Constitution. Congress’s full faith and credit does not apply to the Money of the United States. The Money didn’t need the backing of the full faith and credit, it was made of substance like gold and silver.
My hope is that someone can add or correct my thoughts and assumptions.
palani
July 28, 2012 at 9:04 PM
The money you use establishes your lawform. Gold is for the king. Silver for gentlemen (this term probably excludes esquires as gentlemen do not engage in commercial activities). Copper and barter is for peasants. The gold or silver “lawform” is required to be considered a state under the U.S. constitution.
Territories are attached to municipalities. This was the excuse to improve the Articles of Confederation .. there had previously been no District of Columbia to attach ungoverned territories to.
I don’t doubt at all that jurisdiction attaches when a Federal Reserve note is involved. Whose jurisdiction? The U.S. of A., a singular entity that is not federal in nature. There are other ways for this jurisdiction to attach. SSN. Zip code. Location in a military base, post office, even being located in a watershed. Federal zones and associated jurisdiction could be said to be impossible to avoid entirely.
For those west of the Mississippi River in the area purchased from the French (Louisiana Purchase) the U.S. constitution exists as a promise but that promise has not materialized fully so the legal construction “in the mean time” is in effect. The French and U.S. government are engaged as joint fiduciaries until such a time as the promises made are in that treaty can become effective. For those in the area purchased from Mexico (Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo) provisions similar to those in the Louisiana Purchase were made with Mexico and the U.S. government engaged as joint fiduciaries. These two areas are federal zones where inhabitants can appeal to the U.S., France or Mexico for remedy. Use of a Federal Reserve note in one of these areas establishes no more or no less jurisdiction than already exists.
Here are the promises made in article III of the Louisiana Purchase … “and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess. “
Adask
July 28, 2012 at 9:56 PM
SOUTHERN GREY: I believe “The State” and “this state” are two mutually exclusive “planes” or “venues”. However, I also believe that you and I are free to choose this day” (or even this minute) if we want to transact within The State or “in this state”. As always, I could be wrong, but I believe we have the right to choose our venue and to jump back and forth between those venues. The gov-co (which operates exclusively “in this state”/territory) presumes we are all always operating “in this state”. If you want to escape the jurisdiction of “this state,” it follows that you must establish that your alleged “offenses” actually took place within the borders of The State of the Union.
More, I believe that since all gov-co employees are paid in FRNs, they are employed by “this state” and normally obligated to serve the interests of “this state”. However, if that employee also has an Oath of Office to support and defend the State constitution, I believe that the such employees are also bound to serve the interests of the People of The State (of the Union) by their oath of office.
Get that? They are PAID to act on behalf of “this state” (territory), but by virtue of their Oath they are unpaid but still obligated to serve the interests of the People.
But. If so, the critical point is that you 1) effectively identify yourself as one of the People of your State of the Union; and 2) cause your adversary to admit that he has an Oath of Office that makes him fiduciary for those who identify themselves as one of the People; and/or 3) produce evidence on your own that your adversary HAS an Oath of Office on file that obligates him to act as fiduciary for The State and for the benefit of the People of The State.
Again, this THEORY. It seems plausible to me. Logical. I believe it to be roughly correct. But I could be wrong. YOU should take all of this conjecture with salt. You should test this hypothesis against the facts and evidence that you’ve seen or learned in YOUR life to see if you agree with or reject this THEORY.
Such testing is not merely for your benefit, it’s also for mine. Despite the fact that I believe this theory to be roughly correct, if anyone else has evidence to prove the theory is false, I want to be the first one to know so I can free myself from what may be a false theory.
So if you see supporting evidence, please let me know. If you see evidence that refutes the theory, again, please let me know.
I’m not here merely to educate those who read my blog. I’m also here to be educated by those who read my blog.
Yartap
July 31, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Alfred, I believe in the theory to the point of fact. I believe that each has been turned into a corporate status with the advent of our created strawman. I believe each child has been bonded as collateral from birth. I believe that all governments and governmental departments have been made into corporations subject to the U.C.C.
But, the “two planes or venues,” you speak of, are not two planes or venues of government or laws, but rather, the two forms or venues are that of PARTICIPATION or NON-PARTICIPATION in the “one” venue that exist.
