Common Law

The Fundamental Law

no comments
0
0

 

Chapter 10: The Fundamental Law

The law of presumption is in the class of laws akin to
esoteric technicalities. It is quite possible that we could get
along quite well without it. The fundamental law, on the other
hand, is just what it says: it is a law that is essential, of
central importance. We could not get along without it. It
determines the essential structure and function of our society.
It serves as an original and generating source. A fundamental
right, for example, is one which is innate to all free people.
When used as a noun, the term “fundamental” refers to one of the
minimum constituents, without which a system would not be what it
is. In Latin, it is the sine qua non, without which there is
nothing. What, then, is the fundamental law in our country?

The fundamental law in America is the
Constitution for the United States of America.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, contains a definition of
“fundamental law” as follows:

 
     Fundamental law.   The law which determines the constitution 
     of government  in a  nation or  state,  and  prescribes  and 
     regulates the  manner of its exercise.  The organic law of a 
     nation or state;  its constitution. 
 

The Constitution is a contract of delegated powers. These
powers flow downhill, like water down a mountain stream. The
ultimate source of all power is the Creator, who endowed His
creations with certain unalienable rights. You and I are His
creations, and we receive our power directly from the Creator;
there is nothing standing between us and the Creator. We the
people, in turn, delegate some of our powers to the States of the
Union. We do not relinquish our powers; we delegate them. The
50 States exist to defend our rights in ways which are difficult
if not impossible for individuals to defend those rights alone.

Power from the 50 States continues to flow downhill in the
form of a contract to the federal government. The Constitution
for the United States is a contract of powers delegated to the
federal government by the 50 States, to perform specific
enumerated services which are difficult if not impossible for
individual States to provide for themselves. The fundamental law
is, therefore, a “law of agency” whereby the 50 States created an
agent in the federal government to exercise a limited set of
government services on behalf of the 50 States. These States in
turn perform a limited set of services for their creators, the
people, above whom there is nothing but the Creator.

The fundamental law is the foundation of our society. In
the United States of America, it is the Constitution. Through
this document, our fundamental rights are secured and protected
against infringement by the federal government and by the State
governments, because the States are also parties to this
contract. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, we hold
these truths to be self-evident: that all of us are created
equal; that we are endowed by our Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among us, deriving their just
power from our consent. These rights are unalienable,
fundamental, and inherent.

The fundamental law is intimately connected with fundamental
rights, because the ultimate purpose of that law is to protect
and defend the fundamental rights of Sovereign individuals. The
Supreme Court of the United States put it very eloquently when it
said:

 
     Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it 
     is the  author and  source of law;  but in our system, while 
     sovereign  powers   are  delegated   to  the   agencies   of 
     government, sovereignty  itself remains  with the people, by 
     whom and  for whom  all government exists and acts.  And the 
     law is the definition and limitation of power. 
 
                   [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

Every Sovereign State Citizen is endowed with certain
unalienable rights, for the enjoyment of which no written law or
statute is required. “These are fundamental or natural rights,
recognized among all free people,” wrote Chancellor Kent in the
case of United States vs Morris. The U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly stated that fundamental rights are natural rights
which are inherent in State Citizenship:

 
     This position  is that  the privileges and immunities clause 
     protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights 
     of national  citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or 
     natural rights inherent in state citizenship. 
 
                         [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)] 
                          [84 L.Ed. 590, at 594;  emphasis added] 
 

What are the fundamental or natural rights recognized among all
free people? Chancellor Kent answered as follows:

 
     That the  rights to lease land and to accept employment as a 
     laborer for  hire are  fundamental rights, inherent in every 
     free citizen, is indisputable. 
 
           [United States vs Morris, 125 F.Rept. 322, 331 (1903)] 
 

One of the most precious of fundamental rights is the
natural right to enjoy the fruits of our own labor, our own
“industry”. In the year 1919, the Secretary of the Treasury
recognized as “fundamental” the right of Sovereign State Citizens
to accept employment as laborers for hire, and to enjoy the
fruits of their own labor:

 
     Gross income  excludes  the  items  of  income  specifically 
     exempt by ... fundamental law free from such tax. 
 
