In 1798, Thomas Jefferson instructed that:

Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

Wilson Nicholas, a delegate to the Virginia convention that ratified the Constitution, said:

Congress has power to define and punish for counterfeiting, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations; but they can not define or prescribe the punishment for other crimes whatsoever without violating the Constitution.

Chief Justice Marshall said:

The police power unquestionably remains, and ought to remain, with the States.

Until this past century, federal courts upheld the view that the federal government could deal only with crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In 1911 the Supreme Court said:

Among the powers of the State not surrendered – which powers therefore remain with the State – is the power to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, the public safety, and the public health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good.

At the founding of this Republic, there were only four federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and crimes against the law of nations. Now there are three thousand federal crimes, three hundred thousand federal administrative regulations, many of which are punishable as crimes, and about eighty-five thousand local governments with five hundred thirteen thousand elected officials, or one in every five hundred people. We have an estimated forty-five million laws – state, federal and local. God, the Creator of the universe, gave us only ten laws with which to live our lives, and although I fail often, I try to conduct my life by those Ten Commandments. It would be impossible, however, to obey forty-five million laws.

Those millions of laws and the government enforcers are destroying our Republic.

In 1900, one in every fifteen dollars went for government use; in the year 2000 it is nearly one in every two. We must contend with sixty-five times more laws than our grandfathers did at the turn of the 20th Century, the most cruel and unjust of those being the tax laws.

Every federal program takes on a life of its own, so it will be extremely difficult to transfer power from the federal government to the states. It is difficult to change, much less kill or transfer a federal program once it has been established, even after it has outlived its usefulness. The New Deal view of an all-powerful central government must be replaced with a firm separation of powers if this republic is to survive.

Increasingly in the last hundred years, powerful corporate interests have deliberately subverted the intent of the Founders by financing the appointment of judges who would enhance corporate and federal power and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances.

While many today attack the New Deal as representing the demise of constitutional government in America, the assaults actually began in the late 1800s, when federal courts led by the Supreme Court started chipping away at state sovereignty. This allowed the federal government to assume numerous duties and responsibilities that under the constitution had been reserved to the states or the people.

Recalcitrant southern states did not turn to the Supreme Court to leave the Union before the Civil War, partly because the Constitution does not grant the federal courts the right to control state sovereignty. The Constitution did not create a judicial supremacy, and there is extensive evidence that the Founders never granted the Supreme Court the power to rule over the President, Congress, or the states.

Every July 4th we honor the signing of the Declaration of Independence. By signing that document, the founding fathers, many of whom were {tip content="Deism derived from the Latin term deus, meaning \"god\" is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God (often, but not necessarily, a God who does not intervene in the universe after creating it), solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority. Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology—that is, God's existence is revealed through nature."}Deists{/tip}, pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the premise that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, to be secured by a government that was subject to and inferior to the consent of the governed.

The British pursued them as traitors to the king. Of the fifty-six original signers, nine did not live to see freedom, five were imprisoned, and seventeen lost everything they had. Their sacrifice for the Constitution of the United States has guided this nation through a continuing effort to bring liberty and justice for all. Can any of us do less?

The courage of America’s founders was based on their belief in God’s Providence. George Washington called America’s liberties:

The object of Divine protection.

James Madison, President and signer of the Constitution, affirmed their beliefs saying:

Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.

At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin began the tradition of prayers in Congress saying:

In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

If our liberty and nation were still under God’s protection, none of us would be reading this book; we would be in full measure out in pursuit of our happiness. By rejecting God’s plan for our future, we have chosen to adopt man’s temporal plan, and we must suffer the consequences of that choice.

Many years of legal research has led me down many paths in pursuit of truth. I didn’t receive Truth in law school or at any time during my formal education, with the exception of a one-room schoolhouse in Kentucky. That school didn’t receive any federal funds for education, so the subject matter the teacher taught was not restricted. Our teacher had a remarkable understanding of the national and state Constitution and the framers’ intent, along with Thomas Jefferson’s negotiations with the State legislature documented in the Kentucky Resolutions – fascinating reading then; visionary in the present day.

In later years far removed from that one-room schoolhouse, what I received at public schools supported by federal grant money was revisionist history and omission of the truth in everything other than the sciences. After all, I had an education controlled by the federal government’s money. I was taught what the federal and state governments wanted me to learn – nothing more, and certainly not the truth.

The old axiom that “truth is the first casualty of war” is as close to any truth that you will ever find in your investigation of the federal government. That being the case, we have been lied to by our government and have been at war with our national government for a very long time, and I believe that is the truth.

As I write, for each of us within this country, our liberty is perishing – that liberty crushed beneath the constant growth of state and federal government power. More than ever before, the federal, state, and local governments are confiscating citizens’ property, trampling rights, and decimating opportunities for any prosperous future you may have hoped for. Since 1933, a concentrated effort has been made to impoverish the people of America. Our wealth has been systematically stripped from us by rapacious taxation and outright theft in the form of usury (interest) and fractional reserve banking policy.

Federal agencies publish an average of over two hundred pages of new rulings, regulations, and proposals in the Federal Register each business day. The expansion of the federal code is one of the most obvious measures of the increase of administrative control over the citizen. The politicians’ effort to socially engineer society by an endless multiplication of penalties, prohibitions, taxes and prison sentences, is a dismal failure. What has been lost in their effort is our freedom.

The attack on the individual’s rights has reached a point in our lives where a citizen has no right to the use of his own land if the bureaucracy determines it to be a wetland, no right to the money in his pocket or bank account if an IRS agent determines he has taxes owed, and no right to his property if a duck, flying south for the winter, lands in a puddle in his backyard. A man’s home is his castle, except when a politician wants the land the house is built on for a low cost housing project.

In America today, a citizen’s use of his own property is presumed illegal until approved by multiple zoning and planning commissions. Since 1985, federal, state, and local governments have seized the property of over two hundred thousand Americans under asset forfeiture laws, often with no more evidence of wrongdoing than an unsubstantiated assertion made by an anonymous government informant.

Government officials now exert vast arbitrary power over citizens’ daily lives, from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission bureaucrats that can levy a $145,000 fine on a St. Louis small businessman because he did not have 8.45 minorities on his payroll … to the Minnesota and Wisconsin departments of natural resources, which regulate property so that you may not use the lake or swamp contained on your land because an endangered mouse species lives nearby.

Federal agricultural bureaucrats can prohibit Arizona farmers from selling fifty-eight percent of their fresh lemons to other Americans.

Customs Service inspectors can destroy import shipments without compensating the owners.

Federal bank regulators are officially empowered to seize the assets of any citizen for allegedly violating written or unwritten banking regulations.

Federal regulations dictate what price milk must sell for, what size California nectarines can be sold, what crops a person may grow on his own land, what apparel items a woman may sew in her own home, and how old a person must be to buy a beer, even though he is old enough to die for his country.

The Internal Revenue Service is carrying out a massive campaign against the self-employed that seeks to force over half of America’s independent contractors to abandon their own businesses.

NAFTA and GATT agreements are forcing small industries into bankruptcy because their customers have moved to Mexico or Indonesia.

Government agencies are more out of control than ever before, and the Supreme Court, the supposed bastion and protector of the Bill of Rights, has ratified the power of these federal employees.

Privacy is vanishing beneath the rising floodtide of government power. Government officials have asserted a de facto right to search anybody, any time, on the pretext of “terrorism.”

The average American now has no freedom from having government agents strip-search his children, rummage through his luggage, ransack his house, sift through his bank records, and trespass in his fields. Today, a citizen’s constitutional right to privacy can be nullified by the sniff of a dog.

Federal officials have given rewards to hundreds of airline ticket clerks for reporting the names of individuals who paid for their tickets in cash, thereby allowing police to confiscate the rest of people’s money on mere suspicion of illegal behavior.

Local police are conducting programs in two hundred thousand classrooms that sometimes result in young children informing police on parents who violate drug laws.

The number of federally authorized wiretaps has almost quadrupled since 1980 (except the ones intended to catch spies of our nuclear secrets), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is trying to prohibit development of new types of phones that would be more difficult to wiretap. The demagogues in Congress are rabid with the intent of taking away our right to carry and bear arms. Could this description of events occurring in the United States today have applied to pre-war Nazi Germany?

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are increasingly under assault. The proliferation of vague federal regulations have had a severe chilling effect on the free speech of millions of businessmen who cannot criticize federal agencies without risking reprisal that could destroy them. Thanks to a 1992 federal appeals court decision and a late 1993 congressional uproar, even pictures of clothed children can now be considered pornographic, thus greatly increasing the number of Americans who can be prosecuted for violating obscenity laws by taking pictures of their own children.

The government is manufacturing more criminals now than ever before. It is increasingly choosing the citizen-target, creating the crime, and then vigorously prosecuting the violator. During the past fifteen years, law enforcement officials have set up thousands of elaborate schemes to entrap people for “crimes” such as buying plant supplies, asking for a job, or shooting deer. Hundreds of private accountants have become double agents, receiving government kickbacks for betraying their clients to the IRS.

Total federal spending has increased from under $100 billion in 1963 to over $3 trillion in 2002, and as spending has grown, so has bureaucratic control and political power. Since 1960, the federal government has created over a thousand new subsidy programs for everything from medical care to housing, from culture to transportation. Subsidies are the twentieth century’s method of human conquest: slow political coups d’etat over one sector of the economy and society after another. Government subsidies have become a major factor in squeezing out unsubsidized developers, unsubsidized schools, unsubsidized theater producers, and unsubsidized farmers. The money is extorted out of the lifeblood of the citizen by rapacious and unlawful taxes while the subsidies slowly smother his freedom. A government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away.

Former President Clinton set aside 1.7 million acres of Utah to be protected by the federal government. That sounds warm and fuzzy until you understand that the land federalized was the nation’s largest reserve of soft coal. The electric utilities must now buy their coal for electrical generation from Indonesia – soft coal owned by the Lipo group, the same organization that donated millions to Clinton’s election campaign.

Beggaring the taxpayer has become the main achievement of the welfare state. The federal tax system is turning individuals into sharecroppers of their own lives. The private economy has become an agent of the federal government. At least fifty percent of the total productive resources of our nation are now being organized through the political market in the form of taxes. In that very important sense, we are more than half socialist. The average American now works over half of each year simply to pay the cost of government tax and regulation.

High taxes have created a moral inversion in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Before the income tax, the government existed to serve the people at least in some vague nominal sense; now the people exist to provide financial grain for the state’s mill. Federal court decisions have often bent over backward to stress that citizens’ rights are nearly null and void in conflicts with the Internal Revenue Service. IRS seizures of private property have increased by six hundred percent since 1980 and now hit over three million Americans each year.

Not only do we have more laws and regulations than ever before, but the laws themselves are becoming less clear, consistent, or coherent. An example is the tax code. In 1913, a debate was held on the Senate floor regarding the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment. Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law. His comment was humorous then; it is hilarious now:

I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law, I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.

All the confusion over an eighty-page Act then is exponentially compounded now by the current ten thousand-plus page Internal Revenue Code 26 USC, along with more than thirty thousand pages of implementing Internal Revenue regulations – 26 CFR and some borrowed from 27 CFR. It is now practically impossible for citizens to keep track of government’s latest edicts.

Today the law has become a tool with which to force people to behave in ways politicians approve, which is politically correct, rather than a clear line that citizens can respect in order to live their lives in privacy and peace.

With the proliferation of retroactive regulations, government agencies now have the right to change the rules of the game at any time, even after the game is over.

The “Rule of John Ashcroft,” whereby federal officials on a whim create new rules to bind and penalize private citizens, has replaced the Rule of Law – the classical concept endorsed by the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 as a restraint on government power.

Each night we are deluged with “cop” shows that reveal how far out of its box the beast of government has crawled. Government agents dressed like military commandos wearing black jumpsuits, bulletproof vests and armament that would give a seasoned military force pause to reflect, wear full head masks to conceal their identity. No one busy doing the constitutional work of the Republic needs to wear ski masks concealing their identity. Criminals and outlaws wear masks, not constitutional officers. They bash in doors and throw the inhabitants to the floor, screaming children watching in horror as their parents are manacled and dragged off to prison.

The government is supposed to set the example that we the citizens are required to emulate. When the government breaks the law, then there exists no law. We have anarchy. That, I am afraid, is the state of the union as of today.

In the famous Supreme Court case of Elkins et al v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, the Court, reinforcing judicial integrity, stated:

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, and it invites anarchy.

The time in which Justice Brandeis spoke was a simpler time, and the government had not broken the chains with which the Constitution bound it down. Unfortunately, the federal judiciary has opted out of the Separation of Powers doctrine of the Constitution, and now has become self-regulating.

The courts do not maintain their independence as a judiciary. Without constitutional authority, the system elevates judges above the law. The courts are no longer our courts of justice or a bastion of freedom. With the passage of the War Powers Act of 1933, they have become the Executive’s tool. The judges are little more than organized crime families. They have invaded the people’s court and now only impersonate and give lip service to justice by exchanging obfuscation and sophistry in place of a justice system, void of any form of judicial integrity.

Enforcing judicial standards on judges under this system is impossible. Even though the court has rules, the judges make up their own rules as they go or break the rules with impunity whenever it is convenient for them to do so.

How can you take a judge to court when the judges control the court and have granted themselves immunity from prosecution? How do you call the police when it is the police who are breaking the law? The judges’ dishonesty is contagious, and the government as teacher has sewn the seeds of discontent and anarchy.

The LORD God Almighty has granted a judge immense power to judge His creation, we the people. But along with that power comes immense responsibility in that the LORD on the Day of Judgment will hold each judge to a higher standard of judgment.

The people have learned their lessons well. They follow by example, and the example of the courts and the criminal justice system has led the people to behave criminally, just as Justice Brandeis predicted.

Government now appears more concerned with dictating personal behavior and political correctness than with protecting citizens from the private violence of murderers, muggers, and rapists. In 1990, for the first time in history, the number of people sentenced to prison for drug violations exceeded the number of people sentenced for violent crime. The number of people incarcerated in federal and state prisons in 2001 was almost four times the number incarcerated in 1980, and America now has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country in the world – two million people. If those on probation and parole are taken into account, the number controlled by the justice system is over six million. So much for “the land of the free and home of the brave,” which is now just another oxymoron akin to “military intelligence.”

Unfortunately, the more that government has tried to manage people’s behavior, the more unmanageable American society has become. Gangs have replaced families, resulting in a greater proliferation of drugs and illegal weapons. Our babies are becoming parents with no jobs or education, spiraling an entire generation of children into grinding poverty and third world expectations of life.

We have lost our moral compass as a people and have embraced a secular view of morality rather than God’s. This observable fact, as America has entered the new millennium, is the circumstance of the New World Order, as envisioned and planned for a very long time by the International Banking cartel and the United Nations.

Oppression has become more refined and more insidious in recent decades. We frequently see scenes like IRS agents dragging Amish tax resisters out of their scanty homes or the Los Angeles police beating a suspect. We can expect to see the frequency of similar scenarios escalate as we are pushed forward into a global government and the New World Order.

The fact that only a minimum number of people physically resist government agents is not confirmation that the state is violating fewer people’s rights. The level of tyranny imposed by government agencies is less evident today primarily because the vast majority of citizens capitulate to government demands before the government resorts to enforcement. America is ripe for a cataclysmic revolution. The lack of an armed uprising is not evidence of a lack of discontent and hostility. Six corporations presently control all forms of media (newspaper, TV, radio, etc.) in the United States, and they have been diligent accomplices in a massive cover-up of federal crimes and oppression of the people.