The theory does not take into fact that “change” and “corruption” have played a part. An Oath of Office is taken to the “best” of their “ability” (and knowledge). Well, what is their ability to think and know? If they have read the Constitution, how many understand and comprehend its meaning? Very few! When you believe in a democracy, you believe in change. How many in Congress have violated the Constitution with their laws?
I still have and carry One Dollar Silver Certificates in my wallet, and I’m still waiting to exchange them for one dollar in silver. But, in A.D. 1971, the Full Faith and Credit of our government was applied to me and my silver certificates. By government dictate, I am to tell myself and believe, that the promise to exchange in silver means to exchange in a promissory note (FRN). I carry them to remind myself of the government’s corruption.
Then we have the naysayer. You can show him the facts and he’ll refuse to believe. And this especially applies to the government actors and the “in government we trust” people.
For example, tell someone that polygamy is lawful. Your Christian friend will disagree and inform you that God “change” the law and he will point to the scriptures about one wife for a deacon (the reason for one wife is so he can do God’s work better, plus it’s just a recommendation by Paul). Then ask your friend, “Well, of the 12 sons of Israel, who are the Bastards? I believe they were all blessed; and in Timothy, it says that God changes not.” And with the facts in front of him, he still will not believe what is written in the Holy rule book because he lacks understanding, and he does not want to hear that he has been deceived in his teachings. He thinks, “No one would dare, blatantly teach the wrong doctrine from the Word of God!” Yeah, Right. And this is the same guy that says the devil is real. Do you see my point?
With that, how much time will a judge allow to re-educate a jury about the matrix? Not much! (Though, it is a point for appeal). And what about the “Well, I have to obey, so you have to obey” people on a jury? That’s why I always look for the lawbreakers for a jury. I’ll take my chances with them.
Our system has “changed” by “corruption” placed upon an unknowing public. Privateers have conquered and captured our forefather’s beliefs and changed them to appear as the same or unchanged. Our changed and corrupted venues do have remedy. The remedy is PARTICIPATION or NON-PARTICIPATION in this changed and corrupted one venue(s).
Maybe, you could write on how to become a NON-PARTICIPANT, if you think this point is worthy. I look forward to your response.
Adask
August 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM
We are, to some extent, like the blind men who are describing the elephant. One blind man feels the trunk, and claims an elephant is like a hose; another feels the leg and claims an elephant is like a column; etc. We all agree that we’re perceiving an “elephant” that is large and inexplicable (this “elephant” shouldn’t exist in the “land of the free”). But we have a variety of theories to describe the “elephant”. I describe the elephant in terms of two venues or two planes. You describe the elephant in terms of participation and non-participation. I wouldn’t say that either of us is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Both descriptions have their place. Some people will be more comfortable with my descriptions; some will be more comfortable with yours; others will prefer 3rd, 4th and 5th descriptions that you and I don’t even mention.
This multiplicity of descriptions happens because most of us don’t yet have a clear vision of the “elephant”. Each of us knows something about the elephant. None of us knows everything.
I don’t know how to overcome that lack of information. In the end, we can’t really know the full description of the elephant until people in positions of authority provide that description–and they never will.
So perhaps the fundamental object is not to precisely describe the elephant, but instead figure out how to hold people in positions of power liable for allowing the elephant to in the “land of the free”.
Yartap
July 28, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Chris:
I understand your frustration. I suffer from it, too! But, I try to remember the Scriptures about how that even the elect will be fooled, that the only soul I can save is my own (not even my children’s soul), and that even Jesus wiped his feet of the non-believer and removed himself from them.
We are to “remove” ourselves from evil. We are to separate from them. We are to “leave.” It’s one thing to try to save others, but what about a loved one or family member? Do we stay in Sodom or do we leave/separate without family members and friends? What does it profit, if one loses his soul?
Chris, what I’m trying to say is that we have a great blog hear. You and I are among our kind hear. We are learning from each other. But, each must prepare him or herself for what has happened and what is to come, separate from each other. More will join, believe me. But, remember this truth, that the gates of hell are wide. Close to all or a majority will not join.