                  [Treasury Decisions under Internal Revenue Laws 
                       of the United States, Vol. 21, Article 71] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

In the year 1921, the Secretary of the Treasury reiterated this
statement concerning the fundamental law:

 
     Gross income  excludes  the  items  of  income  specifically 
     exempted by  the statute  and also  certain other  kinds  of 
     income by statute or fundamental law free from tax. 
 
                      [Treasury Decision 3146, Vol. 23, page 376] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

And again in the year 1924, the identical statement was published
concerning the fundamental law:

 
     Gross income  excludes  the  items  of  income  specifically 
     exempted by  the statute  and also  certain other  kinds  of 
     income by statute or fundamental law free from tax. 
 
                      [Treasury Decision 3640, Vol. 26, page 769] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

The Constitution is, therefore, the fundamental law. Within
the 50 States where Congress is restrained by the Constitution,
“gross income” excludes certain kinds of income which are free
from tax under the fundamental law. Labor is personal property.
The fruits of labor are personal property. A tax on personal
property is a direct tax, or “capitation” tax. Outside the
federal zone and inside the 50 States, Congress is restrained
from imposing a direct tax on Sovereign State Citizens, unless
that tax is apportioned (see 1:9:4 and 1:2:3). Apportionment is
a very simple concept. If California has 10 percent of the
nation’s population, then California’s “portion” would be 10
percent of any direct tax levied by Congress (see Appendix Q).
Thus, the income from labor is also personal property, which is
free from direct taxation by Congress, unless that tax is
apportioned among the 50 States of the Union. In the year 1895,
the Supreme Court overturned an Act of Congress precisely because
it levied a direct tax without apportionment on a State Citizen:

 
     First.   We adhere  to the  opinion already announced, that, 
     taxes on  real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes 
     on the  rents or  income of  real estate  are equally direct 
     taxes. 
 
     Second.   We are  of the  opinion  that  taxes  on  personal 
     property,  or  on  the  income  of  personal  property,  are 
     likewise direct taxes. 
 
     Third.   The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty- 
     seven, inclusive,  of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on 
     the income  of real estate and of personal property, being a 
     direct tax  within the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  and 
     therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned 
     according to  representation, all those sections, consisting 
     of one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid. 
 
                           [Pollock vs Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.] 
                                            [158 U.S. 601 (1895)] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

It is important to realize that Charles Pollock was a Citizen of
Massachusetts; he was not a citizen of the United States**.
This fact is often overlooked in discussions of the Pollock case,
because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision explored the history
and meaning of direct taxes in such great depth. Pollock’s
political status can easily get lost like a needle in a haystack.
Even experts like author and attorney Jeffrey Dickstein have been
mistaken about Pollock’s status:

 
     The Pollock  Court clearly  found that  a tax  on the entire 
     income of  a United  States** citizen  was a direct tax that 
     required apportionment to withstand constitutional validity. 
 
                  [Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, page 20] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

Nevertheless, the political status of Charles Pollock is clearly
established in the very first sentence of the Pollock decision,
as follows:

 
     This was  a bill  filed by Charles Pollock, a citizen of the 
     state of  Massachusetts, on  behalf of himself and all other 
     stockholders of  the defendant  company similarly  situated, 
     against the  Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, a corporation of 
     the state of New York, and its directors .... 
 