Many Americans apparently believe politicians and policy experts have been wise enough to create a government that does not crush the people it was created to protect and serve. The question of individual liberty is now often marketed as a question of a ruler’s intentions toward the citizen. But lasting institutions are far more important than transient intentions.

The last seventy-five years have seen the sapping of most constitutional restraints on capricious government power. American political assessment suffers from a predisposition to appraise government by exalted ideals rather than by insipid and shocking reality. We have a romantic tendency to judge politicians by their dictum rather than by their day-to-day actions and a tendency to view the growth of government power by its promise rather than by its results.

The decline of liberty is not primarily from specific acts of government, but from the collective force of hundreds of thousands of decrees, hundreds of taxes, and thousands of officials with unrestricted power over other Americans.

Our political leaders say they have tried to improve the quality of life by multiplying the amount of intimidation, by militarizing police power, by giving one group of people the power of invention over others as to how they must conduct their affairs.

The power accumulating in a central government is not put on display at the Smithsonian Institute; it is exercised in day-to-day life. The larger it becomes, the more oppressive it will become, regardless of the intentions of those who advocate larger government.

The average American’s understanding of liberty and the threat to its survival has declined sharply since the nation’s birth. The Massachusetts colonists rebelled after the British agents received “writs of assistance” that allowed them to search any colonist’s property.

Modern Americans submit passively to law enforcement sweep searches of buses, schools, and housing projects without valid search warrants. Virginia revolted in part because King George imposed a two-pence tax on the sale of a pound of tea. Americans today are complacent while Congress imposes billions of dollars in taxes, increasing the projected federal debt into double digit trillions.

Federal agencies have the power to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in suits against private citizens. Maine revolted primarily because the British Parliament issued a decree confiscating every white pine tree in the colony; modern Americans are largely complacent when local regulatory agencies impose almost unlimited restrictions on individuals’ rights to use their own property.

The initial battles of the Revolution occurred after British troops tried to seize the colonists’ private weapons; today, residents in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities submit to de facto prohibition on handgun ownership imposed by the same government that grossly fails to protect the citizen from private violence.

The 1775 Revolution was largely a revolt against growing arbitrary power. Nowadays, seemingly the only principle is to have no political principle: to judge each act of government in a vacuum – to assume that each expansion of government power and nullification of individual rights will have no future impact. The Founding Fathers looked with horror at the liberties that they were losing, while modern Americans focus myopically on the freedoms that they still retain.

America needs fewer laws, not more prisons. The Founding Fathers realized that some amount of government was necessary in order to prevent a “war of all against all.” By trying to seize far more power than is necessary or granted by the Constitution over American citizens, the federal government is destroying its own legitimacy. We face a choice not of anarchy or fascism, but a choice of limited or unlimited government. Because it is a necessary evil, it is necessary to vigilantly limit government’s disruption of citizens’ lives.

We the people delegated to ourselves the responsibility as the ultimate protector of the Constitution. We the People are the ultimate court. When our government is unwilling or refuses to abide by the constitutional mandates we required, it is our sacred duty to stand up against that government and to either alter or abolish it.

But oppression remains an evil that must be minimized in a free society. The ideal is not to abolish all government, but to structure it so as to achieve the greatest respect for citizens’ rights and the least violation of their liberty.

The question is not whether Americans have lost all their liberties, but whether the average American is becoming less free with each passing year – with each session of Congress – with each new shelf row of Federal Register Publications.

American liberty can still be rescued from the encroachments of government. The first step to saving our liberty is to realize how much we have already lost, how we lost it, and how we will continue to lose our liberties unless fundamental political changes occur.

I would propose that the Constitution be amended to require that the entire House of Representatives be composed only of females and the Senate be composed only of males. That would be a natural balance of power. It works in families; why not Congress and the American family?

The most recent example of congressional action and loss of liberty can be found in the new PATRIOT Act (short for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”). The Patriot Act expired in mid-2015, and since June 2nd, 2015 has been repackaged under the USA Freedom Act.

This act of Congress primarily expands existing law, giving federal law enforcement agencies greater intelligence-gathering power, and has the effect of curtailing or eroding constitutional protections for citizens. In the wake of September 11th, most of us believed that the law might be reasonable in granting enforcement agencies these expanded powers. But the facts as have been revealed by Congress do not support that contention. That tragedy occurred not because of inadequate anti-terrorism law, but because of the federal intelligence agencies’ own internal procedural failure.

The PATRIOT Act does not, therefore, help us to fight terrorism better. What it does do is:

1. It upsets the balance of power in our government, putting unnecessary power in the hands of the Executive, and brings us one step closer to what Chancellor Hitler achieved in pre-war Germany.
2. Increases the administrative burden on presently overburdened intelligence agencies; making terrorism more difficult for them to fight.
3. Destroys many of our hard-won unalienable rights and liberties for which so many of our ancestors and our own generation fought and died.

The Patriot Act is a complicated law. I have assembled for this Chapter the sections which I feel are most troubling. Specifically, the Patriot Act:

1. Permits agents of law enforcement to enter and search your home, in secret, without ever informing you. The U.S. Constitution requires not only probable cause to search, but that you are notified of the search. Section 213 of the Patriot Act disembowels the notice requirement of the 4th Amendment.
2. Section 216 of the act permits agents of the government to tap your phone or computer without probable cause having been established. Under this section, a judge MUST authorize a warrant as long as law enforcement agents certify that the surveillance is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” No probable cause of criminal activity is required to issue the warrant, and the criminal activity does not have to have anything to do with terrorism. This violates the probable cause provision of the 4th Amendment. So for all intents and purposes, the 4th Amendment is a dead letter.
3. In addition, Section 218 permits the government agent to carry out secret searches and wiretaps without showing probable cause merely by certifying that there is a “significant” foreign intelligence purpose. This also evades the 4th Amendment protection.
4. Section 411, in tandem with section 802, expands the power of government to designate a group as a “foreign terrorist organization.” Any group which endorses so-called “terrorist activity” which under 802 may be otherwise a lawful protest activity, can be designated as a terrorist organization. This would enable government to designate such groups as the California Tree Huggers, Protestors in Puerto Rico objecting to bombing of their land, or those Protestors against the World Trade Organization, as terrorists, such as in Seattle, New York, Chicago and Washington. Good-bye, 1st Amendment.
5. Section 411 also allows the government to indict anyone who provides material support or assistance to a terrorist organization. It is now possible for the federal government to determine that a domestic organization is in fact a terrorist group, i.e. the Michigan Militia, or Save a Patriot, American Rights Litigators, or any group who may disagree with government policy. One man makes the determination of terrorist – the President. No evidence is necessary and no court can stop that designation. No more 5th Amendment!
6. Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to arrest and detain immigrants indefinitely for nothing more than a visa violation. In fact, of the one thousand, two hundred known immigrant detentions since 9/11, the ACLU determined that only about five had been detained on terrorism-related charges.
7. Section 802 creates the crime of “domestic terrorism.” This criminalizes any acts of any member of the public that merely appear to the government’s determination to be intended to “influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion” or to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” This section would make just about any act of civil disobedience in protest against government policy into an act of domestic terrorism. Anyone who responds in writing to the IRS by objecting to one of its decisions could and probably will be labeled a domestic terrorist. There goes the 5th Amendment.

Our Congress, at the urging of the President and the Attorney General, has enacted criminal, unconstitutional legislation. As an example of its new application, we now see what is planned for the rest of us.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said, “If you don’t agree with the government, YOU are a terrorist.”

Attorney General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly dim-witted Congress soon after September 11th. He has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any Attorney General in American history. This is the same man who was beaten by a dead man in his bid for the Senate.

Under the Justice Department’s new definition of “enemy combatant” (which won the enthusiastic approval of the President and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) anyone can be defined as an “enemy combatant,” very much including American citizens, and they can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer – in short, incommunicado. Good-bye the entire Bill of Rights.

Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental legal right in our system of justice and put into camps.

Ashcroft’s terrorism FBI guidelines:

The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts.

That conduct can be simply “intimidating” the government, according to the USA Patriot Act. This book would qualify under those guidelines.

The following words of Thomas Jefferson from the Kentucky Resolutions sound as though they were written yesterday in describing the Patriot Act.

That if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counselors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and the people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal …

Jefferson’s statement is as valid in 2003 as it was in 1798. It lends a chilling historical prospective to the present “Patriot Act” and our present condition compared to events in America in 1798 brought on by the Alien and Sedition Act (Whiskey Rebellion).

Congress and the other branches of the federal government are not a party to the Constitution; they are products of it. The Constitution vests Congress with certain delegated authorities under Article I; nothing more. Within its own borders, state authority is antecedent to that of the United States, and as parties to the Constitution, the several states have both the right and responsibility to correct their agent, the United States, when ambition seeks to abuse or expand powers which have been delegated.

Of more immediate importance where the instant matter is concerned, those who exceed the law, whether of the State or the United States, are accountable to the law of the land and, ultimately, to the People of the land within the several States. Operation under color of law is outlaw, criminal, and accountability must be in law. Judges, magistrates, attorneys for the Department of Justice, and enforcement people do not have immunity when they exceed the law as it is written.

This War on Terrorism is not a war at all. Congress is the only constitutional body that can declare war. It is a convenient tool being used by the President to expand power and control over each of us Citizens – nothing more. The government will not be happy until the last vestiges of our Constitution are torn from us, leaving no protection from the servitude expected from us all.

The federal government has never kept its word in either the conduct of internal policy (Constitution), in treaties with the Indians or in international policy.

The course of conduct being displayed by the government is merely ensuring that new generations of “terrorists” are being created at home as well as abroad.

The Constitution was written and the federal government created in order to insure that all of our liberties were protected even during times of war. They have failed miserably in that task. Ashcroft now says that “we will protect you, but some of your liberty must be surrendered to enable us to protect you.” Rubbish!!!

It is time that all Americans with courage say to the federal government, “Go to Hell!” There can be no higher expression of patriotism than opposing your government when you believe they are wrong. That should be the responsibility of our state governments, but they have bought into the federal agenda because it expands their power and control over us and they are no better than the federal fascists that they emulate.

Freedom is a word not often reflected on by us. Thomas Jefferson said, “Freedom is not free; the price we must pay for freedom is eternal vigilance.” Collectively we have not been vigilant, and now we can see the result of our apathy.

It is not too late to correct our agent, the federal and state governments. Individually we are not a threat to the vested interests of the new king, but collectively we can still control if we wake up and smell the dead rotting corpse of this once great republic. Together we must demand that they cease and desist in their plan for world domination and control over us before the United States of America crashes, smoking and burning, upon the scrap pile of history.

When I left the battlefield of Southeast Asia, I vowed that I would never again take up arms against another human being, and I never will. But as long as I have a breath in my body and a right of freedom of expression, I will educate, agitate, and indoctrinate as many of my fellow Americans as possible in order to stop or delay this march into madness that we are now on.

The Administration forced a vote on the Patriot Act before many legislators even had a chance to read it. That is the way the world elite always slip in legislation that destroys our freedom. That is the way the War Powers Act of 1933, the Federal Reserve Act, and the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution all were passed into law. Then, NAFTA, GATT and countless other laws were shoved down our throat because Congress has no backbone or are co-conspirators in treason. The Patriot Act passed by a majority of 337 to 79.

We must prevent these changes from becoming malignant and spreading to the body politic. Insist that the Congress require these anti-terrorism laws be re-examined in a few years before they become permanent. This is your only chance to protest what may end up being the most significant event in our nation’s history – events that your grandchildren will not forgive you for if you do nothing.

Some people argue that we live in a “lenient” society that has more than enough liberty – that we can afford to lose some. Others have argued that only those people who are criminals or buying and selling drugs or gun owners have concern about the Bill of Rights.

Some might think my perception is too negative; they are probably correct. But being a sentinel for freedom is my responsibility and yours as well if we wish to remain a great nation. On my way to Hawaii three weeks after the New York tragedy, I was sitting next to a young woman who worked for the World Bank in Washington. She maintained those sentiments. As I excused myself and moved to another seat, I told her that I was not going to spend the next seven hours listening to an idiot mouth concepts about which she had absolutely no understanding of the gravity of her conclusions.

In my opinion, most of the general population who espouse those beliefs do not have the brains God gave a goose. They don’t realize that once the freedom is given away, it will never be returned, and the rights which are used by criminals to evade incarceration are the same rights which protect each of us. If one is denied that right, so too will all be denied that right.

In undergraduate school, I took several American history courses, as that subject has been of interest to me for the last thirty years and it is an excellent foundation for law. But I discovered that what was written in the history books was not the same as what was written in the settled case law of that same time period. The law is where the true history of a nation is found, not in a revisionist history book.

This nation’s history is composed of many great dreams and ambitions which were sacrificed upon the altar of “pragmatism,” “necessity,” “circumstance” and “thousands of dead heroes.” Our constitutional rights are like that.

The government has never simultaneously observed all the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America as they are actually written. The government, all three branches, has always been quick to say, “That’s not what they meant,” as if we are too stupid to read the simple language of that compact and understand the founders’ intent; and that’s in good times.

In dreadful times, when things get difficult and Americans are concerned, distressed, or angry, things get suddenly worse. This has been true from the very start of our nation.

Here are some examples of American history that we were not taught in school.

The second President, John Adams, a founding father (a forefather of Yours Truly), someone who should have known better, got the Alien and Sedition Acts passed. That law allowed the deportation of any non-citizen who was judged to be dangerous to the United States even if the country was not actually at war. No trial was required. The Sedition Act made criticizing the government a prison offense. These laws were passed and used to silence the public’s opposition to Adam’s foreign policy, especially used to imprison newspaper publishers of the opposing political party (Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans). A long time ago, right? That may be so, but it was the beginning of a tradition within our body politic.

In the twentieth century, there was the infamous Sedition Act in World War I. It was used to jail social reformers, activists, and other people with whom the government disagreed and, if they were non-citizens, to expel them. Specifically, it made speaking out against war a prison offense. Prominent journalists and civil libertarians were jailed for merely reading from the Constitution. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous “liberal” Supreme Court justice, voted to uphold this curtailment of the First Amendment with his now famous statement comparing the activism for peace during war to “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” I have often believed that a judge is a lawyer with a 50 I.Q. – nothing more.

The next shameful event in our history which still plagues us to this day was the “War Powers Act of 1933.” This Act permitted President Roosevelt to make law in the form of Executive Order, bypass Congress and create his socialist state. We (citizens of this country) were ever after to be considered enemies of the United States who must be licensed to engage in any commercial activity. With the aid of the Federal Reserve (the same people who created the Depression), the President confiscated our gold and silver coin and replaced it with worthless pieces of paper and a debt system that will eventually destroy this great country. Our land and our labor were pledged to the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc., as collateral for a debt system that could never be paid. How can this most important event in our history not be taught in school?

Everyone knows about the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. All people of Japanese descent, even natural-born Americans, were subject to detention in prison camps. The federal government jailed 120,000 men, women, and children for three years for the crime of being Japanese. The Supreme Court upheld the capture, internment, and the effective seizure of their property. That fact alone confirms my theory that they all have IQs of 50 or lower.

The Smith Act, also passed during this period – in 1940, before America’s entry into WWII – mandated the fingerprinting and registration of all aliens in the United States. To be an unregistered alien was against the law. This law also outlawed all organizations that advocated the overthrow of the government, perhaps a reasonable measure in war, but this law was passed during peacetime. The Smith Act was abused to jail labor leaders, socialists and communists who were opposed to the ways of the robber-baron capitalists, the very ones who created the conditions for the Great Depression.