The test for us is: How will we save others, if we cannot save ourselves? Will we stay joined to the system of the powers that be? How will we lead others, if not by example? Only ME, and my freewill, will either save me or destroy me. For me, a true believer in freedom, the use of force over another’s thoughts and beliefs places my freedom at risk, and would make me a liar/hypocrite. But, allowing others beliefs to rule over my life and freedoms will destroy me and my soul. I choose to separate!
The Powers that Be only want to deal with “We the Strawmen.” You can choose to be the trustee/fiduciary of your assigned strawman, or you can choose to not participate and remove yourself from the position. It is a very hard thing to not participate (believe me, you really have to think “outside the box” of conventional thinking, which is hard for most people). Chris, the numbers of people to knowledge will be a very small number, because, “we tend to choose the easy road.”
Vincent
July 29, 2012 at 12:54 AM
The way I understand it in broad terms: FRN are an “I owe you” note that “discharges” debt and can not be a true “payment of debt”. In the situation of a discharge, the issuer of the note is the legal owner of the property or service that was purchased and the carriers and users of the note would be the holders in due course. “Payment” can only be made with gold or silver coin (money) or “property”. It is hard to truly own any property if you bought it with someone elses “I owe you note”.
If you deal in any “commerce” then you fall under other jurisdictions than those in the Bible or the constitution. Commerce is basically anything you do dealing in commercial paper, insurance, adhesion contracts with state or governmental authority or other governmental entities (other people with SSNs are government entities), licenses, government recognized identification, taxes, public business, citizenship, etc. Commerce stretches quite far. If you avoid all commerce (this is not impossible, just next to impossible for most people) and basically anything which the government provides you with any service or benefit or protection then you should be able to soundly defend the way you want to live in court with out worry of being under any other jurisdiction. You would be able to fall back on all constitutional protections/laws and any Biblical laws/teachings you choose to follow.
The scripture makes it clear we are to not use unjust weights and balances (fiat money) and not deal in usury (banking). It is also pretty clear on practicing strict liability and not limited liability (insurance), or making contracts with foreign or alien gods (governments).
I think living a life to the entire scriptures ultimately goes hand in hand with not having any involvement with a gov co. One will lead to the other. You can’t successfully worship two God’s with opposite systems. God is a jealous God.
It is very hard to be raised, educated, and brainwashed in a particular system most of your life to then discover the truth of the scriptures and realize the answers are almost all the opposite of what you have known, learned and practiced.
Vincent
July 29, 2012 at 1:54 AM
I sort of got off track: Since a FRN is a discharge of debt and not a payment of debt, then the States (however you want to define that “this state” or “The State” ) would still be following the constitution even when accepting a FRN as a tender in discharge of debt. I noticed that the US Code 31 section 5103 leaves out the word payment.
“United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes
and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)
are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.”
This link: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/definitions.html shows some interesting legal definitions pertaining to tender, money and such over the years along with some quotes from some court cases.
FRN do not have to be accepted as payment, but over the years it has become so common most people don’t know the difference. Once someone accepts the FRNs as payment of a debt is counts as much, even though the debt was only discharged, the acceptor of the notes gave consent to have the debt discharged instead of paid.
Our government mints real money every day, but most would rather have the 16 $100 bills than the $50 gold coin. They don’t understand the difference.
So while agree that when our Constitution was written, the use of something like a FRN would have been restricted in The States because people had a better understanding of the differences between them and real money, I disagree that today the use of FRNs violates the Constitution in either “The State” or “this state” as far as I understand your definitions. I will agree that there are numerous hidden legal implications of using FRN over gold and silver. Our government even goes to the trouble to mint legal tender gold and silver to give us the option of what form we use, however if you act in a public manner or in commerce you may not have the option of what form you use because you would fall under other jurisdictional requirements, contracts, and laws.
palani
July 29, 2012 at 6:45 AM
http://i45.tinypic.com/mlowmv.jpg
The issue of specie vs folding money was important enough in 1866 for Iowa to issue the above act (ch 27) for the benefit of county treasurers: The Treasurers of the several counties shall each keep an account, showing the amount of taxes received by them in specie, and the amount received in paper currency, which shall be examined the same as other accounts of said Treasurers.