                           [Pollock vs Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.] 
                                       [157 U.S. 673, 674 (1895)] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

Notice also that the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company was a
corporation of the State of New York. As such, it was a foreign
corporation with respect to the federal zone, not a domestic
corporation. This is one of the key factual differences between
the Pollock and Brushaber cases. This difference has similarly
been ignored by many of those who have done any analysis of
Pollock. A headnote in the decision explains the corporate
implications, as understood by the Supreme Court at that time:

 
     5.   In so  far as  the act levies a tax upon income derived 
     from municipal  bonds, it  is invalid, because such tax is a 
     tax on  the power  of the states and their instrumentalities 
     to  borrow   money,  and   consequently  repugnant   to  the 
     constitution. 
                           [Pollock vs Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.] 
                            [157 U.S. 673 (1895), emphasis added] 
 

The Pollock case has never been overturned and is still the
holding case law on direct taxes. In light of some 17,000 State-
certified documents which prove that the so-called 16th Amendment
never became law, the importance of the Pollock ruling is vastly
enhanced. All direct taxes levied upon State Citizens inside the
50 States must be apportioned, as required by the Constitution.

The situation within the federal zone is entirely different.
Remember that Congress has exclusive legislative authority within
the federal zone. This means that Congress is not restrained by
the Constitution within this zone. Therefore, Congress is not
required to apportion a direct tax within the federal zone. When
it comes to law, the areas inside and outside the federal zone
are heterogeneous with respect to each other, resulting in a
principle of territorial heterogeneity. This principle states
that areas within the federal zone are subject to one set of
rules; the areas without the federal zone are subject to a
different set of rules. The Constitution rules outside the zone;
the acts of Congress rule inside the zone. (See Appendix W for a
summary of Downes vs Bidwell, the pivotal case on this question.)
In describing the powers delegated to Congress by
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
and by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court has explained this principle as
follows:

 
     In exercising  this power,  Congress is  not subject  to the 
     same constitutional  limitations, as  when it is legislating 
     for the  United States***. ... And in general the guarantees 
     of the  Constitution, save  as they are limitations upon the 
     exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for 
     or over  our insular  possessions, extend  to them  only  as 
     Congress, in  the exercise  of its  legislative  power  over 
     territory belonging  to the  United States**, has made those 
     guarantees applicable. 
 
             [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 653 (1945)] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

Without referring to it as such, author Lori Jacques describes
the principle of territorial heterogeneity as follows:

 
     The  "graduated   income  tax"  is  not  a  constitutionally 
     authorized tax within the several states;  however, Congress 
     is apparently  not prohibited  from levying that type of tax 
     upon the  "subjects of the sovereign" in the Possessions and 
     Territories.  The definitions of "United States" and "State" 
     are stated  "geographically to  include"  only  those  areas 
     constitutionally  within   congress'  exclusive  legislative 
     jurisdiction upon whom a graduated tax can be imposed. 
 
                     [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition] 
                                        [page 54, emphasis added] 
 

The limitation against direct taxes without apportionment is
not the only limitation on Congress outside the federal zone.
There are many other limitations. The most famous of these is
the Bill of Rights, which recently celebrated its 200th
Anniversary (with little if any fanfare by federal government
officials). The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. There is a widespread misunderstanding that
the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights, is the source
of those rights which are enumerated in the first 10 amendments.
Even Black’s Law Dictionary makes this “fundamental” error as
follows:

 
     Fundamental rights.   Those  rights which have their source, 
     and are  explicitly or implicitly guaranteed, in the federal 
     constitution. 
 

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights did not have
their source in the federal Constitution. If this were the case,
then our unalienable rights would not have existed before that
Constitution was written. Of course, this is nonsense. The
Declaration of Independence existed
long before the U.S. Constitution.
One has only to read that Declaration carefully to
appreciate the source of our fundamental, unalienable rights. We
are endowed “by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”.
These rights are not endowed by the Constitution. They are
inherent rights which exist quite independently of any form of
government we might invent to secure those rights. We relinquish
our rights if and only if we waive those rights knowingly,
intentionally and voluntarily, or act in such a way as to
infringe on the rights of others. As the Supreme Court has said:

 
 
     ... [A]cquiescence in loss of fundamental rights will not be 
     presumed. 
                       [Ohio Bell vs Public Utilities Commission] 
                                                   [301 U.S. 292] 
 

Unfortunately, public awareness of the Bill of Rights is in
a sorry state. The following article was published in the San
Francisco Chronicle on the 200th Anniversary of the signing of
the Bill of Rights:

 
     The right to be ignorant 
 
          A new survey shows most Americans don't know much about 
     James Madison's handiwork or the legacy he left them. 
 