The Red scare of the 30s and the communist witch-hunt, of the 40s and 50s ruined many American lives. Their only crime was to know the “wrong people,” or to hold liberal opinions, or to have such opinions in their youth and the gall to stand up to demagogues and others who used anti-Communism as the key to increasing their own power.

The 1950 Internal Security Act, passed by a super-majority to override Truman’s veto, required registration of people and groups who were communists or who had beliefs similar to communists. It created detention centers around the country, which would be filled with FBI-identified subversives if the President declared an emergency. Those detention centers are still in existence and new ones have been built all over this country to hold us. There are over forty-three of them at present under the direct control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [List #1 - List #2]

More recently, many are familiar with the history of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movement. Did you also know that the FBI’s operation Co-intelligence Program (CointelPro), approved at the highest levels of government, had as its object the suppression of those who worked to change the system? It was used to intimidate the membership, discredit leadership, and even put into jail those who fought for freedom and peace, in a manner that was not only grossly immoral but also completely illegal. That was only thirty years ago.

And there is Watergate and Nixon’s inches-thick list of enemies. He used the power of the IRS, FBI, Customs, and other federal agencies to harass or eliminate his political opponents and everyone he suspected of disloyalty or political opposition. That took place only twenty-five years ago.

And now, after twenty-five years of drug war and a drug-war friendly Supreme Court, we’ve seen our protections under the 4th and 5th Amendments eroded to nothing. All of these deprivations of liberty are always under the pretext of some alleged war.

We’re at a watershed point in our nation’s history. Not everyone who cries, “We must fight terrorism!” is really a friend of the Republic and freedom. Some people think that we should live in a society with a lot fewer “civil rights.” They believe that some opinions should be illegal, some activism should be forbidden. It is this type of individual that permeates the Congress and the federal judiciary.

Will these new laws affect you?

Maybe not at first, perhaps. They’ll be used to stop people with whose opinions you disagree – to jail civilian militiamen from Montana and Michigan; to put a stop to the KKK, ACLU, Operation Rescue, or Green Peace. Depending on your political beliefs, that’s a good thing, right?

But the way of judging such a law is not how it operates today, but how it will operate when your most feared enemy is in control. Who is your most feared enemy? If no one you know now qualifies for that position, imagine what use these new laws could be put to by Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, or even George Bush, Jr.

How would you safeguard your freedom and those of your friends and family when your opinions are labeled as terrorist?

My point is this: freedom walks a very narrow road. On one side of that road stands conformity, censorship of ideas, and the use of force to compel people in their role as citizen or antagonist. On the other side stands social engineering and political dissent. The only thing in the middle of the road is dead skunks and ignorant people.

That narrow road is supported by the Bill of Rights and the settled case law which support our rights. There’s nothing magical about the Constitution; it’s a dead tree ground into paper so those immortal, heavenly concepts of freedom and self-government could be memorialized. It’s a document written by people for people and interpreted by other people. It can be followed or it can be ignored. If it’s followed, there are a few precious, fundamental restrictions on government actions against the individual.

There is in the Constitution, for instance, a guarantee of due process of law before life, liberty, or property is taken from you. This isn’t a guarantee that you won’t be wrongly prosecuted, or that you won’t be investigated or even punished for your beliefs. It’s only a guarantee of exposure to other people, your fellow peers and the press, including some judges, who will be watching to see that the rules are being followed.

Sometimes that exposure is enough to make the difference; sometimes it’s not. The judges are there only to make sure that the rules were followed. Justice does not reside in the courtroom. If you want justice, go to church: that’s in God’s hands. All the judiciary cares about is if the rules were followed; nothing more. The same Congress that has legislated our freedoms away writes the rules.

But when by our apathy we set aside those few guarantees contained in the Constitution – when we allow searches made in secret, the seizure of property without trial, the detention of people without proof of a crime or opportunity to defend themselves – then that form of democracy becomes a paradigm for disaster. Our silence is freedom’s death knell.

People suffer because those who have and exercise power are imperfect people. They always make mistakes. They get eager in protecting us and, in so doing, forget that the actions of the over-eager bureaucracy are the clear and present danger to the people. Some of them have a desire to exercise and abuse their power, to silence their antagonists, to persecute those who are different from them, to make others bow to their demands. Those types of individuals make great prison guards, politicians and judges.

A strongly respected constitution helps keep a restraint on all that. Nothing but God can stop a government that is resolute to ignore its Constitution. The War Powers Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, Red scare, Watergate, CointelPro and now the Patriot Act, are examples in our shameful history that illustrate a government completely out of control.

But the Constitution was drafted in order to make things safer by introducing safeguards. Competing interests and the Separation of Powers doctrine between the three branches of government, each jealously protecting its own power, are the instruments by which our freedoms are enforced or should be.

When they are not, then you’d better watch your ass if your opinions are unpopular, unpalatable, or even dangerous to the status quo. The first rule of “Watching Your Ass” is making sure that you don’t look or sound like an Enemy of the State. It’s called the “Ostrich strategy.” Self-censorship is always the first step in the loss of freedom, lest you draw attention and the power of those who might do you harm for speaking your opinion.

Self-censorship makes it easier for further more draconian steps to be taken, as no one says: “Stop! This is unconstitutional.” We fear that if we said that, we might be singled out for government reprisal.

When Hitler attacked the Jews, I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then they attacked me and the Protestant church – and there was nobody left to be concerned.

This quote is from a pastor who opposed Nazism in Hitler’s Germany. He was speaking for the reaction, or lack thereof, of all people of good will in Germany to the events that transpired there. It’s the silence of people of good will that allows manifest evil and fascism to entrench its self. “Evil can flourish only when men of good will do nothing” is an ancient maxim that has profound meaning in our time.

I am not saying that the U.S. government is filled with Nazis. God willing, that specific species of human lunacy will never return. But the lessons learned in the fight against fascism should always live within us like a festering boil on the surface of our consciousness. Don’t be silent, and don’t censor yourself. Speak out against those in power and let them know you disagree and that you are watching their every move.

This is the responsibility of citizens in a Republic. I believe a Republic’s strength does not result from voting. In our country, half don’t vote because there isn’t much in the way of a choice: There is Daryl, my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl – not a penny difference between them. But we still have a strong country because people have a right and feel safe in expressing dissatisfaction. This operates as a relief valve for our frustrations and criticisms of those in power.

There’s a partition between our leaders and us that has grown larger with each passing year and each new shelf row of Federal Register publications. Many of our representatives are hearing only the call from the President and Attorney General to give them more power in order to make us safe from terrorism, no matter the cost, no matter the loss of precious freedom. Absolute safety can be achieved only in a police state, and then it is the state that is the source of all terrorism. This has been the story of human societies from time immemorial.

Few of these new laws are made for the prosecution of a war on foreign terrorists. We already have every legal tool needed to do this. The purpose of most of these changes is for the collection of more information about Americans, without the regulation of a judge and the restrictions imposed by the Constitution. The law already allows intelligence and investigative agencies to spy on foreigners without any serious obstacle. These laws can be only for the monitoring and imprisonment of those living in the US who have differing opinions of what makes for a fair and just society, citizen or foreigner. The government’s opinion may be diametrically opposed to your own.

Our war right now is against terrorists in the Middle East. The first people targeted in this country will be Arabs and Moslems. Since I’m not Arab or Moslem, it is none my concern. Next will be the civilian state militias. Since I am not a member of the militia, it is none my concern. Next will be the Christians with their belief in a power higher than the government.

Will there be anyone left to object?

We as the unified voice of We the People must, when the first of us is targeted, shout out from the highest hill…

Go to Hell!

Who ever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 USCA § 242

Note that a person has to be an alien to be protected from actions done under the color of law. This means that if a state employee or officer violates your natural rights that are secured by the federal and/or state constitutions, he can be put in jail; moreover, the state itself is not immune from such actions. They can be sued for their employees’, officers’, and their own actions. As the states are not paying their debts pursuant to money based on substance, as largely caused by the socialist system of government, the United States is bankrupt, and has been since 1933. All activity that they are involved in is fundamentally commercially based, such as their money system, traffic citations, taxes, etc. Accordingly, it has been held that the state governments are not immune from their commercial activities against lawful Americans. As the de facto law system fundamentally sets up a system that is based on commercial law, the states are liable for all damages that are done to a person that is not willfully participating in the de facto political system.

The state governments are basically quasi-political subdivisions of the federal government as they are composed of “rebelling” Americans (in treason). The state governments cannot violate the natural rights of a non-participatory American. If any such governments do violate anyone’s rights thereof, they and their employees will be held liable for their actions. American’s problems will not see any correction until either a peaceful or violent revolution is ceased and the original system put back in place. Until then, Americans must enforce their natural rights that are held under the law of nations and claim their true nationalities. It is the obligation of every American to enforce this right and make others aware of the hidden agenda that has been inflicted on us, which agenda is purely that of a commercial interest held by the World Elite.

In 1865, the 13th Amendment opened the floodgate for the people to volunteer into servitude in order to accept the benefits offered by the United States. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude; it does not prohibit voluntary servitude. In 1870, the 15th Amendment gave that new class of citizen the right to vote in that democracy. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits also came duties, liabilities and responsibilities that were totally regulated by the Congress for the District of Columbia and its subjects only.

In 1913, the United States began using international private law (Admiralty) because that facilitated an increase of “persons” and property for the United States, giving the District Courts booty and prize jurisdiction over enemy property within the confines of the American Republic; subject persons and property having the same status. Admiralty is a form of Military law, and jurisdiction is based upon contract. The adhesion contracts between the State Citizen and the federal government began to grow. This increase in subject citizen population became the cornerstone for the strategy of expansion, as now the federal government had many subjects because of the benefits derived from the contracts. Federal Admiralty jurisdiction was proper, because the former living soul (mask) was replaced with a legal fiction person (mask) voluntarily by contract.

Central banking for the United States was legislated into existence by the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment in 1913; it gave the central bankers all of the support they needed to finance their fiat money scheme. In 1917, the United States entered World War I and the Congress passed the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Emergency War Powers Act, opening the doors for the United States to suspend constitutional restrictions otherwise mandated by the Constitution. Even in times of peace, every contrived and created social, political, or financial emergency was sufficient authority for the officers of the United States to overstep its peace time power and implement volumes of “law” that would increase the wealth of the United States at the expense of the “persons” (mask) who were now duty bound to support it. All of the agencies that were created temporarily in time of war were not dismantled after the war, so the federal government got larger. The War Powers Act of 1917 was terminated after the war, but the agencies and departments created for that purpose still remain. There is always a declared emergency in the United States and its states since the resurrection of the War Powers Act of 1933, but when the statute is read carefully, it applies only to their 14th Amendment subject citizen. This is the main reason for obscuring the fact that there are two different classes of “person” within the American Empire, as well as two distinct United States. If you are not taught the facts in school, how else will you learn?

The statutory construction appears with crystal clarity when we consider the language used by the Supreme Court to describe the different definitions of the “United States.”

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely [1] the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt.
[See also: The Three United States]

Thus, in Hooven, it is readily discernible that there are two literal UNITED STATES consisting of definitive landmasses or geographical areas. The third definition [3] in Hooven consists of the fifty States united under the Constitution. The second definition [2] designates the geographical area consisting of the District of Columbia and all territory over which the political sovereignty of the UNITED STATES extends. Congress expresses the sovereignty of this second UNITED STATES under authority of Article I Section 8, Clause 17 and 18, and Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of the Constitution with no constitutional restrictions placed on said plenary powers. Congress, in legislating for the District and its Territories, always defines the words “State” and “United States” in its public laws to only include such geographical areas.

Col. Edward Mandell House, who was the agent provocateur of Rothschild, the head of the European Central Banks, was assigned to oversee the President and the Congress in the implementation of the central bankers’ plans. House is attributed with giving direction and strategy to be implemented by the president and the senators to enslave the American people with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and Amendments 16 and 17.

Support for the legal presumption that the American people had volunteered to participate in the United States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913 in that participation in federal elections for U.S. Senator established the legal presumption necessary in determining that you were a federal citizen.

The scheme also provided for the control of the courts via the 1913 creation of the American Bar Association, whose parent organization was the European International Bar Association, which was the creation of Rothschild. This allowed the International Bankers to control the practice of law, in that the only ones permitted to practice before the courts were those who were educated under their brand of law, which was only Admiralty and Contract law. Common law of the people was to be replaced as it gave the natural man many jurisdictional protections from the bankers’ legislation.

When the Congress made its first attempt to throw out the common law and replace it with Admiralty law, the Supreme Court rejected the proposed rules of court, explaining that the proposed rules would bring into existence a national police state. So, Roosevelt stacked the high Court and waited for a case upon which the demise of the common law could be accomplished. Erie v. Tompkins came along in 1938 and gave the court the opportunity that the Constitution did not. Thereafter, Common law at the federal level was to be no more. [See also: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins – Case Brief]

The 1930s were an eat, drink and be merry time, with the majority of the population living the good life with no care in the world and no attention to what was happening in Congress. The stock market crashed, and those not on the inside were not warned to take their money out of the market and, as a result, lost everything. This set the stage for socialism and Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was a new deal, all right – a one-sided deal, as you are about to learn.

Contract law is above the Constitution and under the jurisdiction of Equity/Admiralty courts, so the governments began to contract with everyone. The 1930s saw federal legislation providing for the registration of babies through applications for birth certificates. Government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration of cars through applications for certificates of title and for registration of land through registration of deeds of trust. Constructive trusts were created secretly by adhesion contracts, giving benefits either present or future and as a result, each of the people blindly walked into the trap of United States democracy and its jurisdiction by the signing of contracts, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States and collateral for the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc.

The Great Depression supplied the diversion needed to keep the people’s attention away from what the government was doing. The Social Security program was implemented, along with numerous other socialistic “New Deal” programs that invited the American people to volunteer to be the sureties behind the United States’ new registered property and adhesion contracts through the legal presumption that they were 14th Amendment United States subjects. We are permitted to contract with anyone, even the government, so for the promise of benefits from the federal government, we traded away our unalienable rights and put on a mask of the subject person.

Massive registration of property through United States agencies, including the States of the Union as instrumentalities of the federal government in bankruptcy, assured the United States and its officers and instrumentalities (the states) that they would become wealthy beyond their wildest expectations, as predicted by Colonel House.

Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President, 1913-1921) From the private papers of Woodrow Wilson:

[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our Chattel and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.

All of this was done without disclosure of the material facts that accompanied each application for contract registration. That fraud would have been sufficient reason to charge all the United States officers and elected officials with treason, unless a legal remedy could be legislated for the people to recoup their property and collect for the damages they suffered as a result of the fraud if ever discovered.

If a legal remedy was available, and the people chose not to or failed to secure their remedy, no charge of fraud could be brought, even to a common law court. The United States Congress needed only to provide the legal remedy. It was not required to explain it or even tell the people where the remedy could be found; if they did that then the entire conspiracy would be revealed and every cherry tree in Washington would be decorated with hanging bodies of Congressmen and bankers. The attorneys did not even have to be taught about the remedy in law school. Remaining quiet, Congress had plausible deniability if the people discovered the deception. The majority of the legislators did not have to have the intricate details of the law explained to them regarding the bills they were passing; the pressure was on by the leadership to pass this legislation, and that was all they needed to know. If the people failed to exercise due diligence, the United States became the holder in trust of all the land and labor of every subject in the American Empire. If, however, the people did discover their legal remedy, the United States would have to honor it and release the registered property back to the people, but only if the people were cognizant that they had a remedy, and only if they exercised it in the proper technical manner. It was a great plan, and it has worked for over 70 years.