If you read the wording closely you will see that this act authorizes the keeping of two sets of books. A singular entity is to keep only one set of books. The authorization of a dual system of books can be interpreted to mean two entities are involved, one that is paid in paper currency and the other paid in specie (gold/silver).
Anon4fun
July 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Yartap: “Why would Congress have to borrow Money when they can coin it?”
It’s the quickest way to get the US under control of the banking mafia, which had representatives present when the Constitution was written. You could also ask why the government would print “full faith and credit” T-bonds to exchange for FRNs at interest when they can print their own “full faith and credit” currency notes for free. Same reason.
Sao Feng
July 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM
FRN is a corporate script.
anyone ever used Disney dollars? You can convert FRNs into Disney dollars, right? To be used in Disney premises.
Similarly, FRNs are only used in ??? premises.
the question is, what are FRNs converted FROM and what can FRNs be converted INTO?
Adask
July 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM
In the event of hyper-inflation, FRNs can be converted into toilet paper.
Yartap
July 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Here are a two historical quick reads about the American Colony’s “Colonial Scrip,” which was nothing more than an interest-free fiat money. It is claimed that it worked very well with regulating its supply of issue.
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/ownmoney.txt
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-FranklinvsRothbard-2-ProsperityFromColonialScrip-WikipediaGivesFranklin%27sVersion.htm
The Constitution restricts states from issuing “Bills of Credit” (paper currency, promissory notes, colonial scrip, etc.) and the Constitution did not grant to Congress the authority or Power to issue Bills of Credit, either. By reading and understanding the Constitution on this matter, it is easily understandable that the national government wanted the currency backed by gold and silver.
But, when Congress issued “warehouse receipts” (Dollars), the dollars only stated that “one dollar” was on deposit in the Treasury. It was not based upon weight of what backed the warehouse receipt, thus, Congress could inflate the dollars by increasing the supply of dollars (warehouse receipts) against the supply of gold and silver (money). Soon, the public looked upon the Dollar as Money and not a warehouse receipt. Only the holders of gold or silver (Money) did not suffer the expansion of the “warehouse receipt” (dollars) supply.
Yartap
July 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM
As I have stated, I have a problem with the states and national government issuing bonds, which I see and understand to be “Bills of Credit” as prohibited by the Constitution for the states and not mentioned as a Power granted to Congress by the Constitution. I believe the intent of the Constitution was to allow Congress to borrow money with the country’s “Full Faith and Credit,” but it was not to allow our Money to be backed by the full faith and credit, because gold and silver (our Money) did not have the need of backing. It was the backing!
But with the advent and creation of Bonds, our so called money received the backing of the Full Faith and Credit of the united States. In other words, it was backed up with a “Lick and a Promise,” and set as one of the “First” obligations to be payed out of the tax revenues. This is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!
Saving Bonds were created in A.D. 1917 to help with the WWI’s effort; and Treasury Bonds were created in A.D. 1935 to help the Federal Reserve steal from the public.
In my mine (a very simple one it is), our Money is to be METALS. Therefore, all debts are to be discharged with its use, Constitutionally speaking. Congress and the states are not allowed to issue Bills of Credit (paper currency back by the full faith and credit nor bonds). Anyone, public or private, may issue “warehouse receipts” as long as the receipt describes to the exact what is warehoused and held for the one with the receipt.
The system of exchange we live under today, violates the Constitution greatly and “discharges our debts in equity” (promissory note). But, Congress did not violated the Constitution, because Congress allowed a private institution (Federal Reserve) to issue the promissory notes (FRN’s).
Congress still has “United State Currency Notes” available (See 31 USC Sec. 5115), and banks are required to convert FRN’s for them (good luck in getting a bank to help with that). But, it can be done with your deposits. Just replace the “$” with a “U” transposed over a “S” (a “S’ with two lines through the S) before the written amount, and write “USCN” upon your deposit. Now your strawman has deposited United States Currency Notes, further pay out in USCN’s with your checks with the same notations.
Alfred, I agree with you, that the fraudulent government worker (not payed with gold and silver), who works for “this state”, will not recognize that he or she is a fraud. Because “this state” is REAL. Now, with that said, I believe, as I understand you, that the best defense is removing yourself from “this state” and keeping low. But, I’m a true believer in fighting jurisdiction, even to the point of non-appearance. “Appearance establishes Jurisdiction.”
