A Reader Wonders — Art. 1.10.1 vs Art. 4.3.2

01 Jun

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

A reader (“D.”) posed the following comments and questions:


“I’ve been ‘thinking’ and since I’ve watched the 3-part series of ‘Money as Debt,’ I’m now asking the question:  Labor is what really gives “money” its value and I understand that all currencies are fiat or unbacked.  Any clue or idea on how to measure the value of different types of labor performed in terms of gold and silver which I understand is the true money and of course what the Illuminati only deal in.”


I don’t know what form of currency the Illuminati prefer, but I do know that 99% of the American people don’t understand anything more about money than how to count it. More, I know that the concept of money is far more complex, mysterious and influential than mere counting might suggest.

For example, I disagree with your premise that “Labor is what really gives ‘money’ its value.”

If labor is all it takes to give money value, then there’s no reason why we can’t use fiat currency as money and no reason to prefer gold. We can measure the value of our “labor” in terms of corn cobs, pebbles, gold or fiat currency.

For example, Confederate dollars once provided a “measure” of the value of Southerners’ labor. We can study history and learn how many Confederate dollars were once paid for an hour of someone’s labor in the Confederacy. However, although some of those Confederate paper dollars are still around, they no longer store the value of the labor from the 1860s. These Confederate dollars may still measure the value of labor, but they no longer store the value of labor. They are no longer “money” because they are no longer a means to “store” the value of the labor in the 1860s.

Measuring the immediate value of anything from ice cream to labor is not enough to qualify as “money”. Money is not merely a measure of value—it’s also a store of value.

So long as our currency is a store of value, I can not only work today, be paid and spend my earnings, I can save my earnings so as to spend the value of today’s labor at some time in the future. To the extent that the $100 I save today can be spent, say, 50 years from now and still provide me with $100 in purchasing power, the currency I used to save the value of my labor can be deemed to be “money”.

But if the currency I’m paid in today is subject to inflation/devaluation, by the time 50 years rolls by, my $100 in savings may only purchase $5 in goods and services—or maybe nothing at all. A currency that doesn’t store value does not rise to the level of “money”.

Inflation losses are typically seen in fiat currencies like the US dollar/Federal Reserve Note (FRN).


• If I couldn’t buy “things” with gold, it would have no value. So the price of gold isn’t simply about the productivity of labor but also about the cost of living, about the price of consuming the necessities of life.

How much of any given product or necessity can I buy with gold? The quantity of any good or service paid for with gold is based on agreement.

The utility of gold is that, for the past 5,000 years, most of the world has agreed that gold has some value. We might quibble over whether gold should be priced at $1,300/ounce or $5,000/ounce, but no one believes or expects that gold will ever become worthless in this life. Based on gold’s 5,000-year track record, we can presume that gold will continue to have some value, no matter what, for however many years or millennia remain. Gold was, is, and will be “money” as long as there are people who agree that gold is “valuable”.

Strangely, almost inexplicably, the world has agreed that gold is “money” for 5,000 years. No man-made financial creation has a comparable track record. Gold has been money for about 50 times as long as Federal Reserve Notes. 100 times longer than the current Chinese renminbi.   500 times longer than euros. Odds are, gold will still be money long after all of those fiat currencies (and the governments that espouse them) are forgotten.

We can’t say the same about fiat currencies.   You don’t need the gift of prophecy to predict that one day the perceived “value” of any fiat currency will disintegrate into nothingness.

Given that the average life-expectancy of the world’s 250 former fiat currencies has been only about 40 to 50 years, we can presume that all of the world’s current fiat currencies (including US dollars) will self-destruct within the next ten years—and might self-destruct within the next ten months.

The short life-expectancies for fiat currencies implies that if you believe you’re living in or near a time when your nation’s fiat currency is about to be dramatically devalued in a “reset” or rendered totally worthless in a monetary collapse, gold is the one “money” that will continue to retain value in the aftermath of such reset or collapse. While no one can tell you what the price of gold will be next month or next year, no one will even suggest that gold might cease to be a store of value in our lifetimes. You can’t say the same about any fiat currency.

If you have any wealth and you want to store it for some number of years into the future, gold is the most reliable means to do so.


• Your questions continued:


“I understand in the US Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of this land and is what we are fighting for, that only gold and silver is to be real money.”


Your understanding is roughly correct, but (like my own) incomplete.

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 (Article 1.10.1) 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.”


Note that the only kind of American “States” that existed when the Constitution was ratified by the American people in A.D. 1788 were the thirteen member-States of the perpetual Union that had been created by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781. The Articles of Confederation expressly named that perpetual Union to be, “The United States of America”—not “United States of America”; not “United States”.

Thus, when the later Constitution (A.D. 1788) included the Article 1.10.1 mandate for gold and silver coin, that mandate only applied to member States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.

The United States of America” consists only of the (now 50) States of the Union. However, the Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1788) created two new kinds of jurisdiction unknown to The United States of America: 1) territories, and 2) the federal “district” that we now call Washington DC. This raises the strange possibility that, technically speaking, our territories and Washington DC are in the “United States” but not in “The United States of America”.

If you’ll reread Article 1.10.1 (“No State shall . . . .”), you’ll see that that Article applies to only States of the Union. It does not apply to the territories of the “United States” or to Washington DC.

The Founders failed to mandate that gold and/or silver be the only lawful money for not only the States of the Union, but also for the territories and Washington DC. That oversight laid the foundation for most of the financial and political trouble we see in this country today.

The Founders failed to anticipate the enormous threat to the rights and freedoms of people of the States of the Union posed by territories and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 (Article 4.3.2) of the Constitution which declares in part,


“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . . .”

That text might not sound like much, but it means that under Article 4.3.2 Congress has “Power to make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territor[ies].”  That means Congress has  unlimited legislative jurisdiction within the territories of the United States.  Within the territories Congress isn’t even limited by the Constitution.    Within the territories, Congress is the sovereign and all inhabitants are subjects. Congress can enact any legislation is likes, no matter how crazy, within the territories. Legislation that would seem despotic and unconstitutional within the States of the Union, would be completely constitutional within the “territories of the United States”.

For example, within the territories, Congress can even legalize the use of fiat currencies (like the US dollar) that is forbidden by Article 1.10.1 as unconstitutional within the States of the Union. Depending on whether your venue is within a territory or within a State of the Union, your use of fiat currency could be either constitutional (within the territory) or unconstitutional within the State of the Union.