Having established plausible deniability, even if the people became enlightened that they had a remedy and pursued it, the attorneys, judges, and legislators could claim that they did not understand the people’s claims, especially if the technical requirements for achieving it were not followed pursuant to the statutory requirements. Requiring the public schools to teach civics, government, and history classes out of federally-approved politically correct textbooks written by the publishing houses owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve would assure that the people would not discover the remedy for a long time, if ever.

Passing state and federal statutes that subjugated the citizens to rules and regulations added another firewall of protection against the people ever discovering their remedy. The media, owned by the same people who own the Federal Reserve, was fashioned to report politically correct news day after day ad nausea, until few people believed there was any hope for relief from the system and totally forgot all of their previous history of liberty and freedom. If the people could be separated from their money and their time in pursuit of the remedy, it could be obscured long enough so that that the solutions could be lost in millions of law library books across the country and equitable estoppel by laches could be argued against the few who discovered it.

The majority of elder Americans know there is something terribly wrong with all the conflicts in the law and the “facts” they were taught in school; not so with the newer generation. How can the American people be free and subject to a government’s fancy at the same time?

In 1933 the United States established its insurance policy with HJR 192 and recorded it in the Congressional Record. The Federal Register publication of that law was not required at that time. An Executive Order issued on April 5, 1933, paved the way for the withdrawal of all gold in the United States. Representative Louis T. McFadden brought formal criminal charges on May 23, 1933, against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Congressional Record May 23, 1933, page 4055-4058). Those charges are still not acted upon and are still in committee. HJR 192 passed on June 3, 1933. Mr. McFadden claimed on June 10, 1932:

Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks …

HJR 192 is the insurance policy that protects the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason against the American people. It also protects the American people from damages caused by the actions of the United States.

HJR 192 provides that the one with the gold paid the bills. It removed the requirement that the United States subjects and employees had to pay their debts with gold. It actually prohibited the inclusion of any clause in all subsequent contracts that would require payment in gold. It also cancelled the clause in every contract written prior to June 5, 1933, that required an obligation to be paid in gold. It provided that the United States subjects and employees could use any type of coin and currency to discharge a public debt as long as it was in use in the normal course of business in the United States. For a time, United States Notes were the currency used to discharge debts because there was 40% gold and 60% Treasury guarantees behind the currency, but later the Federal Reserve and the United States provided a new medium of exchange through paper notes and debt instruments that could be passed on to a debtor’s creditors to tender the debtor’s debts. Tender and payment are not the same. Tender merely changes the legal character of the debt, where gold and silver would extinguish the debt.

In the 1950s, the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted in most of the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive adhesion contracts. Debt instruments with collateral and accommodating parties could be used instead of money. Money and the need for money was disappearing, and a uniform system of law had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this was accomplished by the mid-1960s.

The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures which all people engaged in commercial activity must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled thousands of years ago, but were refined as commerce become more sophisticated over the years. In the 1900s, the age-old principles of commerce shifted from substance to form. Presumption became a major element of the law. Without giving a degree of force to legal presumption, the new direction in enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in Equity/Admiralty courts and had no chance in common law. If the claimants were required to produce their claims every time they tried to collect from the people, they would seldom be successful. The principles articulated in the commercial code combine the methods of dealing with substantive commercial activity with presumptive commercial activity. These principles work as well for us as they do for the entrenched powers. The rules are neutral and respect neither side of a dispute, as they are ancient in origin.

The entrenched powers that engineered the scheme for the people to register their property and person with the United States and its instrumentalities gained control of the peoples’ property and right to property through registration and licensing. The United States became the trustee of the titles to everything. The definition of “property” is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The property is the interest in the thing. Profits (interest) made from the property of another belong to the owner of the thing. The International Bankers made profits by pledging as surety the registered property of the people in commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the Bankers. The profits belong to the owners of the thing. That is always the people. The corporation government shows only ownership of paper – titles to things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. Sometimes the fiction is manufactured to appear as substance, but fiction can never become substance; it is an illusion. This is why the proper spelling of your name in upper and lower case is never used in court documents. The ALL CAPS spelling represents the legal fiction, which the government holds title to and jurisdiction over, as it is the creation of the government. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. What will happen when you appear and claim the name ascribed on the complaint? You and the fiction become one and the same; you have changed masks from a natural person to an artificial one.

The profits from all the registered property had to be put into trust for the benefit of the owners. If the profits were put into the general fund of the United States and not into separate trusts for the owners, the scheme would evidence fraud. The profits for each owner could not be co-mingled. If the owner failed to use his available remedy (fictional credits held in a constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger) to benefit from the profits, it would not be the fault of the government or their banking co-conspirators. If the owner failed to learn the law that would open the door to his remedy, it would not be the fault of the swindlers. The owner is responsible for learning the law so he understands that the profits from his property are available for him to discharge debts or charges brought against his legal fiction person by the United States or other commercial entities.

If the United States has the “gold,” the United States pays the bills (from the trust account, fund, or financial ledger). The definition of “fund” is money set aside to pay a debt. The fund is there to discharge the public debts attributed to the United States subjects, but ultimately back to the accommodating parties – the American people. The national debt is that which is due to the owners of the registered things – the American people – as well as to other creditors.

If the United States owes a debt to the owner of the thing, and the owner is presumed (by accommodation) to owe a public debt to the United States, the logical thing is to ask the United States to discharge that public debt from the trust fund. The way for the United States to get around having to pay the public debts for the people is to claim the owner cannot be an owner if he agreed to be the accommodating party for a debtor person. If the people are truly the principal, then they know how to handle their financial and political affairs (unless they have never been taught). If the owner admits by his actions of ignorance that he is an accommodating party, he has taken on the debtor’s liabilities without getting consideration in exchange. Here lies the fiction again.

The owner of the thing does not have to knowingly agree to be the accommodating party for the debtor person; he just has to act like he agreed. The legal presumption that he is the accommodating party is strong enough for the courts to hold the owner of the thing liable for a tax on the thing he actually owns.

Debtors may have the use of certain things, but the things belong to the creditors. The creditor is the master. The debtor is the servant. The Uniform Commercial Code is very specific about the duties and responsibilities a debtor has. If the owner of the thing is presumed to be a debtor because of his previous admissions and adhesion contracts, he is going to have a difficult time convincing the United States that it has a duty to discharge public debts for him. In addition, the federal courts are staffed with loyal judges who will look for every mistake the people make when trying to use their remedy and use the mistake against them in dismissing any action they bring.

There is a very powerful tool the people can use to help them get to the real issues when they find themselves up against the power of presumption. The law provides for either party of an admiralty action to object to a line of questioning. When you object in that court setting, you must tell the judge why you object or he will overrule your objection. The reason is:

This line of questioning assumes facts not in evidence.

You can request that evidence of the Plaintiff ’s claim be entered into evidence. If the judge overrules this fundamental principle of establishing subject matter jurisdiction and the right to make a charge, there is a major procedural error in the proceeding. Your objection has preserved the error for appeal. Granting in personam jurisdiction to get to the bottom of the issue is vastly better than arguing, “I’m not that person.”

The owner of the thing, after learning the law and discovering who he is in relation to the United States, can file a UCC 1 Financing Statement and Security Agreement registering his interest in the artificial entity (PERSON) the United States created after Mom applied for a birth certificate. That was the act of registering her biological property, her baby (substance), with the State. The United States holds the paper title (form), not the substance (baby). Until your Financing Statement is filed, the United States is the holder of the title to the artificial entity. Its name is spelled in all capital letters – JOHN HENRY DOE. When John Henry Doe files the Financing Statement supported by a Security Agreement signed by the artificial entity (JOHN) and the owner (John), he becomes the holder in due course of the title to JOHN. The UCC and the State commercial law are very specific about the effect of a registered security interest. It has priority over most other interest claimed (only claimed) in the same thing. The evidence that is missing in the court is the registered claim over the person (JOHN).

The owner also must notify the Secretary of the Treasury that he is going to handle his own affairs in the future. He can file a “Bill of Exchange” with the Secretary through which he exchanges his person’s accepted-for-value birth certificate and social security numbers for a charge-back of all the presumed charges brought against his person since the birth certificate was issued.

The owner can also reserve a non-cash Federal Reserve routing number and any number of non-cash instrument numbers by filing an amendment to his Financing Statement or just including his reservation on his original Financing Statement. Each bank account opened in the name of the owner’s person has a routing number. If an account is open, it is available to process cash items. If you write a check to the plumber, it can be converted to cash at your bank. You cannot write a check on an account that has been closed. Those accounts and their routing numbers are reserved for non-cash items for the person (JOHN) that opened the account originally. Accounts that have been closed by the bank, instead of the person, should not be used for non-cash items. Once this is done, you are in a position to begin receiving reimbursements against the obligation the United States owes to you for money and time it has received that belong to you.

The owner of registered things who has learned the law and what his rights are and who has filed his Financing Statement, Security Agreement, and Bill of Exchange, and reserved his non-cash account routing numbers, can issue an instrument indicating his UCC registration number, his registered Federal Reserve routing number, the name of the public party making a charge against his person, and the amount of the debt to be discharged.

Think of the whole transaction in relation to a hot air balloon. The balloon represents your public person (JOHN), which is an empty entity that can function within the public maize of fiction, transmitting benefits from the public to you in the private IF it is filled with hot air. You cannot go into the public because you are not a fiction. JOHN has no lift until it is filled with hot air. That hot air comes from an IRS default notice, court judgment, credit card bill, utility bill, traffic ticket, or some other instrument that has a $ amount and JOHN’s name on it as the presumed debtor. The bill is the hot air. It fills up the dead JOHN. You can now discharge JOHN and put JOHN’s accrual account with the charging party back to a zero balance. You as the secured party over the assets put up as security by JOHN to you as collateral for the debt JOHN owes you, can discharge JOHN with a negotiable instrument for the same $ amount as the charging instrument. The charging party that receives your non-cash item can 1) process it through a United States department, 2) give it to a third party, 3) keep it to increase its liquidity.

When you, as the owner of a thing, registered it with the United States or one of its subdivisions, you let the United States hold the legal title to your thing based on misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts to you at the time of registration. You probably retained possession of the thing. The United States invested the title and made a profit. If you did not specifically authorize the United States and its agents to invest the legal title, the profits made from that title belong to you, because as the owner, you remain the equitable titleholder. Legally all the profits from the investment of the titles to all your registered things must go into a fund for your benefit. If they did not put the profits in a trust fund of some sort, it would be fraud.

Just acquiring the titles through what is promoted as mandatory registration is fraud. If the scenario attributed to Mandell House is now in full application in the United States, which it is, the officers of the United States could be charged and convicted with treason IF they had not provided a remedy, which they did.

House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933, is their insurance policy to assure they are not convicted of treason. That does not mean they cannot be charged with treason, but the courts will dismiss based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because you have a remedy outside the court, you cannot sustain a charge of treason.

The problem in the past with trying to discharge public debts with instruments that could not be processed through your corner bank was that those discharge instruments did not route through the Federal Reserve, the bean counter for the federal debt. That debt is first and primarily owed to the people who are the equitable titleholders of all the substance in this country. If you try to discharge a public debt with your discharge instrument, and you do not route it through the Federal Reserve, it appears you are receiving a benefit from the United States without exchanging it for something of value. This is not technically correct because you have a right to be reimbursed, whether or not you apply it toward the debt the United States owes you. You are the substance; it is the fiction.

If you do route your discharge instrument through the Federal Reserve, where the national debt owed to you can be reduced by the amount of the instrument, you have made an exchange that fits nicely into their accrual bookkeeping system. Your PERSON’s charge from the charging party within the United States commercial scheme is discharged, and the debt the United States owes to you is discharged by the same amount. That is a quid pro quo, and everyone is happy, EXCEPT those who are not interested in the money but just want to be in control from behind the scenes.

To accomplish this quid pro quo exchange:

1. Your claim to being one of the people must appear on a public register (the Secretary of State);
2. You must have an account with the banker for the United States (the Secretary of the Treasury);
3. You must have given notice of your reservation of routing numbers through the national debt accountant (the Federal Reserve);
4. You must refer to the insurance policy that covers your remedy (House Joint Resolution 192);
5. You must make your instrument negotiable so it can be used by the United States for a profit;
6. You must transmit your instrument back into the public through an agent (your registered debtor);
7. You must use only a non-cash item for this exchange;
8. You must do a banker’s acceptance of a charging instrument to attach to your non-cash item; and
9. You must understand that you are not getting something for nothing.

Reserving your routing numbers to use on your discharge instruments is not as difficult as was thought during the previous decade. Every person has opened bank accounts in the past that have been closed for one reason or another. On the bottom of the checks for those closed bank accounts there is a routing number to the particular bank and a routing number to the particular account. Each check has a check number. When you put the check number together with the two routing numbers, you have a means of tracking each item that goes through the worldwide banking system. The routing numbers on the bottom of the checks from accounts your person has closed will never be reassigned. They are attached to your person’s NAME forever and kept in the records of the Federal Reserve.

Bank accounts that are still open and active are used for cash items. Checks written on these open bank accounts can be taken to the particular bank and CASHED. This is the type of instrument used in commercial transactions everyday. There is a fund attached to the check from which the debt evidenced by the check can be paid.

Bank accounts that are no longer open and active cannot be used to process cash items. They can be used only to process non-cash items. They require special handling. Title 12 of USC and CFR explain how and when receiving banks are to process non-cash items. A closed bank account associated with your debtor’s NAME has routing numbers that can route your discharge instrument through the Federal Reserve to reduce the national debt to you and increase the balance of the bank account of the party that is charging your debtor. It is a win-win situation.

The charging party is instructed to mail the discharge instrument to the Secretary of Transportation. Title 46 has sufficient evidence to support the proposition that the Secretary is the trustee over some or all vessels mortgaged by the United States. If your debtor PERSON is presumed to be a vessel, it is regulated by the Secretary of Transportation through the Maritime Ministries Administration; that is the proper party to assist in processing your non-cash item. The Secretary of Transportation can forward the item to the Secretary of the Treasury, who already has been notified to prepare for non-cash activity in your treasury direct account on the Bill of Exchange.

The Secretary of the Treasury is directly related to the Federal Reserve. Between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, your non-cash item can be directed to the proper parties to settle the account and get everyone into that quid pro quo position we want.

The United States and its co-business partners are debtors to you. You are the creditor, not only over your debtor PERSON, but also over the United States, the legal titleholder over the registered things to which you are the equitable titleholder. You are the primary creditor, so if the United States has other creditors, like the international bankers, they cannot jump to the front of the line. Their claims are subordinated to your claims if your claims are registered and if you understand the law surrounding what you are doing.

Now that you have a better understanding of the “person” (mask) and “contract” and “jurisdiction” let’s get back to the issue of sovereignty.

It is important to differentiate between sovereign power and unalienable rights.

• Sovereign power is subject to nothing, except what the sovereign expressly agrees to or consents may be done.
• Unalienable rights are simply those rights which cannot be taken away as they are deemed to be God-given and fundamental, without which no civilized society can exist, but they may be waived.

In this context it may be understood how the people may remain sovereign, even in the area where the federal government exercises its sovereign jurisdiction. By consent or by waiver, the people may be without those fundamental rights, as in those Federal jurisdictions; at least it appears that the federal government operates on that ideology. (Hooven v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 671-672)

Although there might be some waiver of rights, it is impossible to convert the natural born (sovereign) Citizen of this country into a subject (person) of his government. (Mcilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 US 209) [See also: Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG]

The framers acknowledged that the proposed Constitution for the united States of America was to be a document of “We the People,” not of the States. It was to become a compact that provided for the people to be its beneficiaries in perpetuity. It was intended as a compact between the individual Citizen on the one hand and, on the other hand, the people as a whole, acting through their representatives. (Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 4 US [4 Dall.] 8).