          The poll,  commissioned by the American Bar Association 
     in honor of the Bill of Rights' 200th birthday, found that: 
 
          *  Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed don't know the 
     Bill  of   Rights  is   the  first   10  amendments  to  the 
     Constitution.   That's worse  than the 59 percent found in a 
     similar survey  in 1987,  when the  five-year celebration of 
     the Constitution's bicentennial started. 
 
          *  Only 10 percent know the Bill of Rights was approved 
     to protect  individuals and  states against the power of the 
     federal government. 
 
          *   More than half are willing to give up some of their 
     Fourth Amendment  protections against  search and seizure to 
     help win the war on drugs. 
 
          *   51 percent  believe government should prohibit hate 
     speech that  demeans someone's race, sex, national origin or 
     religion, despite First Amendment free-speech protections. 
 
          *   Forty-six percent  think Congress should be able to 
     ban media  coverage of  any national  security issue  unless 
     government gives  its  prior  approval,  despite  the  First 
     Amendment's free-press guarantee. 
 
                                        [San Francisco Chronicle] 
                                   [December 16, 1991, page A-20] 
 

The Bill of Rights must be viewed as a set of rules which
constrain Congress from passing laws which infringe on our
unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights does not say that the
Constitution endows us with the right to freedom of speech. It
does say that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is a world of
difference between these two views. Similarly, it is a common
mistake to believe that we enjoy only those rights which are
enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This is also a fundamental
error. The rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights are
not the only rights which we enjoy. This is clearly expressed by
the 9th and 10th Amendments:

 
     The enumeration  in the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights, 
     shall not  be construed to deny or disparage others retained 
     by the people. 
 
                  [Constitution for the United States of America] 
                                                [Ninth Amendment] 
 
 
     The powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the 
     Constitution, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 
 
                  [Constitution for the United States of America] 
                                                [Tenth Amendment] 
 

With this in mind, it is important to appreciate how the
Bill of Rights can be utilized to restrain federal government
agents outside the federal zone. Even if it is does operate as a
private mercantile organization, the IRS is an “agency” of the
federal government. The right to be secure in our persons,
houses, papers and effects is guaranteed by the 4th Amendment:

 
     The right  of the  people to  be secure  in  their  persons, 
     houses, papers,  and effects,  against unreasonable searches 
     and seizures,  shall not  be violated, and no Warrants shall 
     issue,  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  Oath  or 
     affirmation, and  particularly describing  the place  to  be 
     searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
 
                  [Constitution for the United States of America] 
                                               [Fourth Amendment] 
 

Similarly, the rights against self-incrimination and of due
process of law are also guaranteed by the 5th Amendment:

 
     ... [N]or  shall any  person be subject for the same offense 
     to be  twice put  in jeopardy of life or limb;  nor shall be 
     compelled in  any criminal  case to  be  a  witness  against 
     himself, nor  be deprived  of life,  liberty,  or  property, 
     without due  process of  law;  nor shall private property be 
     taken for public use without just compensation. 
 
                  [Constitution for the United States of America] 
                                                [Fifth Amendment] 
 

The Internal Revenue Service is well aware of these
amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For example, many persons
are incorrect to believe that the IRS has authority to force
disclosure of private books and records. Even though the IRS may
have authority to issue a summons in certain circumstances, it
has absolutely no authority to compel disclosure of private books
and records. This means that you must bring your books and
records to an audit, if lawfully summoned to do so, but you are
under no obligation to open those books and records, or to submit
them to the Internal Revenue Service. As amazing as this may
seem, this restraint is documented in the official IRS Tax Audit
Guidelines (IR Manual MT 9900-26, 1-29-75), as follows:

 
     242.12  Books and Records of An Individual 
 
     (1)  An individual  taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his books 
          and  records   for  examination   on  the  ground  that 
          compelling him to do so might violate his right against 
          self-incrimination  under   the  Fifth   Amendment  and 
          constitute an  illegal search  and  seizure  under  the 
          Fourth Amendment.   However,  in the  absence  of  such 
          claims, it  is not error for a court to charge the jury 
          that it  may consider  the refusal to produce books and 
          records, in determining willfulness. 
 