Under Article 4.3.2, Congress could even enact a direct income tax on the inhabitants of the territories despite the fact that such direct tax was expressly restricted or forbidden within the States of the Union by Articles 1.2.3, 1.8.1 and 1.9.4.  This duality might explain why, according to Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); and Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Sixteenth Amendment reportedly, “conferred no new power of taxation” on Congress.  Under Article 4.3.2, Congress always had the power of unlimited taxation within the territories. If that analysis were true, it would imply that those of you who reside in, or are presumed to reside in, a territory are constitutionally obligated to pay income taxes while those of you who reside within a State of the Union may have no constitutional obligation to pay income taxes.

Under Article 4.3.2, Congress has unlimited power within the territories.  Within those territories, Congress is the sovereign.

Under Article 1, Congress has only limited powers within the States of the Union.  Within those States, We the People are the sovereigns.

Interestingly, if Congress could pass laws or create circumstances that supported the legal presumption that the American people were living in territories rather than States of the Union, Congress could have unlimited powers over the entire United States.

Where to you think you reside today? In a venue where Congress has limited powers? Or in a venue where Congress has unlimited powers? The answer to those questions may suggest whether you’re residing (or presumed by the courts to reside) within a State of the Union or in a territory of the United States.


• I strongly suspect that the national government created circumstances to support the legal presumption that we’re living in territories rather than States of the Union. How? By removing gold coin from domestic circulation in A.D. 1933 and later removing silver from domestic circulation between A.D. 1964 and 1968.

Even though gold and silver coins haven’t been in domestic circulation since at least A.D. 1968 (now, 46 years), Article 1.10.1 has never been repealed. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Once the government removed gold and silver coin, why didn’t we amend the Constitution to legalize the use of fiat dollars?

To this day, Article 1.10.1 still mandates that the governments of the States of the Union can’t “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts”. I believe that mandate not only means that the State governments can’t declare some other fiat currency to be a “legal tender”—it also means that the governments of the States of the Union can’t impose taxes, collect fines or fees or even pay their employees except with a gold- or silver-based money.

If so, it follows that once the national government removed gold and silver coin from domestic circulation, the governments of the States of the Union became insolvent and unable to function.  Without gold or silver coin in circulation, the governments can’t collect taxes or pay its bills.  The States of the Union (especially, the people of those States of the Union) are still here, but the governments of the States of Union have been rendered non-functional and abandoned by the loss of gold and silver coin.

I believe that in the midst of the apparent “emergency” posed by the loss of constitutional governments of the States of the Union, the national government (and especially Congress) passed emergency legislation to presume the States of the Union to be fictional “territories” wherein the people and their new governmental administrations could lawfully use fiat currencies like Federal Reserve Notes without violating Article 1.10.1 the Constitution.

Yes, yes, I know this hypothesis seems fantastic to most people. Nevertheless, bear with me and I’ll demonstrate some of the supporting logic.


• Under Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution, Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) or other forms of fiat currency are unconstitutional within the States of the Union. However, under Article 4.3.2, those same fiat currencies are absolutely constitutional within a territory and/or Washington DC. So, when we ask if FRNs are “constitutional,” the answer depends on the venue we’re talking about.   In the territories, FRNs are constitutional. Within the States of the Union, they’re not.

That duality creates an extraordinary dilemma. Insofar as we use FRNs (fiat dollars) to make our daily purchases, pay our bills and state taxes, one of two things must be true. Either,


1)      If we’re buying or selling within a State of the Union, our use of FRNs (fiat currency) is unconstitutional under Article 1.10.1; or,

2)      Our use of FRNs is constitutional, if we are—or if we’re at least presumed to be—selling or making purchases within a territory or Washington DC under Article 4.3.2.


Q.: Why might that bizarre dilemma be important?

A.: If I’m within the borders of a State of the Union (like “The State of Texas”)—then, under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress has only limited powers over me and that State of the Union. But if I’m in (or am presumed to be in) a territory or Washington DC, Congress operates under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution which gives Congress unlimited powers over the territories and Washington DC and all those who are presumed to inhabit that “territory”.

So let’s suppose I’m down here on “Texas” using FRNs to purchase groceries or pay my traffic tickets and sales taxes. Does the law still recognize “Texas” as a State of the Union (where my use of FRNs is unconstitutional under Article 1.10.1)?   Or, has my use of FRNs allowed government to presume that I’m acting constitutionally but within the fictional jurisdiction of some sort of territory under Article 4.3.2?

If I can prove that I’m acting within the venue of a State of the Union, the federal government has very little power over me. However, if my use of FRNs creates the presumption that I’m acting within a territory,congressional power over me may be unlimited.

Again, I know who improbable this notion seems to most people.  Still, I strongly suspect that my mere use of a fiat currency may be deemed sufficient evidence for the courts to presume that I’ve voluntarily entered into a “territory” and therefore become subject to the unlimited jurisdiction of Congress. If my suspicions are correct, the kind of “money” that you or I use can determine our standing and how many rights we have.

Believe me, I know how nutty this analysis sounds. But if you think I’m crazy, go back to reconsider the dilemma posed by Article 1.10.1. Under that Article, use of fiat currencies like FRNs is unconstitutional—but only within the States of the Union. Since we haven’t had gold or silver-backed currency in circulation in this country since A.D. 1968, that implies that either:


1)                          Within the States of the Union, we act unconstitutionally every time we pay traffic tickets, fees or taxes with FRNs; or,

2)                          If paying our traffic tickets etc. with FRNs (rather than gold and silver) is constitutional, then we must be presumed to do so within the jurisdiction of a territory (under Article 4.3.2) rather than the jurisdiction of a State of the Union.


Both possibilities seem unbelievable. I know.

But unless someone can offer a third possibility that I can’t yet see or even imagine, only one of those unbelievable possibilities must be true when I buy or sell with FRNs.

So which possibility seems more likely? That we violate the Constitution every time we pay for anything with fiat dollars within the venue of a State of the Union? Or that the billions of currency transactions that Americans make each day with fiat dollars are seemingly “constitutional” because the courts presume us to be acting within the venue of a territory?


• I can’t prove whichever of those two possibilities is true, but after fifteen years of considering the dilemma, I’m convinced that the “territorial” explanation is roughly correct.

If I’m right, it appears that whenever I use FRNs without objection or disclaimer to discharge my debts, that use can create the legal presumption that (under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution) I am a subject and Congress has unlimited jurisdiction over me. On the other hand, if I chose to use gold and silver, that use may create the presumption that (under Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution), I’m within a State of the Union and Congress has only limited jurisdiction over me.  (I suspect that it’s even possible that I might be able to use FRNs within a State of the Union, provided that my use is accompanied by an express objection or disclaimer which would rebut the presumption that I must be transacting within a territory.)