The Constitution was a compact drawn between the people and effective between the states. It created a union of States, not a union of people. The people are not members of the union; only the States are members. This is critical to your understanding of your proper relationship with the government. One is a Citizen of his state. National Citizenship is derived from state citizenship. Implicit to this process is the recognition that the true sovereignty was not with the States, but rather with the people as a whole. (Gaines et al. v. Buford, 31 KY 481, 500-501)

By virtue of this contract, three concepts of “United States” came into existence. First is the concept that the United States is a sovereign nation in the family of nations. This requires foreign governments to deal with the government of the United States of America rather than with each State or Citizen separately. Second is the idea that the United States is sovereign over its territory. This refers to the sovereignty of the government over that territory that is subject to its exclusive legislation, not to the territory of the fifty States. This is usually conceived to be the political jurisdiction of the United States. Third, the term is merely the collective name of the fifty States which are united under the Constitution. Federal sovereignty is not sovereignty over “We, the People.”

Everything in our system operates on a contract principle. We give something to government and get something in return. If there is no benefit, there is not reciprocal obligation. It is a maxim of contract law that a contract is not enforceable, lacking equal consideration inuring to both parties of the agreement. No state and no citizen surrendered any sovereignty to any government. It was merely agreed that the national government, the state government and the people would be bound to obey proper laws made under the authority of that compact. They would suffer penalties if they did not. This is a common law viewpoint applicable among free men. It does not make the sovereign people subject to their government. The beneficiaries and their descendants remain bound because the compacts have created governmental entities pertaining to specific territories. If a person lives in the territory, either he obeys the common law of the territory thereof, or he is an outlaw.

Article I of the Constitution deals with the structure and powers of Congress. If Congress does not have a power to legislate in some area, then generally the other branches have no powers there either. If there is no law, there is nothing for the executive branch to enforce and nothing for the judiciary to interpret. The function of Congress is to make our laws, to the extent that the Constitution permits law making, and to make the laws for the municipal government of the District of Columbia, where there are no constitutional restrictions.

Article I also deprives the states of power to do those things for which the national government was formed. Our government is a limited government and this is made clear by the fact that it can act only within those powers that are specifically delegated. The enumerated rights are set forth in Article I Section  8, and Article IV, Section 3. By this enumeration Congress has power to make laws insofar as they are necessary and proper for the exercise of its enumerated power.

Particularly important is the power given to the government to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the seat of government and such other lands as are ceded to the government by the states for its military functions. This is a power limited in its territorial scope, but not otherwise. Because this special power has no constitutional limitation, unlike Congress’ other enumerated powers, it is similar to the power of a sovereign. It is called the “political jurisdiction” of the United States. It operates in Washington, D.C., and in all areas ceded by the states to the federal government as enclaves. A similar power operates in the possessions and territories of the United States, but it has its source in a combination of the property power and the power to acquire territory. This is described as inherent powers. Sovereign power, like admiralty law, is deemed a necessity in those “uncivilized” territories. Such sovereign power of the federal government does not operate within the fifty states. As we will explore later, all federal courts are of Admiralty jurisdiction.

Constitutional guarantees do not generally apply in the sovereign federal areas, except insofar as Congress chooses to enforce them. Although a fundamental right should still exist since it is deemed unalienable, Congress can take the position that since “We the People” delegated sovereign power, all of the people must be subjects in those areas, because there cannot be two sovereigns ruling in the same place.

Having such power, it was not hard to predict that Congress would expand its power beyond proper Constitutional limitations. This expansion of power is manifestly evident in the application of the taxing power. That power is limited by the Constitution: direct taxes must be apportioned and indirect (excise) taxes must be uniform. These limitations, however, do not apply where the government has sovereign power. While enumerated powers are exercised all over the country, they are limited by the Constitution. The sovereign powers in territories and areas ceded by the states are not limited by the Constitution, and those citizens have little or no Constitutional protection.

Congressional power over federal funds has also been used to expand government authority. This is done by virtue of the practice of the federal government placing conditions on its grants of federal assistance. After all, the sovereign Citizen has the right to contract, even with the federal government. If you sell a right, it is gone, even though “unalienable.” By this process the federal government has invaded every conceivable facet of the lives of citizens within the fifty states, regardless of the Constitution and its restrictions.

States, individuals and companies have all surrendered rights in exchange for Federal Reserve notes (fiat money) by entering into invisible contracts with the federal government. They do so by the use of such things as bank accounts, Social Security accounts, credit cards, etc. These invisible contracts have given the Federal Government jurisdiction over the majority of Americans, tried in Federal Equity/Admiralty Courts where the Constitution has no standing, as you have a contract with the government, and you never even knew it.

Powers not delegated to government by the Constitution belong to the people except to the extent that the people in their State constitutions have given them to States. The reality is that government has grabbed a lot more power than was given them under the Constitution and the Supreme Court has ratified the seizure. The Supreme Court in 1932 decided that any law enacted by Congress or the States was not open to challenge by anyone who had received any benefit under such law. Nor could the law be invalidated if there were some way to construe or apply such law in a manner not in conflict with constitutional limitations. (Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1932) 297 US 288)

However, whenever either a voluntary act or a questionable law appears to deprive the citizen of an unalienable natural right, if the Citizen is not aware that such is the effect of that act or law, the courts must prevent such deprivation. The Supreme Court has ruled that an unconscious and unintended waiver of any such right does not strip the Citizen of that right, but the district courts continually disregard that principle.

An example of the distinction is given by the Supreme Court in its requirement for unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury, located at 28 USC §1746. There is a different declaration for one who is within the United States used on all IRS 1040 Forms and one who is without the United States.

What is the only way one can be guilty of perjury? If one tells a lie under Oath or Oath of Office, period! There is no other way. How then can a Citizen who is filing his 1040 tax form be under penalty of perjury if he is not under Oath? The answer is he can’t. The only ones who can file that form are government employees who are under Oath of Office.

The organization of the Department of the Treasury can be found in Title 31  USC, §3. You will not find the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms listed. I learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a.k.a., Internal Revenue, internal revenue, Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Internal Revenue Service, internal revenue service, Official Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Alcohol Administration, Director Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Division, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are one and the same organization. Their organizational offices and field offices have not been recorded in the Federal Register. They are all invisible as a matter of law.

My investigation discovered that, except for the very few who are engaged in specific or licensed activities, the Citizens of the fifty States of the united States of America have never been required to file or to pay “income taxes.” The Federal government is engaged in constructive fraud on a massive scale. Americans who have been frightened into filing and paying “income taxes” have been robbed. Millions of lives have been ruined. Thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned on the pretense they violated a law that does not exist. Marriages have been destroyed; property has been levied upon to pay taxes that were never owed. Many have been driven to suicide or insanity. The home of the free and land of the brave is not a description that I would give to the modern day United States.

During the Civil war, Abraham Lincoln imposed what would later be termed a “War Powers Act” and a war tax upon the citizens of the Federal Government. The War tax lawfully applied only to those citizens who were considered to be in rebellion against the Union or who resided within the federal District of Columbia or the federally owned territories, dockyards, naval bases, and forts. Many Citizens of the several States volunteered to pay believing they were required to do so or simply because they wanted to help in the war effort. After the war the tax was repealed. This left the impression with the general population of the country that the President and Congress had the constitutional authority to levy an unapportioned direct tax upon the Citizens of the several States. In fact, no such tax had ever been imposed. The Tax was not fraud on the part of Mr. Lincoln or the Congress, as nothing was done to deceive the people. Those who volunteered, in fact, deceived themselves just as we do today.

By conquest of Spain, the United States acquired the territory of the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico as war reparations. The Philippine Commission passed the Philippine Customs Administrative Act during the period from September 1, 1900, to August 31, 1902. The Act was for the regulation of trade with foreign countries and designed to generate revenue in the form of duties, excises and imposts. The Act created the federal government’s first trust fund titled Trust fund #1, Philippine special fund or customs duties, 31 USC (§1321).

The Act was administered under the general supervision and control of the Secretary of Finance and Justice.

The Philippine Commission passed another act known as the Internal Revenue Law of 1904. This Act created the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the federal government’s second trust fund called Trust fund #2, the Philippine special fund (internal revenue) and the IRS were born. [31 USC §1321]. Article I, Section 2

There shall be established a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the chief officer of which Bureau shall be known as the Collector of Internal Revenue. He shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, and shall receive a salary at the rate of eight thousand pesos per annum. The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall belong to the Department of Finance and Justice.

Section 3 states:

The Collector of Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, shall have general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes and excises imposed by this Act or by any Act amendatory thereof, and shall perform such other duties as may be required by law.

The Customs Administrative Act was to fall within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which was to be responsible for “… all taxes and excises imposed by this Act.” The Act clearly included import and export excise taxes. This effectively merged Customs and Internal Revenue in the Philippines.

At some unknown date prior to 1940, another Bureau of Internal Revenue was established in Puerto Rico. The 62nd trust fund was created and named Trust Fund #62 Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue). Note that the Puerto Rico special fund has Internal Revenue, capital “I” and capital “R,” whereas the Philippine special fund (internal revenue) is in lower case letters.

Between 1904 and 1938 the China Trade Act was passed to deal with opium, cocaine and citric wines shipped from China. It appears to have been administered in the Philippines by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

In studying a copy of The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America that was in force on June 1, 1938, Title 26 – Internal Revenue, Chapter I – (Parts 1-137), I found reference to the China Trade Act on page 65. This is when the IRS first began to use their special brand of speak, with such terms as “income,” “credits,” “withholding,” “Assessment and Collection of Deficiencies,” “extension of time for payment,” and “failure to file a return.”

The entire substance of Title 26 deals with foreign individuals, foreign corporations, foreign insurance corporations, foreign ships, income from sources within possessions of United States, citizens of the United States, and domestic corporations deriving income from sources within a possession of the United States, and China Trade Act Corporations. Nowhere does an income tax on any natural person of any of the Republic States appear.

All of the taxes covered by these laws concerned only the imposts, excise taxes and duties to be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for such items as narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. The Internal Revenue Service likes to make much ado about the fact that Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion, but that is not what he was jailed for. The IRS will not tell you that the tax Capone evaded was not “income tax” as we know it but the tax due on the income generated from the alcohol that he had imported from Canada. If he had paid that tax, he would not have been convicted.

The Internal Revenue Act of 1939 was clearly concerned with all taxes, imposts, excises and duties collected on trade between the Possessions and Territories of the United States. In addition to foreign individuals, foreign corporations or foreign governments, the income tax laws have always applied only to the Philippines, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, territories and insular possessions; never to the Republic States of the American Union.

Under Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1940, which appears at 5 United States Code Service Section 903, the Federal Alcohol Administration and offices of members and Administrator thereof were abolished and their functions directed to be administered under direction and supervision of Secretary of Treasury through Bureau of Internal Revenue. I found this history in all of the older editions of 27 USCS, Section 201. It has been removed from current editions. Only two Bureaus of Internal Revenue have ever existed: one in the Philippines and another in Puerto Rico. The evolution that has transpired tells us that the Federal Alcohol Administration was absorbed by the Puerto Rico Trust # 62 (Internal Revenue).

In 1939, Congress passed the Public Salary Tax Act (PSTA), apparently to tax only the salaries of federal employees. Soon afterward (in the early days of World War II) a “one time only” Victory Tax was levied on all citizens.

Somehow, it never went away, however; only the name changed. At the time, almost no one connected the income tax with the PSTA.

World War II created for the International Bankers a golden opportunity. Americans were willing to sacrifice almost anything for the United States fighting forces if they thought that sacrifice would win the war. In that atmosphere Congress passed the Victory Tax Act (Section 172 of Public Law 753). [See also: Brief Explanation of the Victory Tax] It mandated an income tax for the years 1943 and 1944 to be filed and paid in the years 1944 and 1945. The Victory Tax Act automatically expired at the end of 1944; it was renewed for an additional two years and then again for five additional years. The federal government, with the clever use of language, created the myth that the tax was applicable to all Americans and hid the fact that it was a tax only on Government employees.

Nowhere does the Internal Revenue Code define the “individual” who is liable to pay the tax. This may explain why Congress has never converted Title 26 of the U.S. Code into positive law. It contains no liability statute; that is, it does not state who is liable to pay. Imagine the IRS taking someone to court on tax charges who then argues that he is exempt because he works for a private company, while the income tax depends on the Public Salary Tax Act. Now imagine what would happen if the judge decided against him, saying, “Everyone is subject to the PSTA.” He would have to admit publicly that the government – rather, its creditors – owns every business in the United States and that everyone is working for them! Either way he ruled, the Government would lose!

Because of their desire to win the war and their ignorance of the law, Americans filed and paid the tax. The government promoted the fraud and threatened those who objected with jail or confiscation of their property. Americans forgot or never knew the law had expired. When the date of expiration had come and gone, they continued to keep “records,” continued to file and continued to pay the tax. The federal government continued to print returns and collect the tax, never mind the fact that no Citizen of any of the several States of the Union was ever liable to pay the tax in the first place.

In 1954 the United States and Guam became partners under the Mutual Security Act. The Act and other documents make reference to the definition of Guam and the United States as being mutually interchangeable. In the same year the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed. The Code provides for the United States and Guam to coordinate the “Individual Income Tax.” Pertinent information on the tax issue may be found in 26 CFR 301.7654-1: Coordination of U.S. and Guam Individual income taxes, 26 CFR 7654-1(e): Military personnel in Guam, 48 USC §1421(i): “Income-tax laws” defined.

The Constitution forbids un-apportioned direct taxes upon the Citizens of the several States of the fifty States of the Union; therefore, the federal government must coerce (defraud) people into volunteering to pay taxes as “U.S. citizens” of either Guam, the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. It sounds insane, and it is, but it is absolutely true. Each time we sign a 1040 Form, with its approved Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number, we are saying under penalty of perjury that we are residents of the Virgin Islands. Check out the number on the form and ask the Director of the OMB if that number is not a designation for the Virgin Islands. One other point of interest on the 1040: how can you sign a form under penalty of perjury? The only way possible for you to have committed perjury is if you were under an Oath or an Oath of Office. If you are not a government employee, you are not under Oath of Office.

On June 6, 1972, Acting Secretary of the Treasury Charles E. Walker signed Treasury Order Number 120-01, which established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He did this with the stroke of his pen, citing “by virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury, including the authority in Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950.” He ordered the “transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives (including the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service) to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Director). The Director shall perform his duties under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) and under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary (Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations) (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary).”

Treasury Order Number 120-01 assigned to the new BATF Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such code, chapters 61 through 80 inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 USC Chapter 8), which in 1935 the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional within the several States of the Union. Title 34, Subtitle I, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 USC Appendix, sections 1201-1203, 18 USC 1262-1265 1952 and 3615).

Mr. Walker then made a statement within Treasury Order Number 120-01 that is very revealing:

The terms ‘Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division’ and ‘Commissioner of Internal Revenue’ wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order shall be held to mean ‘the Director.’

Walker seemed to branch the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), creating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), and then with that statement joined them back together into one. In the Federal Register, Volume 41, Number 180, of Wednesday, September 15, 1976, we find, “The term ‘Director Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division’ has been replaced by the term ‘Internal Revenue Service.’”

Incredible!

It appears that without any authority from Congress or the President, an Agency of over 100,000 employees is created by replacing “The term ‘Director Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division.’”

I found this pattern of deception and invisibility everywhere I looked during my investigation. For further evidence of the fact that the IRS and the BATF are one and the same organization, reference 27 USC Section 201.