     (2)  The  privilege   against  self-incrimination  does  not 
          permit a  taxpayer to  refuse to  obey a summons issued 
          under  IRC 7602  or   a   court  order  directing   his 
          appearance.   He is  required to  appear and cannot use 
          the Fifth  Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so, 
          although he may exercise it in connection with specific 
          questions.   He cannot refuse to bring his records, but 
          may  decline   to  submit   them  for   inspection   on 
          Constitutional grounds.   In  the Vader  case [U.S.  vs 
          Vader, 119 F.Supp. 330], the Government moved to hold a 
          taxpayer in  contempt of  court for  refusal to  obey a 
          court order  to produce  his books  and  records.    He 
          refused  to   submit  them   for  inspection   by   the 
          Government, basing  his refusal on the Fifth Amendment. 
          The court  denied the  motion to  hold him in contempt, 
          holding that  disclosure of  his assets would provide a 
          starting point for a tax evasion case. 
 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

Note, in particular, where this IR Manual uses the phrase
“in the absence of such claims”. In general if you do not assert
your rights, explicitly and in a timely fashion, then you can be
presumed to have waived them. There’s the “law of presumption”
again. You can, therefore, assert your rights under the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, by refusing to submit
your books and records for inspection, even though you cannot
refuse to bring those books and records to an audit. This may
seem like splitting hairs. However, if the federal government
could compel your submission of books and records to IRS agents,
then the federal government could compel persons to be witnesses
against themselves. This would violate the Fifth Amendment.

Similarly, the federal government could compel the search and
seizure of books and records without a warrant issued upon
probable cause and describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. This would violate the Fourth
Amendment. Agencies of the federal government are constrained by
law to avoid infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

How do you assert your rights in a polite yet convincing
way, so that everyone who needs to know is placed on notice that
you have done so? One of the most effective ways of asserting
your rights is to become totally alert to every document which
bears your signature, past, present and future. Know that your
signature is the touch which magically transforms common pieces
of paper into commercial contracts, or “commercial agreements” as
they are called in the Uniform Commercial Code. Always sign your
name with the following phrase immediately above your signature
on all contracts which involve bank credit or Federal Reserve
Notes:

 
           With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights 
               and Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 
 

A short-hand way of doing the same thing is to utilize the phrase
“All Rights Reserved”. This phrase appears in most published
books and in film credits. The use of these phrases above your
signature on any document indicates that you have exercised the
“Remedy” provided for you in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in
Article 1 at Section 207. This “Remedy” provides a valid legal
mechanism to reserve a fundamental, common law right which you
possess. Under the common law, you enjoy the right not to be
compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement
which you did not enter knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.

Moreover, your explicit reservation of rights serves notice
upon all administrative agencies of government, whether
international, national, state, or local, that you do not, and
will not accept the liability associated with the “compelled”
benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements. As you now know
from reading previous chapters, the federal government is famous
for making presumptions about you, because your signature is on
documents which bind you to “commercial agreements” with tons of
unrevealed terms and conditions. Think back to the terms and
conditions attached to the bank signature card, for example. An
unrevealed term is proof of constructive fraud, and constructive
fraud is a legal basis for cancelling any written instrument.