• We’re not in Kansas, anymore, are we, Dorothy?

I know that most people will find my previous analysis to be confusing, fantastic, and even preposterous. I know that some people who’ve read this article to this point, will probably think I’m a nut. But I and a handful of others have explored that hypothesis for most of 20 years. We’re strongly convinced that our seemingly impossible conclusions are roughly correct.  Therefore, I present that hypothesis here to illustrate that the use of fiat dollars can have far-reaching political consequences that not one man in 1,000 has even imagined. Whether you are presumed to be free or slave might be determined by the kind of currency you use.

There’s so much more to “money” than mere counting. Those of you who are determined to really study and learn “money” had best be prepared to face some mind-boggling possibilities and conclusions.

If my previous hypothesis seems too bizarre to be possible, please recall that Baron Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 -1812), godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe, once observed that,


“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”


It’s possible that Baron Rothschild merely meant that if he controlled the money, he could bribe whoever he needed to bribe to get whatever he wanted.  But I suspect that Rothschild’s meaning went deeper. I’m convinced that Rothschild saw and understood the incredible political power that’s inherent in any currency to determine a man’s political standing and rights. That’s why Rothschild didn’t care who made the laws. He knew that the unseen power of money trumps the apparent power of legislation.

So far as I know, Rothschild never explained his understanding of money to the public.   But if he was right to prefer the control of money to control of laws, there’s something about the nature of money that’s mysterious and far more powerful than 99.9% of the people even imagine. I can’t prove it, but I believe that the hypothesis I’ve advanced in this article parallels some of Rothschild’s understanding of money.

We can debate whether that hypothesis is true or false. But given Baron Rothschild’s mysterious preference for controlling money and disdain for legislation, that hypothesis is at least plausible.

Again, there’s much more to “money” than mere counting.

[Part II, to follow.]


Tags: , , , , , ,

57 responses to “A Reader Wonders — Art. 1.10.1 vs Art. 4.3.2

  1. Silvester

    June 2, 2014 at 12:27 AM

    Has anyone ever tried to pay a ticket with gold or silver? I have heard that this is ILLEGAL and NO JUDGE will accept it. There was a bill passed some time around 1933 called HJR 192, I think, at which time, I understand they outlawed using gold and silver to pay Public Debt. I believe it IS still legal to use gold and silver to pay PRIVATE debt. However something was instituted, (that they didn’t tell you about), called “Accepted For Value” wherein YOUR SIGNATURE became payment for all PUBLIC debts, and when you apply for something, such as a “house loan,” and you sign your name with a “promise to pay,” the instant you sign your name, you have ALREADY paid for the house. When you get this “loan” from the bank, what do you actually get – you get a piece of paper, (a check), that is worth NOTHING, but you THINK that you have been given “money,” and you just signed your life away to “pay for” a “loan” on this house, which you will be “paying AGAIN for” for the next 20 years. So, if this is true about your signature BEING the payment for the house, what is going on? The banker gives you nothing but a WORTHLESS piece of paper, (a check), at which time you sign the paperwork and you have right then already PAID FOR the house. But YOU don’t know that, so you pay them a SECOND time, (by making payments to pay off this “loan”), because you THINK you “owe” this “money” – AND you pay them WITH INTEREST on top of it!!. Then the bank sells this loan to another bank at which time they, the bank, get paid a THIRD time just from your “loan.” After you have paid off the house, the bank tells the Feds that “someone” has abandoned all that money that you paid them, (all of your loan payments), and they “request permission from the Feds to KEEP this “abandoned money.” The Feds never deny them the right to keep it. I have read this. If it is true, you can see how you are getting ripped off. Also, somewhere in the process, the REAL TITLE to “your” house has been put in the name of some attorney or some banker. You only receive a Certified COPY of the title to “your” house when it’s “paid off,” but NOT the REAL TITLE, upon which YOU are listed as the “TENANT,” NOT the Owner, because when you allowed the Real Estate company to REGISTER the title to “your” house, they put “your” house in somebody else’s name. If YOU really owned the house, why would you have to pay house taxes on it? Because you are paying a “use tax” on the King’s, not YOUR, property. If the house was “YOURS” you wouldn’t have to pay any tax on it, would you. Like Mr. Adask says ….. I can’t prove this, but I trust the source from which I received this information. And, also like Mr. Adask says, I know this sounds completely INSANE, and trust me, “they” will encourage you to BELIEVE that it IS insane, but if one truly understands Evil, the love of money being the root of all evil, and the god of this world, it’s really should not be any surprise at all.

    • Pat Fields

      June 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM

      Silvester … “pay (State agencies) with gold or silver? I have heard that this is ILLEGAL and NO JUDGE will accept it.”

      That’s because those agencies are existing under private jurisdictions that exclude metals as their ‘money’. So, when you think about it, their love isn’t for money, but rather the hubris of self-love and the devices exclusively of man over God’s.

      Nevertheless, constitutions initially authorize their status as ‘officials’ and thus ultimately bind them. They secretly trick us into private jurisdictions, so the task is to drag them back under the constitutions and Common Law. That means constructing litigation to accomplish that and force them to accept silver whenever a constitutionally compliant obligation is asserted by them.

      Things like ‘tickets’ don’t fall into that category, because they’re entirely ‘policy’ of those private jurisdictions, but proper taxes and fees for services do. The difficulty is to determine exchange rate between the credit and money.

      I’m prosecuting some current precedent-setting cases and composing subsequent follow-on enforcement cases now, based on residual purchase power remaining in the credit units having demonstrably fallen 98% … meaning that 2 silver dollars equates to each 100 banknote lot otherwise properly asserted. Also, I’m contemplating how to use these precedents to further force corporate entities (due to their government licenses to exist) into the same alignment.