Despite all the smoke and mirrors, there is no such organization of the Department of the Treasury known as “Internal Revenue Service” or the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.” Title 31 USC is “Money and Finance” and therein are published the laws pertaining to the Department of the Treasury (DOT). 31 USC, Chapter 3 is a statutory list of the organizations of the DOT. Internal Revenue Service and/or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms are not listed within 31 USC as agencies or organizations of the Department of the Treasury. They are referenced, however, as “to be audited” by the Controller General in 31 USC § 713.

Puerto Rico is a small but beautiful Island in the Caribbean which became U.S. Territory as war reparations from Spain. Ever since that day it has been a place where Congress could play games with the Constitution without much interference from the Supreme Court and a place where most of the Congress and other federal agencies still play games with the American people.

I have already demonstrated that both of these organizations are, in reality, the same organization. Where we find the Yin, we will surely find the Yang. In 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 250.11), Definitions, we find: “United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office in Puerto Rico” and “Secretary – The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” and “Revenue Agent – Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” Remember that “Internal Revenue” is the name of the Puerto Rico Trust #62. It is perfectly logical and reasonable that a Revenue Agent works as an employee for the Department of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, but in Cincinnati or Saint Augustine?

Where is the alleged “Internal Revenue Service”? The Internal Revenue Code of 1939, a.k.a. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, etc., etc., etc. 27 CFR refers to Title 26 as relevant to Title 27, as per 27 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 250.30, which states that 26 USC 5001(a)(1) is governing a 27 USC law. In fact, 26 USC Chapters 51, 52, and 53 are the alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes, administered by the Internal Revenue Service; alias, Bureau of Internal Revenue; alias, Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue; alias, Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division; alias, Internal Revenue Service.

According to 26 CFR Section 1.6001-1(d), Records … No one is required to keep records or file returns unless specifically notified by the district director:

by notice served upon him to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under subtitle A of the Code, …

26 CFR states that this rule includes state individual income taxes.

Don’t get fooled here, because in IRS-speak, “state” means “the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions.” ONLY!

Title 44 USC states that every regulation or rule must be published in the Federal Register. It also states that the Secretary of the Treasury must approve every regulation or rule. If there is no regulation there can be no implementation of the law. There is no regulation governing “willful failure to file a return.” There is no computer code for “failure to file.” The only thing I could find was a requirement stating “where to file an income tax return”. It can be found in 26 CFR, Section 1 6091-3, which states that:

Income tax returns required to be filed with Director of International Operations.

Who is the Director of International Operations?

Delegation Order Number 115 (Rev. 5), of May 12, 1986, is the only delegation of authority to conduct audit. It states that the IRS and BATF can audit only themselves and only for amounts of $750 or less. The Comptroller General, according to Title 31 USC, must audit any amount above that amount. No other authority to audit exists. No IRS or BATF agent or representative can furnish me with any law, rule, or regulation which gives the IRS the authority to audit anyone other than himself. Order Number 191 states that they can levy on Property but only if that Property is in the hands of third parties.

The manual states on page 1100-40.2 of April 21, 1989, Criminal Investigation Division, that:

the Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements by developing information concerning alleged criminal violations thereof, evaluating allegations and indications of such violations to determine investigations to be undertaken, investigating suspected criminal violations of such laws, recommending prosecution when warranted, and measuring effectiveness of the investigation processes.

Why then have all prosecutions for individuals related to income tax law violations been prosecuted when they are not among the class of individuals identified in the above manual?

On page 1100-40.1 it states in 1132.7 of April 21, 1989, Director, Office of Taxpayer Service and Compliance:

Responsible for operation of a comprehensive enforcement and assistance program for all taxpayers under the immediate jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International) … Directs the full range of collection activity on delinquent accounts and delinquent returns for taxpayers overseas, in Puerto Rico, and in United States possessions and territories.

1132.72 of April 21, 1989, Collection Division says:

Executes the full range of collection activities on delinquent accounts, which includes securing delinquent returns involving taxpayers outside the United States and those in United States territories, possessions and in Puerto Rico.

The United States Attorney’s Manual, Title 6 Tax Division, Chapter 4, page 16, October 1, 1988, 64.270, Criminal Division Responsibility, states:

The Criminal Division has limited responsibility for the prosecution of offenses investigated by the IRS. Those offenses are: excise violations involving liquor tax, narcotics, stamp tax, firearms, wagering, and coin operated gambling and amusement machines; malfeasance offenses committed by IRS personnel; forcible rescue of seized property; corrupt or forcible interference with an officer or employee acting under the Internal revenue laws; and unauthorized mutilation, removal or misuse of stamps. See 28 CFR § 0.70.

So why is the Attorney General prosecuting all of these innocent Americans?

I found this revelation in 28 USC Rule 54c, Application of Terms:

As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. ‘Act of Congress’ includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

Title 28 USC is the “Rules of Courts” and was written and approved by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in writing 28 USC has already ruled upon this issue. It is the law.

It would appear, then, that any Act of Congress is applicable only to the District of Columbia and its instrumentalities unless specifically designated for the general population of the Union.

Centuries ago in the city of Babylon, a goldsmith named Jebidiah had the only safe in the entire city and was proud to show it off to all of his friends. The friends were so impressed with Jebidiah’s safe, they asked him if he would take their gold for safekeeping, as crime was on the rise and they feared its loss by burglars.

Jebidiah was glad to share his resource with his friends, and issued them receipts in the form of shares.

One pound of gold on deposit would equal one hundred shares in the form of receipts. As more customers took advantage of the safe, the receipts were passed out among the townspeople for payment of services, and the need to withdraw the gold was nearly eliminated. Jebidiah noticed that there was never more than 10% of the gold ever withdrawn; 90% remained safe in the vault. So, in discussion with his wife, Jebidiah began issuing to many people receipts for gold, ten times the quantity of actual gold in the vault, while charging interest for the receipts. Needless to say, Jebidiah prospered. This was one of the first experiments with fractional reserve banking.

Unfortunately for Jebidiah the king signed, with his neighbor to the south, a trade treaty which removed all trade tariffs. The result was that all of the businesses in Babylon moved south to the neighboring country. There the labor rate was one tenth that of Babylon, and with no trade barriers the businessmen could send their products back across the border and make huge profits from the reduced labor costs and no tariffs. (Sounds a great deal like the NAFTA and GATT agreements, doesn’t it?) The businessmen, however, needed capital to establish their new businesses in the new business community to the south.

They went to Jebidiah and presented him with their receipts to reclaim their gold. The other customers, to whom he had sold receipts, also wanted gold for them so that they also might invest and take advantage of this new treaty. The result was, of course, a disaster for Jebidiah. There was not sufficient gold on deposit to cover the demand. He was dragged from his shop and crucified on the spot.

That is how things were done in the criminal justice system of the time.

One night at the dinner table, Jebidiah’s two sons discussed the recent events and decided that their father’s idea was still a viable option if it were modified. The next day they opened their vault for business once again with a few changes. First, the brothers demanded up to 200% security for all of the receipts they issued to the customers who did not deposit actual gold with them. The borrower pledged twice the value of what he received and also paid an interest on the principle value borrowed. Another requirement was that the receipts would not be redeemable except by giving a 90-day notice of withdrawal. In addition, the brothers inserted on the loan contract a clause which gave them a right to declare the loan immediately due and payable, regardless of the due date on the note, and repayable only in gold.

Business, because of the treaty, was good for all and business prospered until the king had a dispute with the neighboring sovereign and canceled the treaty. The brothers began calling in the loans, foreclosed on all security, liquidated the securities at a discount for a profit of 60% and were still able to deliver to the depositors all of their gold within 90 days, per the deposit agreement. They grew rich beyond belief and began to branch out to other towns and countries. They were the worlds’ first fractional reserve bankers, and the business plan hasn’t changed substantially for centuries.

This is how the Federal Reserve Bank and all of your local friendly bankers operate today. Now you know how the system of fractional banking works and how destructive it has been to any nation that has been foolish enough to permit it.

Fractional reserve banking has been scientifically reconstructed for the present needs of today. The receipts are now legally determined by our government to be a replacement for the gold. If you look closely at your “money,” you will notice that it is a “Federal Reserve Note.” A note is a debt instrument. In the past, the receipt was an acknowledgment of the banker’s debt to you, and the gold you had on deposit was payable on demand. Your money (note) has no such payable on demand notice on it, and all you will receive from the bank on payment demand is a blank stare. What we have now is a debt instrument being used to pay off other debt instruments.

When you make a loan, the money that you borrow is on ledger as a credit to your account by a journal entry on the creditor’s record. If you wrote a check on the account and deposited that check in another bank, Bank Two considers this new money, and it can lend against that deposit at a ten to one ratio. If Bank Two lends this new money to another individual who then writes a check on Bank One, Bank One lends against this deposit at the same ten to one ratio and the multiples of ten to one go on and on and on to infinity.

The courts or Congress have never repealed that provision in the Uniform Commercial Code, but go stone cold deaf and blind to the use of Federal Reserve Notes to pay off debt. When you mortgage your home for a loan by executing a mortgage deed, whether you receive a credit on your account or are given the cash (Federal Reserve Notes), you have given the bank something of value – your promise of labor – in return for nothing of value.

All across the country, property owners are having their mortgages canceled because they can prove that no equal consideration was given for their support of the mortgage. The banks are scared to death you will find out about this fraud. When a government owns the press and can print an unlimited number of worthless notes and can borrow with no limit on the notes it legalizes, there is no need to tax the citizens. The only reason for the government to go through the ritual of taxing you is to control you. The sole purpose of the tax they exact from you is to get all of that worthless paper out of circulation; otherwise inflation would consume the economy within a matter of months. The Federal Reserve can create inflation or deflation at its whim. It creates prosperity, inflation or depression anytime it wishes. IT CONTROLS ALL OF US.

The people in control of the presses (FED) can pay old debts with the inflated currency. They just keep the presses rolling. Just to survive, the rest of us are then required to spend all that we have before its devaluation makes it worthless. Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are prime examples of what awaits this country. In a central banking system, the only ones who profit are the owners of the central bank. If our government officials had one honest bone in their body, which is doubtful, they would buy back the Federal Reserve franchise and do what they are Constitutionally-required to do: print money by and for the Treasury, interest free.

Legal taxes on things properly taxable would be ample revenue to secure that money. It is not a widely published fact, but America has been in bankruptcy since 1933. (12 USC 9 (a); Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, 6260).

Our Secretary of the Treasury is both the receiver in that bankruptcy and the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. This organization, made up of international bankers, pays the Secretary’s salary, not us. Doesn’t that make him an agent of a foreign power? You bet it does, and I can assure you that the Honorable Secretary has the best interests of the bankers in mind and not that of We the People. If he is an agent of the International Monetary Fund, then are not his sub-agents the IRS also foreign agents? You bet they are. By law, a foreign agent who does not file as such is committing a felony. (Section 64 of Title 22 of the United States Code) You now know how the FED creates money with the stroke of a pen. Now I will explain mankind’s eternal curse – usury, commonly known as interest.

Many civilizations have lived productive lives on this earth having no knowledge of interest or the repayment of money loaned. Men such as Jebidiah’s sons developed the concept of usury in order for them to get rich on their brethren’s labor. Usury is illegal in the Moslem world and punishable by death if detected.

Outlawed in Europe and other continents for over three centuries, the penalty for anyone charging interest was severe: sometimes the death penalty was administered to those lazy and greedy loan sharks who wished to inflict usury on their neighbors.

How I long for the good old days once again! William Patterson, an English banker, coined the term “interest” in the year 1694. The Crown, in need of additional revenue sources, gave license to Patterson to form his private bank. The Crown would authorize the money and the credit provisions of usury for the innocent English citizen.

This is a fair representation of what happened next. The first month that Patterson opened his bank, he made loans to ten farmers who needed the money to buy seed stock, livestock and supplies. The farmers borrowed one hundred pounds for one year at an interest rate of six percent. That was simple interest, as the concept of compound interest had not as yet been visualized. After one year the farmer was required to repay the hundred pounds plus the interest of six pounds. The only problem was that Patterson had created only a thousand pounds, and some of the farmers, although able to repay the original hundred pounds, were unable to come up with the additional six pounds. They tried to borrow it from some of the other farmers, but they too were having difficulty trying to find the interest.

One of the farmers had died and Patterson had taken the farm as the security for the loan. The deceased farmer’s family had used some of the money to live on and was holding on to the rest of it because now they had no provider. So, in the village, there were some of the farmers who were able to sell products or services to the deceased farmer’s family for some of Patterson’s money and to repay the loan principle and interest. There were six farmers who could not come up with the interest. Patterson foreclosed on their farms and, under the protection of the Crown (for the King’s unlimited credit), became the first central bank. Patterson realized that if he did not create any more money than he loaned out for the debt interest of the borrower, a large percentage of his customers would not be able to repay the loan and he could take their property at great profit to himself.

If you were to take this example and apply it to our present time, multiplied by the trillions, you can quickly see why the national debt will never be repaid.

The money for the repayment has never been created, and if they were to print money for it, that created money would have no money created to pay it off. This monstrous system is perpetual in its destruction. It has destroyed entire nations. The time has come for We the People to understand the system and demand a stop to this dishonest finance forever.

I prepare many bankruptcies each year. The large majority of these are the result of credit card purchases and abuse. The interest on the debt compounds itself, and the lender loves it when you pay only the minimum payment each month. Once caught in the interest trap of credit cards, the only way out for many is to file bankruptcy, but Congress has passed new legislation that will not allow for an individual to remove his credit card debt through bankruptcy. Credit cards should be made illegal, and our nation must return to the honest and Constitutional no-interest Treasury note, or we will not survive into the new millennium as a free people.

At exactly 6:00 p.m. on December 23rd 1913, three United States Senators who had been recruited by Colonel House to commit treason voted into law the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 by voice vote only. America had been betrayed. Our Founding Fathers must have rolled over in their graves with anger. America was on a fast track to financial destruction. At the time of the FED’s creation there was no National debt, and now we are approaching debt in the unbelievable amount of ten trillion dollars.

I was discussing a newspaper article with a friend who was concerned with what the paper described as the reason the Federal Reserve was going to replace the existing money with new issue notes. The reason given in the article was that Iran was in the counterfeit money business and the new currency would put an end to their plans. My friend believed that the paper was correct in the given explanation that if this were not done, the phony money would wreck our economy.

The newspaper and my friend would have been correct if the Federal Reserve notes were indeed backed by gold held by the Treasury. But the FED has no such gold reserve requirement and the Iranians don’t charge us any interest for the money they print.

The Federal Reserve charges us 100% of the face value of the currency printed, which costs them 9/10 of a cent regardless of the face value amount, and Federal Reserve Notes give no consideration in return. Heaping on us another indignity, we are charged an additional surcharge of 10% for every dollar of our money they print. Every one of their dollars drags us further into debt. This being the case of two opposing criminal factions, one of which does not charge you for its product and the other one which does; who is the worse enemy of this country, the Iranians or the Federal Reserve Bank? I personally appreciate all the extra DEBT FREE money in circulation at no cost to We the People.

Iran, keep it coming! Run three shifts; I’ll spend as much of it as you will give me. That’s a promise!

In 1933, as expressed in Roosevelt’s Executive Orders 6073, 6102, and 6260, the United States first declared bankruptcy. The bankrupt U.S. went into receivership in 1933. America was turned over via receivership and reorganization in favor of its creditors. These creditors, the International Bankers, from the beginning stated their intent, which was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer and enslave America and return it to its colonial status.