Last but not least, your valid reservation of rights results
in preserving all your rights, and prevents the loss of any such
rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel. A
“waiver” has occurred when you sign your name on an agreement
which states that you knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily
waive one of your fundamental rights. Kiss it goodbye. As long
as you are not infringing on the rights of others, only you can
waive one or more of your fundamental rights. In law, “estoppel”
means that a party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a
right, to the detriment of another party who was entitled to rely
on such conduct and who has acted accordingly. If all parties
were acting in good faith, for example, estoppel prevents you
from changing your mind and claiming a right after the fact, in
order to get out of an otherwise valid contract. The doctrine of
estoppel holds that an inconsistent position or course of conduct
may not be adopted to the loss or injury of another. However, if
the other party has been responsible for actual fraud,
constructive fraud or deliberate misrepresentation, then the
estoppel doctrine goes out the window and the contract is
necessarily null and void. And there is no statute of
limitations on fraud.

The remedy provided for us in the Uniform Commercial Code
was first brought to my attention by a Patriot named Howard
Freeman, who has written a classic essay entitled
The Two United States and the Law. This essay does an excellent job of
describing the tangled legal mess that has resulted from the
bankruptcy of the federal government in the year 1933.
Specifically, the Supreme Court decision of Erie Railroad vs
Thompkins in 1938 changed our entire legal system in this country
from public law to private commercial law. Prior to 1938, all
Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law, i.e., the
system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitations.
Ever since the Erie decision in 1938, all Supreme Court decisions
have been based upon what is termed “public policy”. Public
policy concerns commercial transactions made under the
Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.).
Freeman describes the overall consequences for our system of
government as follows:

 
     Our national  Congress works for two nations foreign to each 
     other, and  by legal  cunning both  are  called  The  United 
     States.   One is  the Union  of Sovereign  States, under the 
     Constitution, termed  in this article the Continental United 
     States***.   The other  is a Legislative Democracy which has 
     its   origin  in  Article I, Section 8, Clause 17   of   the 
     Constitution, here termed the Federal United States**.  Very 
     few people, when they see some "law" passed by Congress, ask 
     themselves, "Which  nation was  Congress working for when it 
     passed this or that so-called law?"  Or, few ask, "Does this 
     particular law  apply only  to residents  of the District of 
     Columbia and  other named  enclaves, or  territories, of the 
     Democracy called the Federal United States**?" 
 
                                           [emphasis in original] 
 

The “Federal United States**” to which Freeman refers is the
federal zone. Because of its sweetheart deal with the Federal
Reserve, Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a
constitutional medium of exchange for the Citizens of the 50
States. Instead of real money, Congress created a “wealth” of
commercial credit for the federal zone, where it is not bound by
constitutional limitations. After the tremendous depression that
began in 1929, Congress used its emergency authority to remove
the remaining real money (gold and silver) from circulation
inside the 50 States, and made the commercial paper of the
federal zone a legal tender for all Citizens of the 50 States to
use in discharging their debts. Freeman goes on to describe the
“privilege” we now enjoy for being able to discharge our debts
with limited liability, that is, by using worthless commercial
paper instead of intrinsically valuable gold and silver:

 
     ... Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations 
     the "benefit"  of limited  liability in the discharge of all 
     debts by  telling the  citizenry that  the gold  and  silver 
     coins of  the Republic were out of date and cumbersome.  The 
     citizens were  told that  gold and silver (substance) was no 
     longer needed  to  pay  their  debts,  that  they  were  now 
     "privileged" to  discharge debt  with this more "convenient" 
     currency,   issued   by   the   Federal   United   States**. 
     Consequently, everyone  was forced  to "go  modern," and  to 
     turn in  their gold as a patriotic gesture.  The entire news 
     media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be 
     a forward  step for  our democracy,  no longer  referring to 
     America as a Republic. 
 

You are strongly encouraged to read and study
Freeman’s entire essay,
which can [also] be obtained by writing Howard Freeman,
c/o P.O. Box 364, Lusk, Wyoming. A copy of this essay can also
be obtained from the Account for Better Citizenship. The
compound metaphor of “Two United States” is rich in meanings and
long on prophetic insight.