  2. Joe

    June 2, 2014 at 1:30 AM


  3. kwg1947

    June 2, 2014 at 1:38 AM

    Alfred. Could your theory on Territory v States be aided by the recent Bundy event which brought out the fact that a vast majority of the land which under the Constitution, should have been turned over to each newly formed state but was not? It would add some more credibility IMHO. Now on to another aspect, Article 1., Section 10., Clause 1., you say: “Believe me, I know how nutty this analysis sounds. But if you think I’m crazy, go back to reconsider the dilemma posed by Article 1.10.1. Under that Article, use of fiat currencies like FRNs is *unconstitutional*—but only within the *States* of the Union.” I ask you to revisit Article 1, Section 8., Clauses 2., and 5. Here they are highlighted. *”**To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;* To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; *To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign** **Coin, *and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

    This is talking about the Federal Government being created having the authority to create Money, which is capitalized in the document for special meaning. In The Records of the Federal Convention’s three volume PDF available free online, and specifically on the pages beginning with Page 308 and ending at 310, you can read that the Federal Government’s powers were denied the right to issue “paper money,”otherwise known as, “emit bills.” The vote was 9 to 2 to remove this language. The founders and they also knew the people would see this as a bad move, to give the government to print more paper like the “Continentals.” The fear of “paper money” was very strong entering the founding period as can be read in this set of minutes. I would add that the Feds were given the authority to only use minting coin. They used the term to “coin Money” many times, and also when referring to foreign coin, capitalized the word Coin there and in its use for the United States. The clause several down from the last one posted above includes this language: “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;.” This further shows that coin was just that when speaking of money, it was gold/silver just as the rest of the world at the time was using. In the Second Volume, the following comment about the rest of the world not using paper money is stated thus: *”Mr. Butler. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.” *Finally the Federal Government was to even value the coins coming from abroad and set weights and measures for the most part because they were familiar with the deception even in the Coin Money in circulation could harbor.

    I would thus say that the ploy about “Territory” is given a further boost in theory, because even the Federal Government was forbidden as most of the founders abhorred paper money (emitted bills) going into the Convention and not just the states. So what better way to avoid this than to make separate entities out of the States as now Territories. It adds legitimacy while retaining the original intent. And with complicit Courts and sleeping States and people over the last 200 years it makes perfect sense.

    If you already know this then please accept my apology. If I am in error you have my email and I would like to be shown were I strayed.

    Ken Gareau

    Ken P.S. Always read you. Thanks for what you do.

    • Adask

      June 2, 2014 at 5:59 AM

      “Money” is gold and silver. To “coin money” merely means to make disks of either metal of a fixed weight and purity, and put a governmental image or slogan on the sides of the disk to certify that it is of a particular weight and fineness.

      It’s important to understand that government has the power to “coin” money, but not the power to “make” money. “Money” (gold & silver) are made by the Good LORD and hidden away in the ground. Once the miners extract that gold/money from the ground, it’s up to the government to “coin” it into disks of fixed weight and purity. Coining money is completely different from creating money or spinning currency out of thin air.

      Thanks for reading my articles.

      • constitutionalist

        November 11, 2014 at 4:00 AM



  4. Pat Fields

    June 2, 2014 at 1:50 AM

    I agree with Al. Labor does not imbue money with value.

    The ‘value’ of everything (labor and money inclusive) is their ratios of abundance to each other, affected by short-term supply-demand conditions. Economies are a single matrix trending toward a smoothed equilibrium, where imbalanced valuations of any parts are driven up or down until the ‘radiating’ effect on the rest of the matrix is negated.

    The sum total of money media has a tendency to equal the sum total of goods-at-market during the period of time it ordinarily takes to ‘clear’ for new inventory.

    Because people desire a fairly constant ‘accounting unit’ in money, a ‘rise’ or ‘fall’ in its value only occurs when it’s circulation is inflated or deflated, per capita. The ‘Spanish Scholastics’ recognized and documented that in the 1500s, when stolen Central and South American metals flooded the European markets and prices for goods shot through the roof across the board.

    When money float is in its natural state, it tends to rise in value because the rate of population growth is slightly higher on average, compared to the recovery of metals from the earth, causing an appreciating ‘Population Demand Factor’ which is constant over the ages. Thus in the metallic monetary scheme, ‘plain vanilla’ savings is sufficient to retire on, simply from a meticulous reserve of a percentage of one’s wages throughout one’s life.

  5. Toland

    June 2, 2014 at 2:44 AM

    Often the best way to start an inquiry is by defining terms.

    1. Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition (1891)

    MONEY. A general, indefinite term for the measure and representative of value; currency; the circulating medium; cash. “Money” is a generic term, and embraces every description of coin or bank-notes recognized by common consent as a representative of value in effecting exchanges of property, or payment of debts.

    2. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1951)

    MONEY. In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate.

    3. Wikipedia (

    Money is any object or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment. Any kind of object or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered money.

    • Pat Fields

      June 2, 2014 at 3:15 AM


      18 U.S. Code § 8 – Obligation or other security of the United States defined”
      The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

      Notice … all paper. Not a coin in the lot.

      “Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” –Thomas Jefferson

      “A banknote is not money; and no power on earth can make it money.” — James Garfield

      “Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money.” –Daniel Webster

      “Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.” –George Washington

    • Roger

      June 2, 2014 at 2:12 PM

      “Money is used in the Constitution in two senses. In the second subdivision of the section relating to the powers of Congress, the Constitution speaks of the power ‘to borrow money’; and there the word must be used in the larger sense of strict money, or of anything received instead. But in the fifth subdivision of that section, which gives Congress power ‘to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins,’ it must be evident that Congress referred only to metallic money.”

      -US Supreme Court, Legal Tender Cases, 79 US 457 (1870)

      • Toland

        June 2, 2014 at 3:25 PM


        So we see that “money” as gold and silver is only one of TWO definitions of this word in the Constitution.

        The other constitutional definition of “money” is NOT exclusively gold and silver.

        That helps, thanks.

      • Pat Fields

        June 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM

        Roger … “or of anything received instead”

        Funny how the court conveniently neglected to finish that statement with words to the effect … ‘of equal worth in reality’.

        The fact is that all trade is still barter and to foist intrinsically worthless stamps onto people, ignorant or not, is actionable fraud.

        Everyone ought to bear indelibly in mind, that the ‘Supreme Court’ is ‘supreme’ insofar as the general governmental agency is concerned.

        That’s how Amdt. VII can preserve Common Law Jury Verdict against ‘Supreme’ Court appeal.

  6. Roger

    June 2, 2014 at 4:16 AM

    Consider the following citation (emphasis added)….

    “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…” -US Constitution

    Yet, I am reliably informed that with FRNs you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt-based currency like the FRN.

    So the Constitution blocks the States from using FRNs to do something which FRNs can’t do anyway: pay a debt

    One the other hand, a State of the Union using FRNs to discharge a debt (which is all anyone can do with an FRN) is NOT prohibited by the Constitution.