Congressman Lewis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Commission, speaking to Congress at the very time the conspiracy was taking place said,

We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the FED. They are not government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the People of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders.

McFadden died mysteriously in 1936 after three attempts on his life. At the time of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congressman

Charles Lindberg, Sr., said:

This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Act the invisible government by the Money Power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.
[See also: The Economic Pinch]

And then we have an admission from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in a letter to Colonel Edward Mandell House, the chief architect of the Federal Reserve Act and the fraudulent 16th Amendment, revealed in The Intimate Papers of Colonel House:

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American Presidents.

At least I must give FDR some credit in admitting that profound statement. The shame of it is that it is still true.

If we don’t force Congress to rectify the matter soon, the whole house of cards is going to fall down around our heads in a few short years. The inevitable result is depression or hyperinflation, the worst possible economic crisis. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat the mistakes. History is replete with examples of nations whose governments permitted private centralized banks to control and debauch their currency. The ultimate mathematical equation is complete and total bankruptcy for all but the elite few. Widespread poverty, lawlessness, anarchy – much the same environment as paved the way for the second World War – is being visited upon us again and by the same people. When, not if, our own economy collapses, the people will accept anyone, even a despot like Hitler, who claims he can save you from financial ruin.

The International Bankers have historically been responsible for crisis after crisis and have invariably had their man waiting in the wings with the “solution” for the “problem” they created.

In the case of the federal government, we can print money to pay for our folly for a time. But we will just continue to debase our currency, and then we’ll have financial collapse. That is the road we are on today. That is the direction in which the ‘humanitarians’ are leading us. But there is nothing ‘humanitarian’ about the collapse of a great industrial civilization. There is nothing ‘humanitarian’ about the dictatorship that must inevitably take over as terrified people cry out for leadership. There is nothing ‘humanitarian’ about the loss of freedom. That is why we must be concerned about the cancerous growth of government and its steady devouring of our citizens’ productive energies. … I speak of this so insistently because I hear no one discussing this danger. Congress does not discuss it. The press does not discuss it. Look around us, the press isn’t even here! The people do not discuss it – they are unaware of it. No counter-force in America is being mobilized to fight this danger. The battle is being lost, and not a shot is being fired.
– Congressman William E. Simon, in a speech to the House of Representatives (April 10, 1976)

I believe that if the people of his nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the past 49 years, they would move on Washington, they would not wait for an election. … It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States.
– Senator George W. Malone, speaking before Congress about the Federal Reserve Bank (1962)

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
– Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, commonly referred to as “Lenin.”

Why should we Americans be paying a consortium of private international banking families and their stockholders for use of what we have been led to believe is our own medium of exchange?

Why is it that we find ourselves indebted to these already incomprehensibly wealthy people?

Isn’t the U.S. Treasury responsible for the nation’s money supply?

Doesn’t the U.S. Bureau of Engraving print the “money”?

Why then do we borrow it from a private banking system?

Do we somehow need the bankers’ permission to create and use our own money supply?

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the tax payers will be saved immense sums of interest.
– President Abraham Lincoln

United States Congressional Record March 17, 1993, page 5321, Congressman James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth, hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. House Joint Resolution 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 read in part:

The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.

In the United States Congressional Record, May 4, 1992, page 10069, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Henry Gonzalez (Texas) speaking on “National and International Thievery in High Places,” said:

We are bankrupted. We are insolvent on every level of our national life, whether it is corporate, whether it is just plain you and I out there with the life of debt that we have all piled up, private debt, credit cards and what not, or whether it is the government. We are insolvent. How long will it take before that nasty Megatruth is conveyed?

United States Congressional Record January 19, 1976, page 240, Marjorie S. Holt (Maryland):

Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting members of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of ‘A Declaration of Interdependence’ on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my strong opposition to this declaration.

It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that international authorities should regulate our economy. It proposes that we enter a ‘New World Order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people. Mr. Speaker, this is an obscenity that defiles our Declaration of Independence, signed 200 years ago in Philadelphia. We fought a great Revolution for independence and individual liberty, but now it is proposed that we participate in a world socialist order. Are we a proud and free people, or are we a carcass to be picked by the jackals of the world, which want to destroy us? When one cuts through the high-flown rhetoric of this ‘Declaration of Interdependence,’ one finds key phrases that tell the story.

For example, it states that ‘The economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.’ How do you like the idea of ‘international authorities’ controlling our production and our monetary system, Mr. Speaker?

How could any American dedicated to our national independence and freedom tolerate such an idea? America should never subject her fate to decisions by such an assembly, unless we long for national suicide. Instead, let us have independence and freedom. … If we surrender our independence to a ‘New World Order’ … we will be betraying our historic ideals of freedom and self-government. Freedom and self-government are not outdated. The fathers of our Republic fought a revolution for those ideals, which are as valid today as they ever were.

Let us not betray freedom by embracing slave masters; let us not betray self-government with world government; let us celebrate Jefferson and Madison, not Marx and Lenin.

A dollar is a measure of weight defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 and 1900, which is still in force today. A “dollar” specifies a certain quantity – 24.8 grains of gold, or 371.25 grains of silver. In Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Dollar: “The money unit employed in the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or of any combination of coins totaling 100 cents.” Cent: “A coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted. It is the hundredth part of a dollar.”

Gold and silver were such powerful money during the founding of the United States of America that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage was heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money.” The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money – gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes; one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now do you understand why you are “bankrupt” along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank, who controls the supply and movement of FRNs, has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e., gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good and valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations. The Federal Reserve System is based on Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law in 1873 making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust.” The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution (1:9:3). The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law.

The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same. Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (“to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it”) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages, until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 “hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend to the federal United States Corporation all of the credit “money substitute” it needed.

Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. citizens, as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national park forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby a sovereign holds all land and the common people have no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it is easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt. Why don’t more people own their properties outright? Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest are a painful bankruptcy and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C., have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

You and your fellow bankers have been allowed to defraud the American public for many years. This can be explained only by the knowledge that the Federal Reserve Banks are a privately owned, operating for profit, corporation. Because of your inter-relationship and practices, all banks in this country are to be considered in law as one and the same, in that each bank in the Federal Reserve System is obligated to accept the checks of other member banks as if they issued it. I find it unconscionable that (credit card company) has been able to transfer my labor to its balance sheet by mere bookkeeping entries into its computer. This egregious violation of law and my civil rights shocks the conscience of all law-abiding citizens.

UCC 3-503 allows you thirty (30) days from receipt of this Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor notice to state under oath your rebuttal to my following causes:

That (credit card company) did not create money by loaning its credit and charging interest upon that loan, in violation of the law of contracts.

If you do not respond within thirty (30) days from the date of your receipt of this NOTICE, a default will be created by your material misrepresentation which vitiates any transaction occurring from the beginning of our doing business together until thirty (30) days from the date first above written. UCC 1-103.

If, within thirty (30) days, you do not either answer the above under oath or provide me proof of the cancellation of this computer-generated debt, the return or destruction of my application, and the return of all Federal Reserve Notes that I have paid to you since the beginning of our business relationship, I will seek damages against your bank for fraud. The Uniform Commercial Code allows me to seek the return of all Federal Reserve Notes paid to (credit card company) plus triple damages.

I will guarantee you only this: this set of letters will get their attention at the very highest level. You will get one heck of an education reading their replies. What will you do with all of the extra money, after you pay off the vendors?

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the Jury to resolve.

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they credited it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law of Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. See Anheuser Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 NW 558 (1890). The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.

Even if defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel, as a matter of Law this is no defense to the plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51, and 52 of Am Jur 2d “Actions” on page 584 – “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which plaintiff was a party.

Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful rights can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law Action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so are repugnant to the Constitution for the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts and law to the Jury; at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was made direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court on December 7, 1968.

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912, This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.

Judge Martin Mahoney’s decision was as follows:

For the Justice fees, the First National Bank deposited with the Clerk of the District Court the two Federal Reserve Notes. The Clerk tendered the Notes to me. My sworn duty compelled me to refuse the tender. This is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The States have no power to make bank notes a legal tender. See American Jurist on Money, sec. 13. Only gold and silver coin is a lawful tender.

Bank Notes are a good tender as money unless specifically objected to. Their consent and usage is based upon the convertibility of such notes to coin at the pleasure of the holder upon presentation to the bank for redemption. When the inability of a bank to redeem its notes is openly avowed they instantly lose their character as money and their circulation as currency ceases. (See 36 Am. Jur. on Money, Section 9).

There is no lawful consideration for these Federal Reserve Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for cost of printing. There is no lawful consideration for said Notes.

A lawful consideration must exist for a Note. As a matter of fact, the “Notes” are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay. (See 17 American Jurist section 85, 215)

The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minnesota, San Francisco and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and contrary to the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money, credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration. Activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.

The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail, and oppress the producers of wealth.

The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in their operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, for they confer an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; they hold all of our fellow citizens in dependence; they are subversive to the rights and liberation of the people.

These Acts have defiled the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act and the National Banking Act are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress or any other powers vested in the Government of the United States, but, on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty, and property. (See Section 462 of Title 31 U. S. Code).

The meaning of the Constitutional provision, ‘NO STATE SHALL make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts’ is direct, clear, unambiguous and without any qualification. This Court is without authority to interpolate any exception. My duty is simply to execute it, as written, and to pronounce the legal result. From an examination of the case of Edwards v. Kearsey, 96 U.S. 595, the Federal Reserve Notes (fiat money), which are attempted to be made a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intend to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender. Congress is incompetent to authorize a State to make the Notes a legal tender. For the effect of binding Constitution provisions see Cooke v. Iverson. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations. (See 96 U.S. Code 595 and 108 M 388 and 63 M 147)

Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 432, is in direct conflict with the Constitution insofar, at least, that it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes a Legal Tender. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Section 462 of Title 31 is not a law which is made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional and void, and I so hold. Therefore, the two Federal Reserve Notes are null and void for any lawful purpose in so far as this case is concerned and are not a valid deposit of $2.00 with the Clerk of the District Court for the purpose of effecting an Appeal from this Court to the District Court.

However, there is a second ground of invalidity of these Federal Reserve Notes previously discussed and that is that the Notes are invalid because on no theory are they based upon a valid, adequate or lawful consideration.

At the hearing scheduled for January 22, 1969, at 7:00 p.m., Mr. Morgan, nor anyone else from or represent the Bank, attended to aid the Court in making a correct determination.

Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1969, he appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minnesota and the First National Bank of Minnesota. He seemed to be familiar with the operation of the Federal Reserve System. He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the money and credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further, he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the Bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink. In this case the evidence was on January 22, 1969, that the Federal Reserve Banks obtain the Notes for the cost of the printing only. This seems to be conferred by Title 12 USC, Section 420. The cost is about 9/10ths of a cent per Note, regardless of the amount of the Note. The Federal Reserve Banks create all of the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entries by which they acquire United States and State Securities. The collateral required to obtain the Note is, by Section 412 USC, Title 12, a deposit of a like amount of Bonds – Bonds which the Banks acquire by creating money and credit by bookkeeping entry.

No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.

The Common Law requires a lawful consideration for any Contract or Note. These Notes are void for failure at a lawful consideration at Common Law, entirely apart from any Constitutional Considerations. Upon this ground, the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose. This seems to be the principal objection to paper fiat money and the cause of its depreciation and failure down through the ages. If allowed to continue, Federal Reserve Notes will meet the same fate. From the evidence introduced on January 22, 1969, this Court finds that as of March 18, 1968, all Gold and Silver backing is removed from Federal Reserve Notes.

The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See Amer. Jur. 2nd on Actions, Sections 50, 51 and 52.

Slavery and all its incidents, including Peonage, thralldom and debt created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States. This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by the Bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States. The People have spoken their will in terms which cannot be misunderstood. It is indispensable to the preservation of the Union and independence and liberties of the people that this Court adhere only to the mandates of the Constitution and administer it as it is written. I therefore hold these Notes in question void and not effectual for any purpose.

If we as a nation only had a few of these remarkable men in the judiciary we cannot even imagine the prosperity we would enjoy. Judge Mahoney died of mysterious causes several months after this decision.

[See also: In re Daly, and the Wikipedia article on this case.]

The private ownership of land in America is one of those rights people have proclaimed to be fundamental and essential in maintaining this republic. The necessary question in discussing this topic, however, is whether ownership of land in America today really is a true and complete ownership of land under an Allodial concept, or is it something much different. In other words, are we living in an actual Allodial freehold, or are we living in an updated version of feudalistic Common Law?

The answer is crucial in determining what rights we have in the protection of our reality against improper seizures and encumbrances by our government and creditors. The answer appears to be extremely clear upon proper reflection of our rights when payments are missed on mortgages or when taxes, for whatever reason, are not paid. If mortgage payments are missed or taxes are not paid, we actually fall into disfavor with the parties who have the power, and these powers, through court proceedings or otherwise, take the land as a penalty.

When one is unable to perform as the government or his creditors request, and for such failures of performance his land can be forfeited, then he can begin to understand exactly what type of land-ownership system controls his life, and should recognize the inherent unjustness of such constitutional violations. The American-based system of land ownership today consists of three key requirements. These three are:

1. Warranty deed or some other type of deed purporting to convey ownership of land.
2. Title abstracts to chronologically follow the development of these different types of deeds to a piece of property.
3. Title insurance to protect the ownership of that land.

These three ingredients must work together to ensure a systematic and orderly conveyance of a piece of property; none of these three by it can act to completely convey possession of the land from one person to another. At least two of the three are always deemed necessary to adequately satisfy the legal system and real estate agents that the titles to the property had been placed in the hands of the purchaser. Oftentimes, all three are necessary to properly pass the ownership of the land to the purchaser. Yet do the absolute title and, therefore, the ownership of the land really pass from the seller to purchaser with the use of any one of these three instruments or in any combination thereof? None of the three by itself passes the absolute or Allodial title to the land, the system of land ownership America originally operated under, and even all three combined can not convey this absolute type of ownership.

What then is the function of these three instruments that are used in land conveyances and what type of title do the three convey?

Since the abstract only traces the title and the title insurance only insures the title, the most important and, therefore, the first group examined are the deeds that purportedly convey the fee from seller to purchaser. These deeds include: warranty deed, quit claim deed, sheriff ’s deed, trustee’s deed, judicial deed, tax deed, wig or any other instrument that purportedly conveys the title. Each of these documents state that it conveys the ownership to the land. Each of these, however, is actually a color of title. (G. Thompson, Title to Real Property, Preparation and Examination of Abstracts, Ch. 3, Section 73, p.93 [1919])

A color of title is that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is not title. Wright v Mattison, 18 How. (U.S.) 50 (1855) In fact, any instrument may constitute color of title when it purports to convey the title of the land, as well the land itself, although it is void as a muniment of title. Joplin Brewing Co. v Payne, 197 No. 422, 94 S.W. 896 (1906)

The Supreme Court of Missouri has stated:

…that when we say a person has a color of title, whatever may be the meaning of the phrase, we express the idea, at least, that some act has been previously done … by which some title, good or bad, to a parcel of land of definite extent had been conveyed to him.
St. Louis v German, 29 Mo. 593 (1860)

In other words, a color of title is an appearance or apparent title, and “image” of the true title, hence the phrase “color of,” which, when coupled with possession, purports to convey the ownership of the land to the purchaser. This however does not say that the color of title is the actual and true title itself, nor does it say that the color of title itself actually conveys ownership. In fact, the claimant or holder of a color of title is not even required to trace the title through the chain down to his instrument. Rawson v Fox, 65 Ill. 200 (1872)

Rather it may be said that a color of title is prima facie evidence of ownership of and rights to possession of land until such time as that presumption of ownership is disproved by a better title or the actual title itself. If such cannot he proven to the contrary, then ownership of the land is assumed to have passed to the occupier of the land. To further strengthen a color title-holder’s position, courts have held that the good faith of the holder to a color of title is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. David v Hall, 92 R. 1. 85 (1879); see also Morrison v Norman, 47 Ill. 477 (1868); and McConnell v Street, 17 Ill. 253 (1855) With such knowledge of what a color of title is, it is interesting what constitutes colors of title. A warranty deed is like any other deed of conveyance.