Anon4fun
July 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Use of Disney dollars and FRNs are not confined to any premises. Either can be traded for goods and services anywhere in the world by anyone who wants to trade for them, absent legal prohibition to the contrary (e.g. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution).
Timmy
July 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM
*scrip
Earl Forester
July 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM
I find little significance in all of this discussion because at present everything is what it is and we the people are still asleep. Occasionally a bright light shines forth that should or could wake the people, but it quickly dims and all thats left is louder snoring. My hopes of a better America grows dimmer with time.
chris
July 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM
well adask, there are now 2 people, on the land, in the geogrphical borders of texas…
Adask
July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Good. It’s nice not to be alone.
Do you suppose it’s too early to start two political parties? Or should we wait until at least a 3rd member of the People appears?
Carl-Raymond: Boltz
July 30, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Lots of interesting thoughts: As I see it, its their debt notes, and by using them (considered a Privilege) you are not paying for anything. They can then claim interest in all you own, paid for with their FRN’s. That’s why you do not have any rights, you are in bankruptcy. The IRS is not a government agency,they operate out of the treasury, they are the collection agency for the FED Reserve, for the privilege of using their FRN’s. Legal and lawful comes to mind, while its Legal is it Lawful not to pay your debts. Just weights and balances comes to mind. Oh but I didn’t know?
My people perish for lack of knowledge. Its the MATRIX, so while we are forced to use their paper, you better know what you are doing at all times. Most people volunteer themselves into contracts to give their Rights away, and they do not even know it.
I hope this is helpful and makes sense.
SEM
July 31, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Find out what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them…and these will continue, until they are resisted with either words, or blows…or both. – Frederick Douglass
Hence:
The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy’s plans;
Next is to attack their alliances;
Next is to attack their army;
And the lowest is to attack their fortified cities.
Wherefore:
The 3rd member of the People may be non-political; especially as the Fedral Reserve Note becomes worth nothing.
Also, please be mindful:
All empires – e.g. Mongolian, Roman, Ottoman or British etc. – eventually overstretch their resources both militarily and financially. This combined with decadence and illusions of grandeur eventually leads to the collapse of an empire.
PeaceOut
Georg
August 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM
PASSPORTS. I am perfectly fine with not transacting any business with the government, with or without any form of money. But there’s one exception: presumably, I have to have a passport to cross a border and go abroad. How might I pay the fees for the passport without resorting to FRNs (credit cards and checks being the same as FRNs)? I assume there must be a way, but … Any ideas, theories, or scraps of thought on this question?
palani
August 1, 2012 at 6:52 PM
If you are going to have a passport you have established jurisdiction of the government over you. Use of FRNs wouldn’t matter in the least.
I had my own ID for Mexico and Canada apostilled. This makes it an internationally accepted document in those countries. For any other countries who might have signed the Hague convention on legalizing documents the cost of the apostille from the Sec of State (of the state not the fed) is $5. Just to make for smooth travel I would be prepared to send a copy of the apostille and ID to the foreign countries embassy to gain the acceptance in advance that travel would be permitted. The notary stamp makes the same document valid in all 50 of the several States as well as the District of Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostille_convention
Yartap
August 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM
Georg,
Read my post just above, in the 6th paragraph, for the remedy, use of “United States Currency Notes.” By your deposits, you are declaring “USCN’s;” and by your checks, you are paying out “USCN’s.”
chris s.
August 1, 2012 at 9:42 AM
”’There may be some exceptions. It’s possible that a handful of top gov-co employees (say, the state Secretary of State, the state Attorney General, the Governor, etc.) may wear two hats. That is, they are paid employees of “this state” (the territory) but also function as unpaid officers of The State of the Union–probably by virtue of their OATH to support and defend the Constitution of The State (of the Union). But, if this theory is valid, in order to cause these employees who’ve taken an oath to support the Constitution of The State of the Union, you must first identify yourself as one of the “people” (not “citizen,” “inhabitant,” etc.) of your State of the Union and invoke their oath-based assistance.”