    Thusly, there is no constitutional problem with a State of the Union using FRNs.

    • Pat Fields

      June 2, 2014 at 5:58 AM

      Roger … “Thusly, there is no constitutional problem with a State of the Union using FRNs.”

      You’re linguistically correct, but lawfully estopped. No agreement, express or implied, in trust or contract form, can be unlawful in its essence, or it’s void ab initio.

      Because the structure of the banknote scheme is such that there can never be enough principal to extinguish debt incurred by it, any notion of gain is mathematically impossible. The more principal created, the more debt incurred. Interest service funding has no source but to borrow still more principal, thus the principal and debt infinitely exceeds the while sum of banknotes.

      “That which is permitted only at a loss, is not permitted to be done.” Co. Litt. 127

      “An evil custom is to be abolished.” Co. Litt. 141

      “A mandate of an illegal thing is void.” Dig. 17, 1, 6, 3

      “No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong.” Jenk. Cent. 161

      • Roger

        June 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM

        Hi, Pat. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?

        I made a point of specifying there is no constitutional problem with States of the Union using FRNs. I’m only talking about the Constitution, while allowing for other types of problems like those you mentioned.

        Are you saying the Constitution does prohibit States of the Union using FRNs to discharge debt, despite that fact that Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 does not prohibit this?

        If so, please cite the prohibition.

      • Pat Fields

        June 2, 2014 at 10:52 PM

        Roger … “Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?”

        I’m standing in disagreement, because the interpretation you’ve presented is thoroughly contrary to the intended meaning of the phrase, as is rather perfectly clear from the notes of the Constitutional Convention, showing a 9 to 2 poll against continuing allowance of issuing Bills of Credit to the general government from the Articles, thus repealing the authority.

        That such interpretation only has ground on an unlawful basis, it can’t have standing. The temptation to separate words out from their original context, so as to arrive at seeming ‘justification’ for criminality is no unfamiliar or novel ploy. The maxims contain numerous admonitions against it.

        “In the agreements of the contracting parties, the rule is to regard the intention rather than the words.” Dig. 50, 16, 219

        “Laws (ie: Principals), not words, are imposed on things.” 10 Co. 101

        “Words ought not to be accepted to import a false demonstration which have effect by way of true limitation.” Bacon’s Max. Reg. 13

        “Words spoken to one end, ought not to be perverted to another.” 4 Co. 14

        “Frequently where the propriety of words is attended to, the meaning of truth is lost.” 7 Co. 27

        “To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power.” Dig. 1, 3, 17

        Need I go on? This chicanery ‘flies’ in Code-Courts for internal operations of the agency, but not in the superior Common Law Courts of Record in original, ordinary jurisdiction of The People..

  7. palani

    June 2, 2014 at 6:15 AM

    The 16th amendment added no new powers to congress. The executive branch has always created and controlled corporations. The taxation of corporations is not done in gold or silver. Taxation of these legal fictions is done in corporate coupons (aka Federal Reserve Notes). FRNs are another form of legal fiction.

    There is a simple test. Anything that is money sinks. Anything that floats is maritime. If you have no water available to perform this test then use a scissors. Anything a scissors cuts is not money intended for man. Try the same test on a gold, silver, copper, brass or nickel piece.

  8. FL GIRL

    June 2, 2014 at 9:12 AM

    Then lets take this discussion up a notch and see what this Ponzi Scheme is really about. Does anyone know about the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation, (DTCC) and the CEDE Company? My research has lead me to believe, and I’m asking the rest of you to do your own research and see what you come up with, that CEDE Co. is the REGISTERED OWNER of ALL paper transactions….which is filtered back to the Federal Reserve, then to the IMF, then to U.N….Did you know that most of our national parks are now deeded over to the U.N. by some undisclosed “TREATY,” maybe private/public partnerships,


    If this is all true, what they have done is found a way for us to unknownling “donate” all our property back to the controlling elite/central bank, with the people being only the “BENEFICIAL OWNERS” without right of “registered ownership” of title/securities.

    Where is this disclosed on any loan application, stock purchase, mortgage, promissory note, etc….we have all been duped!!! We are in fact enslaved by labor to make extortion payments on notes/securities/mortgages that we will never own, while transferring our God given rights to a foreign power. The question is where do we bring a claim, and how do we recovery our stolen assets as a country? How do we enforce our NEVER repealed ORGANIC Constitution “for the” United States of America; yes there are two Constitutions, the corporate one being “of the” and the organic “for the.”

    And one last thought, how can ANY attorney/lawyer representing any custodian/broker dealer “bank” walk into any court in these DISTRICT STATES and claim to be the “holder in due course” of the securities (note/mortgage), isn’t this “fraud upon the court” but the question is, what court? We the people have been deprived of what should be a “common law” court system, based on gold/silver exchanges, and contract between man and woman…not man and corporations.

  9. palani

    June 2, 2014 at 9:59 AM

    Clues may be found in the Law of the Forest … a concept born into existence right alongside the Magna Carta.

    When you erect boundary markers to establish a territory you own …. the boundary marker. You don’t own what is within the boundary marker(s). You only own the monument. Then you publish notice of your claim and expect everyone to have been noticed of the location of your marker(s) and keep off the territory they ‘enclose’.

    No … when it comes to the National parks … what is purchased is the right to the name. For land to transfer there must be livery of seisin (take a clod from the land) and perambulation.

  10. David

    June 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM

    FRN is the currency used worldwide for buying oil. Are all the foreigners using FRN therefore subject to the plenary power of Congress?
    I think the presumption of “resident” or “citizen” of U.S. Is all the courts need to bring you into their arbitrary jurisdiction where you have no fundamental rights. I think a citizen or resident would be a federal subject no matter what currency he uses.

  11. FL GIRL

    June 2, 2014 at 10:16 AM


    Look at your birth certificate, notice the style of your name, and the type of paper its on, its on “security paper.” Where do you think its housed? This is also another trick to get you into their system, and take you out of the perpetual state of the union…

    I believe Al has pegged it, and if you’re in their “territory” they do what they want. The question is how do we establish being in the union and not in their territory, and get a proper court in the perpetual state of the union.

  12. Larry Kenemore Jr

    June 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    Funny as usual those reading laws and Statutes fail to read the first section which gives the definitions of the terms…it appears here that no one has read the definitions…this is how so many patriots have got into trouble in the past…this style of your name, titles, etc. just foments that continued trouble for patriots…what amazes ,me is no one looked to see the definition of State.