America is now submerged in a tangled legal mess which began
in 1901 and reached critical mass in 1913. This mess is due, in
large part, to systematic efforts to destroy the Constitution as
the fundamental law in this country, and to devolve the nation
from a Republic into a Democracy (mob rule) and eventually a
socialist dictatorship. The Supreme Court gave its official
blessing to the dubious principle of territorial heterogeneity in
the Insular Cases. These controversial precedents then paved the
way for unrestricted monetary devolution under a private credit
monopoly created by the Federal Reserve Act; this Act followed
closely behind the fraudulent 16th Amendment in order to justify
“municipal” income taxation (two pumps, working in tandem). The
Supreme Court stepped into line once again when their Erie
decision threw out almost 100 years of common law precedent.
Echoing Justice Harlan’s eloquent dissent in Downes vs Bidwell,
author Lori Jacques identifies territorial heterogeneity as a
root cause of the disease she calls “governmental absolutism”:

 
          There has  been no cure for the disease of governmental 
     absolutism  introduced   into  our   body  politic   by  the 
     acquisition  of  Dependencies  and  the  subsequent  alleged 
     Sixteenth Amendment.   ...  [T]hrough Rules  and Regulations 
     meant for the Territories and insular Possessions, which are 
     not limited  by the Constitution, Congress has extended this 
     limited legislative  power into the several states by clever 
     design thereby  usurping the  states' right  to a republican 
     form of  Government and  virtually destroying the concept of 
     Liberty of the individual. ... 
 
          Until  the   person  who  receives  benefits  from  the 
     Government is not permitted to vote, or buy himself benefits 
     to the  detriment of  another, the Liberty of the Individual 
     will be  denied.   "Benefits" granted  by the Government are 
     the rights  transferred by  the Individual to the Government 
     and  then   returned  as  "privileges"  by  its  formula  of 
     felicific calculus. 
 
                     [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition] 
                                  [pages 145-146, emphasis added] 
 

These efforts to destroy the Constitution have not been entirely
successful, however. Due to the concerted efforts of many
courageous Americans like Howard Freeman, the United States
Constitution is alive, if not well, and remains the Supreme Law
of the Land even today. Any statute, to be valid, must be in
agreement with the Constitution and, therefore, with all relevant
provisions for amending it. It is impossible for both the
Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must
prevail. That “one” is the Constitution, the fundamental law in
these United States. This is succinctly stated as follows:

 
     The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though 
     having the  form and  name of law, is in reality no law, but 
     is wholly  void and  ineffective for  any  purpose;    since 
     unconstitutionality dates  from the  time of  its enactment, 
     and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 
     An unconstitutional  law,  in  legal  contemplation,  is  as 
     inoperative as  if it had never been passed.  Such a statute 
     leaves the  question that  it purports  to settle just as it 
     would be[,] had the statute not been enacted. 
 
     Since  an   unconstitutional  law   is  void,   the  general 
     principles follow  that it  imposes no  duties,  confers  no 
     rights, creates  no office, bestows no power or authority on 
     anyone,  affords   no  protection,  and  justifies  no  acts 
     performed under it .... 
 
     A void  act cannot  be legally  consistent with a valid one. 
     An unconstitutional  law cannot  operate  to  supersede  any 
     existing valid  law.   Indeed, insofar  as  a  statute  runs 
     counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded 
     thereby. 
 
     No one  is bound  to obey  an unconstitutional  law, and  no 
     courts are bound to enforce it. 
 
                      [16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 

The vivid pattern that is now painfully emerging is that
“citizens of the United States”, as defined in federal tax law,
are the intended victims of a modern statutory slavery that was
predicted by the infamous Hazard Circular soon after the Civil
War began. These statutory slaves are now burdened with a bogus
federal debt which is spiralling out of control. The White House
budget office recently invented a new kind of “generational
accounting” so as to project a tax load of seventy-one percent on
future generations of these “citizens of the United States”. It
is our duty to ensure that this statutory slavery is soon gone
with the wind, just like its grisly and ill-fated predecessor.

[ Next | Prev | Table of Contents ]

YusefEl

Secured Party and owner of High Frequency Radio Network