********so what I gather from this statement is , we may be running a concurrent form of government , some throwbacks from the ” true ” era . inregards to positions that have to remain , straddling the fence between , government inc. and governmet de joure, and they may still be bound by oaths , in connection with true constitutional representation , and protection??
there are a lot of people , patriots etc. that claim you have to severe yourself from the gov. co. , and almost always it is done through the sect of state.*****************8
Southern Grey
August 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Some time back, I read about a Supreme Court case wherein it was disclosed that the de jure system of government “lies there awaiting the people to take it up” ( I paraphrase here from memory.).
Not realizing the value of that statement I did not catalog it, but should have.
I am equally reminded of 42 USC 1981 & 1982 There is a status—United States citizen—spelled out very clearly there.
42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
42 USC § 1982 – Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
Notice that the word “own” is absent.
Yartap
August 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Thank You, Southern Grey! For pointing out one of the best examples of a Straw Man. I’ll explain:
“My Equal Rights under the Law only apply to “by impairment NON-GOVERNMENTAL discrimination and impairment under color of STATE law” (state governments). What the HELL! Where is the U.S. government? I guess in Title 42 USC 1981, paragraph (c) it is clear that my Equal Rights, in all points, in paragraph (a) do not apply to the U.S. government. And that includes “TO MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS.” But, the U.S. government can make contracts with me (unknowing with Social Security). And paragraph (b) makes it clear that my Equal Rights “to terminate” a contractual arrangement with the U.S. government does not exist, either.
As I have always understood, my and your Rights are so powerful, that they will stop armies and governments. To me, it makes it clear, that we cannot go to the courts for remedy or relief from the government’s created straw man.
As far as Title 42 USC 1982, property rights, I have two points for you, 1) You cannot “buy,” but you can “purchase” (a commercial term) with Federal Reserve Notes or trade. 2) The State is the “Owner” of all real and titled property. Don’t pay your property tax, and the real owner will show up and sale your property for its (state government) tribute. “The King (state govt.) demands his tribute (tax) from the serfs” (people). We still live in a feudal state. Your rights within a state is only “To Have and Hold,” as it is called.
Thanks again SG!
SEM
August 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Southern Grey/Yartap:
Very compelling arguments/exchanges in the Points of Law. Worthy of review.
PeaceOut
epcurnyn
August 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Southern Grey/Yartrap: it is my understanding the use of the word “persons” in 42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law, refers back to the Dred Scott decision and therefore also the 14th Amendment wherein those who were considered non-white and therefore “persons” were classified as US citizens and granted civil rights as defined. but I am not a legal authority so take this comment with a grain of salt.
Alfred Adask: Have you read any material on Modern Monetary Theory? There is a group of heterodox economists online who write about the State theory of money (aka Chartalism) ie the State as monopoly supplier of currency. Warren Mosler of http://moslereconomics.com/ worked for approximately thirty years in banking operations and has a video on his web site (the video is in sections and is located at http://moslereconomics.com/2008/07/14/warren-mosler-speaks-at-pk-conference-parts-i-iv/) wherein he discusses the Fed Reserve, banking operations and economic policy. I realize this information may be outside what you normally blog about, however the third segment is particularly interesting in that he speaks about the purpose of taxation being the movement of resources (labor) from the private sector to the public domain ie In effect, government policy is to impose a public sector tax so that government can have access to goods and services of the private sector. I can’t tell from the video whether all labor is moved to the public sector although I believe the imposition of the income tax is recognition of all paid labor being moved to the public sector, and I was wondering how this information (movement of labor into the public domain) fits into your theory of “federal territory”. If nothing else it’s food for thought in that what Mosler describes is not theory but the actual operation of the monetary system.
FT Gordon Sr
September 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM
FRNS are counterfeit paper.
Southern Grey
September 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM
The fact that CONgress is only and specifically empowered to “coin” (a verb) money and regulate the value thereof, as found in the very same Article, ought to curtail any thought of legitimacy for the circulation of federal reserve notes. The very term “Legal Tender” is anathema to the concept of Liberty.
FT Gordon Sr
September 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM
We or Usens are not and never have been subject to international law. Not in the Constitution.