    • FL GIRL

      June 2, 2014 at 12:18 PM

      Larry, there are several definitions of State, state, STATE, which one are you referring to?

      • Larry Kenemore Jr

        June 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM

        There is only ONE definition in all Statutes…so where do you find more than one definition…and again this right wing patriot mythology about STATE, State etc. just amazes me…and as the above response says DISTRICT STATES where did you find that in any law or Statute? Whatever State you are located in has Statutes on how the Courts are set up and in the beginning of that Statute is the Definitions of the terms and words used on that Statute…a lawful Court is one set up by Statute either State or Federal study the law

      • FL GIRL

        June 2, 2014 at 1:13 PM

        I say you need to ask Alexander Hamilton and George Washington how they allowed the central bank into our country which at the time, was repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America. They had to create an over layments called “DISTRICT STATES” (FICTIONAL) not on the soil of our geographic lands of America to allow for such a scam. THE ALL CAPS NAMES, STATE OF XXXXX, are used every day on court documents, even our own personal documents, like your driver’s license, passport, land grants, checking account, why??? Why always in all caps? Do you know why?

        Otherwise, how do YOU explain the use of FRN (fiat currency) when the organic Constitution forbid it, and the Federal Reserve Act which called it “internal currency” for bankers and for no other purposes……not to mention where did The Congress obtain the power to allow a private foreign bank to issue the currency (by loans) creating securities, bonds, notes, etc…. to the American people? Could the War of 1812, where all TITLES were taken back by the Crown have something to do with it? These STATE courts all deal in FRN’s not gold and silver. I haven’t been to a hearing yet where their caption on any of their documents are defined in lower case, its always THE STATE OF XXXXX. Can you explain that? Or how about the fact the world will now be divided into REGIONS??? The one world order has been in process for many years it would seem. I say the definitions are self evident!

        As for definitions…here are some. As for me, I’m still trying to find a “perpetual state of the union” court’s definition of competent jurisdiction:

        ▸ noun: the way something is with respect to its main attributes (“The current state of knowledge”)
        ▸ noun: a politically organized body of people under a single government (“The state has elected a new president”)
        ▸ noun: the group of people comprising the government of a sovereign state (“The state has lowered its income tax”)
        ▸ noun: the territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation (“His state is in the deep south”)
        ▸ noun: a state of depression or agitation (“He was in such a state you just couldn’t reason with him”)
        ▸ noun: the territory occupied by a nation
        ▸ noun: (chemistry) the three traditional states of matter are solids (fixed shape and volume) and liquids (fixed volume and shaped by the container) and gases (filling the container) (“The solid state of water is called ice”)
        ▸ noun: the federal department in the UnitedStates that sets and maintains foreign policies (“The Department of State was created in 1789”)
        ▸ verb: express in words (“State your opinion”)
        ▸ verb: put before
        ▸ verb: indicate through a symbol, formula, etc.
        ▸ name: A surname (very rare: popularity rank in the U.S.: #67563

      • Larry Kenemore Jr

        June 2, 2014 at 3:48 PM

        Well lets just ask this…you are now mixing up the Central Bank(which there is Statutory Law passed by Congress that allows them to operate and has all the definitions in the Statute with States or STATE….where can I find this District States in Statutory Law? Where do I find Law or Statutes that deal with this all CAPS issue or is again another boogey man of the Patriot community?
        There is a Statutory definition of competent jurisdiction backed up by a long line of case law. It would not concern me how they type my name as long as they spell it right for jurisdiction purposes or is again another boogey man of the Patriot community?

      • FL GIRL

        June 2, 2014 at 7:11 PM


        Try reading the 14th amendment again, and see how the District States were created. It is my understanding that it wasn’t just about slavery as we were all taught, it was about taxation and a device to take state sovereignty away and place them in the “Federal Zone.” The District of Columbia is a Corporation, and all the DISTRICT STATES are quasi-corporations, “franchises” acting as government. Look up your local municipal court on Dunn & Brad Street, Manta, etc… By design this opened the door for the private central bank, later to be known as The Federal Reserve.

        Further research can be found here on the terms:

        As for the typing of the name and spelling it correctly, they only have jurisdiction over what they believe they own, and its the paper birth certificate which was REGISTERED, and housed in their territory…Note: Its an impossibility in law to recreate that which is already created (men and women, people and the land) by God, whose Constitution in found in Genesis.

      • Larry Kenemore Jr

        June 2, 2014 at 7:20 PM

        Here is the Fourteenth Amendment and I see nothing of what you are saying and the fact is there is no STATE here and nothing about District States and where is the word Federal zone? is the local municipal court the same as the city government? Or was it created after the city government by Statute…need to study those things how they cam bout not what some so-called Patriot espouses…study to show thyself approved a workman worthy…..

        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 laws.

        SECTION 2.

        Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

        SECTION 3.

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        SECTION 4.

        The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

        SECTION 5.

        The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      • FL GIRL

        June 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM

        Here you go Larry, a little more research on your part would be worthy too! Read the following history: This is what the southern states contested Also review the Organic Act of 1871 which created a “new seat of Government” which ties into this as well. The new seat of Government under the District of Columbia could only be commercial or corporate, its common sense, however,. Here are some excerpts of the review of the 14th amendment…do you want some of the Organic Act too?

        “The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress”

        “The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official”

      • Larry Kenemore Jr

        June 2, 2014 at 7:55 PM

        The Law is the law all the commentary is just that commentary, the law as written and interpreted by the United States Supreme Court is the law of the land, there may have been dissent as there always is but you cannot use dissent to make law…so all the commentary men nothing just one persons opinion…

      • FL GIRL

        June 2, 2014 at 7:50 PM

        Oh yeah Larry:

        One more point, your own caption,

        “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.”

        What do you think this means??? Are you a “person”, look up the definition in Black Law of “person” were you born in the United States? Or were you born in The United States of America? What does “reside” mean in black law, sort of like what does “resident” mean….all clues based on language!

      • Joseph LAmarca

        June 2, 2014 at 5:00 PM

        if you dont understand the U S Constitution don’t bother anyone at all

        Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:13:11 +0000

      • Pat Fields

        June 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM

        Larry Kenemore Jr … “a lawful Court is one set up by Statute either State or Federal study the law”

        No, those are (inferior, agency-internal) courts having jurisdiction (empowerment) only over government’s officers and operatives. Common Law Courts exist antecedent to inception of governmental agency. At Amdt. VII, (‘Saving to Suitors’) Common Law Courts, standing apart from them, are preserved. That amendment is a continuation from Magna Charta’s 34th Article stating that “Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as … to cause a free man to lose his court.”

        The challenge is to invoke one’s court properly and with determination against impediment.

      • Pat Fields

        June 2, 2014 at 11:52 PM

        FL GIRL … “see how the District States were created. It is my understanding that it wasn’t just about slavery”

        The districts overlaying the States don’t originate in the 1871 creation of the DC city state, but in George Washington’s ‘Proclamation’ of March 4th, 1791, creating those uniquely federal districts to empower collection of the ‘Whiskey Tax’. They were simply used to foist impositions into the Peoples’ jurisdictions where ignorance of the power of Oath gave government authority over them as ‘members’ of government.

        Curiously, Hamilton, who prosecuted the ‘Whiskey Tax’ in western Pennsylvania, FIRST secured an Oath to support the Constitution from the accused ‘rebels’ … then … threatened them with fines and jail if they didn’t succumb to the tax. VERY revealing sequence.

        “The order of things is confounded if every one preserves not his jurisdiction.” 4 Co. Inst. Proem.

      • FL GIRL

        June 3, 2014 at 6:00 AM

        Thanks for clarifying that! I read it long time ago, but couldn’t recall exactly where.

      • Pat Fields

        June 3, 2014 at 3:17 AM

        Larry Kenemore Jr … “Where do I find Law or Statutes that deal with this all CAPS issue or is again another boogey man of the Patriot community?”Larry Kenemore Jr

        We’ve already been down this path. In States’ statutes on Corporations (I know this to be a fact in Pennsylvania), corporations must distinguish themselves by presenting their names in ‘Roman Lettering’. The Roman Alphabet has no lower case.

      • Pat Fields

        June 3, 2014 at 3:31 AM

        Larry Kenemore Jr … “The Law is the law”

        You seem awfully certain of that, so perhaps you can define exactly what Law is for us.

      • FL GIRL

        June 3, 2014 at 7:26 AM


        As I have found in the term “law” does not have a universally accepted definition, but one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior… however, my interpretation of the true law, is the Bible, or the word of God, not man’s idea or interpretation of it.

      • Larry Kenemore Jr

        June 3, 2014 at 7:51 AM

        I agree as far as spiritually about the law, however law as defined in Blacks Law which all Senators, Congressmen, DEA, FBI etc use. You live under man made law the law of the land whether you like it or not and to change it elect people that will

      • FL GIRL

        June 3, 2014 at 8:15 AM


        I replied on your behalf by mistake, too early to read…but the way I see it, “man made law” can only “APPLY” to you with your consent, but mostly done by trickery. Within these territory courts, we have fictional laws based on fictional money, which pertains primarily to the “legal person” in the all caps name. I have yet to find a statue, code, rule or regulation that applies to a man or woman. Have you?

      • Larry Kenemore Jr

        June 3, 2014 at 10:26 AM

        Interesting that you would try to divide the country instead of one nation we would have two one for people who agree, but what law applies to those who do not submit or agree (Chaos)…that is why we are a nation of laws whether we like them or not to change them elect someone who will….it never ceases to amaze me that right wing patriot mythology comes up with issues that un supported in law or fact…such as fictional law (I can red the Statute see who wrote it who voted on it and how it applies to me) so where is fictional law surely you are not saying that Congress and the President re fictional as they pass and sign these laws…what you need to do is study the law learn procedure and then beat them on procedure that is what they are most afraid of as Al Adask…

      • FL GIRL

        June 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM


        I believe Pat has answered your response for me. We have nothing but kangaroo courts creating, chaos. Unless like Pat said, you know how invoke and have a common law court, which would imply the judges controls more than one venue or jurisdiction, you just have to find the proper way to invoke it. You can go to jail even if you never injure another man or woman, for some “policy.” Is policy law? These court operate primarily within admiralty law, (piracy) as they have declared America to be underwater. Not to mention its all private law, which is copy written, patented and you have to be a “member” of the association to use it. However, your response to win court matters on procedure is few a far between, because the attorneys cover for each other, and their 1st duty is to the court, not to the client, the client is actually last; these courts don’t follow their own procedures, rules or regulations, and I speak from 1st hand experience! Look up the stats online, our nation has the highest imprisonment rate in the world, that should tell you something! Mix in the selling of the security prison bonds, and its big business. Gene Keating did a great treatise on it, here it is:

        Are you familiar with the organic 13th amendment which was NEVER repealed? Its states no title of nobility should hold office…so why do we have nothing but titles in public office, (attorneys/lawyers) but are they “public offices” or “private offices of an association under the crown?” Where does your state attorney general report to? Could it be that Al just answered this within the following post?

        Or maybe, the republic form of Government which was suppose to be our form of government is vacant “public offices” waiting for the people to reclaim and to fill?, Where did the framers intend to make this nation a democracy? I believe all has to do with the currency being changed, and a foreign interest taking back control of our nation by expanding the territory thru the municipal courts, and zip code (the federal zone) etc…

        Do you have a better explanation? Also, why is it that our water, food and air are being poisoned by an undisclosed group of people? Look up geo-engineering. Why isn’t the government doing something to stop it? If they are human and have families, you would think they too would be concerned for the affects it will have on their families, but no one seems to care. Could it be because we have supporters of Agenda 21 running this country? Do you enjoy eating genetically modified foods? Now we are faced with synthetic biology to be the next big implementation into our food system which according to the source I read it from, its designed to kill us a little faster, following in line with the declaration on the Georgia Guide stones to MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 …..but I know what you are going to say, all patriot myths, I’m not a patriot for your information, just a woman who is concerned for the future of her family in this country. You gotta ask yourself, who is allowing all of us to be science projects without our consent, and what about the majority of the people in this country losing everything in home foreclosures being raped, pillage, and “probated” alive, without due process. Isn’t government instituted by men to protect men’s life, rights, liberty and property, not to destroy it????

      • Pat Fields

        June 3, 2014 at 10:26 AM

        FL GIRL … “As I have found in the term “law” does not have a universally accepted definition”

        Law is, for human affairs, best described as ‘the decree of the sovereign’.

        In America, each man and woman is a ‘sovereign without subjects”. Therefore at Common Law, because Court is defined as ‘the person and suite of the sovereign, wherever he may sojourn’, the prosecuting litigant is of right to ‘decree the Law’ of the case in particular. For the sake of comity between so many sovereigns, that Law is put to the judgement of Peers for Verdict. When affirmed, this constitutes the Body of Common Law at least of that vicinage.

    • pop de adam

      June 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM

      You mean like this one:

      Section 2. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth shall extend to all places within its boundaries subject to the concurrent jurisdiction granted over places ceded to or acquired by the United States.


      This sounds to me like customs areas, Logan airport, court houses, forts and arsenals, basiclly federal places.

      To me this seems to say Massachusetts(the Commonwealth) only has jurisdiction amongst those same places that the United States does. When the United States and Massachusetts sell property where does it go? If it is sold without the United States and Massachusetts isn’t it strange their laws still apply to that which they may have expressly quit their claim to? If these states can’t really sell these things then they probably lack the same ability own, buy or cede such things. I realize this reads as pretty silly, but these are their laws and they wrote them I would like to think they should probably follow them, especially since they often have explicitly taken an oath to uphold them.


      • palani

        June 2, 2014 at 7:48 PM

        “The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth shall extend to all places within its boundaries …”

        How about if you are in a particular place and not all places at once? English is rather peculiar about being specific.

        A similar wording conflict occurs when statutes speak of the power of the Justices of the Peace. Meaning of course that two or more Justices must be present to execute that power and a singular Justice must seek assistance to wipe his arse.

      • pop de adam

        June 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM


        As there was no “reply” below your comment I will repond here.

        “The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth shall extend to all places within its boundaries…”

        Which is fine if Massachusetts is a subset of the United States, if they can only exercise concurrent jurisdiction, it might be that Massachusett’s jurisdiction is limited to those places that also happen to be federal places. I doubt this is any sort of “gotcha” issue as they seem intent on pushing outward regardless. But when I read and reread that statute it just seemed more and more bizarre.

        As there are no commas or punctuations denoting a seperation of phrasing in the above quote to me seems conditioned by the very next word “subject”

        Trying to keep it short, -Pop

      • EarlatOregon

        June 7, 2014 at 5:11 PM


        early form of Commun -ism?

        is this what the Debates about the Role of government were,
        using Social Contract as a point of Nexus,
        for government to Obtain Jurisdiction,
        and Access to Your wealth,
        which gov then makes Your wealth,
        the gov’s Wealth?

        Is Social Contract,
        such a Voting, Jury Duty, Driver Liecense/ID
        what establishes Social Contract?

        Who knows what is Social Contract?

        What is the Definition of Common Wealth?

        What is the Process,
        that Free people,
        have their Liberty denied?

  13. FL GIRL

    June 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM


    I believe in the common law approach, the problem is we are dealing in territory courts in all DISTRICT STATES, therefore, I have not found where to bring my claim in a state court as of yet. I will review Bill and Karl’s material some more as I am familiar with it, but haven’t cracked the nut on getting the court to change its venue to a lawful court yet.

    • Pat Fields

      June 2, 2014 at 9:30 PM

      FL GIRL … “we are dealing in territory courts in all DISTRICT STATES”

      Yep. For many years I struggled with that seeming ‘catch-22’ also. Spent a very long time swimming in the Code-Statute cesspool as a result.

      In Common Law, though, we appear … at … the courthouses to invoke … our … courts of record, each as a private man or woman. Those of us who do, proceed not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, but under our own ‘court’, as ‘sovereigns’. The ‘law of the case’ is of our making, alleging ‘Tort Feasance’ of another. This is why a Common Law Jury adjudges both the Law and Facts arrayed against an accused. The one can be perfectly accurate, while the other dismally defective.

      So, you see you don’t ‘get the court to change’ … its … Code-Statute process; you invoke your Common Law Court of Record … at … the Public Facility (originally instituted specifically for that purpose) and then … ‘hold court’ … according to ‘Due Process’, independent of the Magistrate and any attempts by the Tort Feasor to interject Code-Statute.

  14. Zeke Layman

    June 2, 2014 at 1:46 PM

    In Bond v U.S. 131 S. Ct. 2355, 180 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2011), the court said, “[T]here is no support for the Government’s proposed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the National Government’s enumerated powers, and action exceeding the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the States’ sovereign interests.”

    Further down the court continued, “[T]he individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.

    As a monetary realist, I view the term “dollar” to mean a specified amount of gold or silver coin. I see every business, private or government, asking for dollars (gold or silver coin) all day long. Then I see mostly every individual, in each transaction, present a F.R.A.U.D. (federal reserve accounting unit device) and simply ask the “business person” if they will ‘voluntarily’ take this “fraud” instead of dollars. This transaction is made voluntarily and in the international (individual) jurisdiction.

    If you ask me, Bill Thornton is a much better study than Karl.

    • Pat Fields

      June 2, 2014 at 11:20 PM

      Zeke Layman … “If you ask me, Bill Thornton is a much better study than Karl.”

      I can sympathize with your inclination, but after extensive exposure to each, I find great merit in both and so alternate study between them pretty equally … wholly agreeing with neither, but seeking the ‘midpoint’ where their separate approaches best harmonize.

      • Joe

        June 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM

        Pat, kindly please contact me at jfenn1124 at gmail dot com. I have also studied both Bill and Karl and my findings are similar to yours. I would like to compare notes with you. Joe

      • Joseph LAmarca

        June 16, 2014 at 1:55 AM

        I can help you to with the U S Constitution and you will be glad that you did send me your phone number….

        Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:14:14 +0000 To:

      • Pat Fields

        June 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM

        Joseph LAmarca … “I can help you to with the U S Constitution”

        Joe, most folks unfamiliar with Common Law Court of Record don’t realize that statute, code and constitutional constraint on ‘persons’ so defined in them, have little (or nothing) to do with Process and Case Substantiation practiced, because the Law sought to be enforced is that of the man or woman ‘prosecuting’ their cause against a man or woman alleged to be a wrongdoer who caused harm or injury.

        In that scenario, while statute, code and constitutions may agree with principals underlying said Law, especially where a wrongdoer may also otherwise perform officially under them; none of that may be presented as anything more than exhibit of similarly held principals and never as evidence in support. To do so, confers superiority of those documents over the ‘prosecuting’ man or woman’s own Law. A subtle shift occurs in the latter condition, where ‘interpretation’ of those documents falls in the vested purview of Roman Civil Law Process. The said man or woman then loses ‘hold’ on their Court (becoming a ‘pleader’ or ‘supplicant’), traversing out from their own jurisdiction, under that of the State’s.

        You’re kind to offer assistance, but it would inapplicable … besides, I have no phone as I’m functionally mute.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s