Mahrenholz v County Board of School Trustees, et. al., 93 Ill. app. 3d 366 (1981) A warranty deed or deed of conveyance is a color of title, as stated in Dempsey v Bums, 281 Ill. 644, 650 (1917) (Deeds constitute colors of title); see also Dryden v Newman, 116 Ill. 186 (1886) (A deed that purports to convey interest in the land is a color of title.) Hinckley v Green 52 Ill. 223 (1869) (A deed which, on its face, purports to convey a title, constitutes a claim and color of title.); Busch v Huston, 75 Ill. 343 (1874); Chicking v Failes, 26 Ill. 508 (1861) A quit claim deed is a color of title as stated in Safford v Stubbs, 1 17 Ill. 389 [1886); see also Hooway v Clark, 27 Ill. 483 (1861) and McCellan v Kellogg, 17 Ill. 498 (1855) Quit claim deeds can pass the title as effectively as a warrant with full covenants. Grant v Bennett, 96 Ill. 513, 525 (1880) See also Morgan v Clayton, 61 Ill. 35 (1871); Brady v Spurck, 27 Ill. 478 (1861); Butterfield v Smith, Ill. 11 1. 485 (1849) Sheriffs deeds also are colors of title. Kendrick v Latham, 25 Fla. 819 (1889); as is a judicial deed, Huls v Buntin, 47 Ill. 396 (1865).

The Illinois Supreme Court went into detail in its determination that a tax deed is only color of title:

…there the complainant seems to have relied upon the tax deed as conveying to him the fee, and to sustain such a bill, it was incumbent of him to show that all the requirements of the law had been complied with.

A simple tax deed by itself is only a color of title. Fee simple can be acquired only though adverse possession via payment of taxes, claim and color of title, plus seven years of payment of taxes. Thus any tax deed that purports, on its face, to convey title is a good color of title.

Walker v Converse, 148 Ill. 622, 629 (1894); see also Peadro v Carriker, 168 Ill. 570 (1897); Chicago v Middlebrooke, 143 Ill. 265 (1892); Piatt County v Gooden, 97 Ill. 84 (1880); Stubblefield v Borders, 92 Ill. 570 (1897); Coleman v Billings, 89 Ill. 183 (1878); Whitney v Stevens, 89 Ill. 53 (1878); Holloway v Clarke, 27 Ill. 483 (1861), Thomas v Eckard, 88 Ill. 593 (1878) color of title. Baldwin v Ratcliff, 125 Ill. 376 (1888); Bradley v Rees, 113 Ill. 327 (1885) (A wig can pass only so much as the testator owns; though it may attempt to pass more.) A trustee’s deed, a mortgage and strict foreclosure, Chickering v Failes, 26 Ill. 508, 519 (1861), or any document defining the extent of a disseisor’s claim or purported claim, Cook v Norton, 43 Ill. 391 (1867), all have been held to be colors of title. In fact, “If there is nothing here requiring a deed, to establish a color of title, and under the former decisions of this court, color or title may exist without a deed.” Baldwin v Ratcliff, 125 Ill. 376, 383 (1888); County of Piatt v Goodell, 97 Ill. 84 (1880); Smith v Ferguson, 91 Ill. 304 (1878); Hassett v Ridgely, 49 Ill. 197 (1868); Brook v. Bruyn, 35 Ill. 392 (1864); McCagg v Heacock, 34 Ill. 476 (1864); Bride v Watt, 23 Ill. 507 (1860); and Woodward v Blanchard, 16 Ill. 424 (1855).

All of the above cases being still valid and none being overruled, in effect the statements in these cases are settled law. All of the documents described in these cases are the main avenues of claimed land ownership in America today, yet none actually conveys the true and Allodial title. They in fact convey something quite different.

When it is stated that a color of title conveys only an appearance of or apparent title, such a statement is correct but perhaps too vague to be properly understood in its correct legal context. What are useful are the more pragmatic statements concerning titles. A title or color of title, in order to be effective in transferring the ownership or purported ownership of the land, must be a marketable or merchantable title.

A marketable or merchantable title is one that is reasonably free from doubt. Austin v Bamum, 52 Minn. 136 (1892). This title must be as reasonably free from doubts as necessary to not affect the marketability or salability of the property, and must be a title a reasonably prudent person would be willing to accept. Robert v McFadden, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 47 74 S.W. 105 (1903). Such a title is often described as one which would ensure to the purchaser a peaceful enjoyment of the property, Barnard v Brown, 112 Mich. 452, 70 N.W. 1038 (1897), and it is stated that such a title must be obvious, evident, apparent, certain, sure or indubitable. Ormsby v Graham, 123 La. 202, 98 N.W. 724 (1904).

Marketable Title Acts, which have been adopted in several of the states, generally do not lend themselves to an interpretation that they might operate to provide a new foundation of title based upon a stray, accidental, or interloping conveyance. Their object is to provide, for the recorded fee simple ownership, an exemption from the burdens of old conditions which at each transfer of the property interfere with its marketability. Wichelman v Messner, 83 N.W. 2d 800 (1957) What each of these legal statements in the various factual situations say is that the color of title is never described as the absolute or actual title. Rather, each says that it is one of the types of titles necessary to convey ownership or apparent ownership.

A marketable title, which a color of title must be in order to be effective, must be a title that is good of recent record, even if it may not be the actual title in fact. Close v Stuyvesant, 132 Ill. 607, 24 N.E. 868 (1890) “Authorities hold that to render a title marketable it is only necessary that it shall be free from reasonable doubt; in other words, that a purchaser is not entitled to demand a title absolutely free from every possible suspicion.” Cummings v Dolan, 52 Wash. 496, 100 P. 989 (1909) The record being spoken of here is the title abstract and all documentary evidence pertaining to it. It is an axiom of hornbook law that a purchaser has notice only of recorded instruments that are within his “chain of title.” I. R. Patton & C. Patton, Patton on Land Title, Section 69, at 230-233. (2nd ed. 1957); Sabo v Horvath, 559 P. 2d 1038, 1043 (Ak.1976). Title insurance then guarantees that a title is marketable, not absolutely free from doubt.

Thus, under the color of title system used most often in this country today, no individual operating has the absolute or allodial title. All that is really necessary to have a valid title is to have a relatively clean abstract with a recognizable color of title as the operative marketable title within the chain of title.

It therefore becomes necessarily difficult, if not impossible after a number of years, considering the inevitable contingencies that must arise and the title disputes that will occur, to ever properly guarantee an absolute title. This is not necessarily the fault of the seller, but it is the fault of the legal and real estate systems for allowing such a diluted form of title to be controlling in an area where it is imperative to have the absolute title. In order to correct this problem, it is important to return to those documents that the early leaders of the nation created to properly ensure that property remained one of the unalienable rights that the newly established sovereign freeholders could rely on to always exist.

This correction must be in the form of restricting or perhaps eliminating the widespread use of a marketable title and returning to the absolute title.

Other problems have developed because of the use of a color of title system for the conveyance of land. These problems arise in the area of terminology that succeeds only in confusing and clouding the title to an even greater extent than merely using terms like marketability, salability or merchantability. When a person must also determine whether a title is complete, perfect, good and clear, or whether it is a bad, defective, imperfect and doubtful, there is any obvious possibility of destroying a chain of title because of an inability to recognize what is acceptable to a reasonable purchaser.

A complete title means that a person has possession, the right of possession and the right of property. Dingey v Paxton, 60 Miss. 1038 (1883) and Ehle v Quackenboss, 6 Hill (N.Y.) 537 (1844). A perfect title is exactly the same as a complete title. Donovan v Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411 (1875) and Converse v Kellogg, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 590 (1850). Each simply means the type of title that a well-informed, reasonable and prudent person would be willing to accept when paying full value for the property. Birge v Beck, 44 Mo. App. 69 (1890). In other words, a complete or perfect title is, in reality, a marketable or merchantable title and is usually represented by a color of title.

A good title does not necessarily mean one perfect of record but one which consists of both rightful ownership and rightful possession of the property. Bloch v Ryan, 4 App. Cas 283 (1894). It means a title free from litigation, palpable defects and grave doubts consisting of both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record. Reynolds v Borel, 86 Cal. 538, 25 P. 67 (1890).

A good title means not merely a title valid in fact, but a marketable title, which can again be sold to a reasonable purchaser or mortgaged to a person of reasonable prudence as security for a loan of money.
– Moore v Williams, 115 N.Y. 586, 22 N.E. 253 (1889)

A clear title means there are no encumbrances on the land. Roberts v Bassett, 105 Mass. 409 (1870). Thus when contracting to convey land, the use of the phrase “good and clear title” is surplusage, since the terms good title and clear title are in fact synonymous. Oakley v Cook, 41 N.J. Eq. 350, 7 A.2d 495 (1886).

The terms “good title” and “clear title,” just like the terms “complete title” and “perfect title,” describe nothing more than a marketable title or merchantable title, and as stated above, each can and almost always is represented in a transaction by a color of title. None of these types of title purports to be the absolute, or allodial title, and none of them are that type of title. None of these actually claims to be a fee simple absolute, and since these types of titles are almost always represented by a color of title, none represents that it passes the actual title. Each one does state that it passes what can be described as a title good enough to avoid the necessity of litigation to determine who actually has the title. If such litigation to determine titles is necessary, then the title has crossed the boundaries of usefulness and entered a different category of title descriptions and names.

This new category consists of titles that are bad, defective, imperfect or doubtful. A bad title conveys no property to the purchaser of the estate. Heller v Cohen, 15 Misc. 378, 36 N.Y.S. 668 (1895). A title is defective when the party claiming to own the land has not the whole title, but some other person has title to a part or portion of it. Such a title is the same as no title whatsoever. Place v People, 192 Ill. 160, 61 N.E. (1901); see also Cospertini v Oppermann, 76 Cal. 181, 18 P. 256 (1888). Imperfect title is one where something remains to be done by the granting power to pass the title to the land. Raschel v Perez, 7 Tex. 348 (1851). A doubtful title is also one which conveys no property to the purchaser of the estate. Heller v Cohen, 15 Misc. 378, 36 N.Y.S. 668 (1895). Every title is described as doubtful which invites or exposes the party holding it to litigation. Herman v Somers, 158 PA.ST. 424, 27 A. 1050 (1893)

Each of these types of titles describes exactly the same idea stated in many different ways: that because of some problem, defect, or question surrounding the title, no title can be conveyed since no title exists. Yet in all of these situations, some type of color of title was used as the operative instrument. What then makes one color of title complete, good or clear in one situation, and in another situation the same type of color of title can be described as bad, defective, imperfect or doubtful?

What is necessary to make a good title of what might otherwise be a doubtful title is the belief of others in the community, whether or not properly justified, that the title is a good one that they would be willing to purchase. Moore v Williams, 115 N.Y. 586, 22 N.E. 253 (1889) The methods presently used to determine whether a title or color of title is good enough to not be doubtful are the other two-thirds of the three possible requirements for the conveyance of a good or complete (marketable) title.

These two methods of properly ensuring that a title is a good or complete title are title abstracts, the complete documentary evidence of title, and title insurance. The legal title to land, based on a color of title, is made up of a series of documents that are required to be executed with the solemnities prescribed by law, and of facts not evidenced by documents which show the claimant a person to whom the law gives the estate.

Documentary evidences of title consist of voluntary grants by the sovereign, deeds of conveyances and wills by individuals, conveyances by statutory or judicial permission, deeds made in connection with the sale of land for delinquent taxes, proceedings under the power of eminent domain, and deeds executed by ministerial or fiduciary officers. The land patent and the colors of title represent these documentary evidences. (I.G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property, pp. 99-100 [5th ed. 1980])

In compiling the abstract the abstractor must use these instruments, relied upon to evidence the title, coupled with the outward assertive acts that import dominion, and the attorney must examine to determine the true status of the title. The abstract is the recorded history of the land and the various types of titles, mortgages and other liens, claims and interests that have been placed on the property. The abstract can determine the number of times the patent has been re-declared, who owns the mineral rights, what color of title is operable at any particular point in time, and what lien holder is in first position, but it does not convey or even attempt to convey any form of the title itself.

As Thompson has stated, when operating with colors of title, it is necessary to have an abstract to determine the status of the operable title and to determine whether that title is good or doubtful. If the title is deemed to be good after this lengthy process, then the property may be transferred without doing anything more, since it is assumed that the seller was the owner of the property. This is not to say emphatically that the seller is the paramount or absolute owner. This does not even completely guarantee against any adverse claimants that he is the owner of the land. It is not even that difficult to claim that the title holder has a good title due to the leniency and attitude now evidenced by the judicial authorities toward maintaining a stable and uniform system of land ownership, whether or not that ownership is justified. This, however, does not explain the purpose and goal of a title abstract.

An abstract that has been properly brought up simply states that it is presumed that the seller is the owner of the land, making the title marketable and guaranteeing that he has a good title to sell. This is all an abstract can legally do since it is not the title itself and it does not state that the owner has an absolute title. Therefore, the abstract cannot guarantee unquestionably that the owner holds the title. All of this rhetoric is necessary if the title is good; if there is some question concerning the title without making it defective, then the owner must turn to the last of the three alternatives to help pass a good title – title insurance. (G. Thompson, Title to Real Property, Preparation and Examination of Abstracts, Ch.111, Section 79r pp. 99-100 [1919]) To ensure the validity of the title against any defects, title insurance companies issue title insurance against any encumbrances affecting the designated property and to protect the purchaser against any losses he may sustain from any subsequent determination that his title is actually unmarketable.

Title insurance extends to any defects of title. It protects against the existence of any encumbrances, provided only that a court of competent jurisdiction shall pronounce any judgments adverse to the title. It is not even necessary that a defect actually exist when the insurance policy was issued, but simply that there exists at the time of issuance of the policy an inchoate or potential defect which is rendered operative and substantial by some subsequent event. Since all one normally has is a color of title, the longer a title traverses history, the greater the possibility that the title will become defective.

The greater the need for insurance simply to keep the title marketable, the easier it is to determine that the title possessed is not the true, paramount and absolute title. If a person had the paramount title, there would be no need for title insurance, though an abstract might be useful for record keeping and historical purposes. Title insurance and abstract record keeping are useful, primarily because of extensive reliance on colors of title as the operative title for a piece of property.

This then supplies the necessary information concerning colors of title, title abstracts, and title insurance. This does not describe the relationship between the landowner and the government. As was stated in the introduction, in feudal England the King had the power, right and authority to take a person’s land away from him if and when the King felt it necessary.

The question is whether most of the American system of land ownership and titles is in reality any different and whether therefore the American-based system of ownership is in reality nothing more than a feudal system of land ownership.

Land ownership in America presently is founded on colors of title, and though people believe they are the complete and total owners of their property, under a color of title system, this is far from the truth. When people state that they are free and own their land, in fact they own it exactly to the extent the English barons owned their land in common-law England: they own their land so long as some “sovereign” – the government or a creditor – states that they can own their land. If one recalls from the beginning of this memorandum, if the King felt it justified, he could take land from one person and give it to another prospective baron.

Today in American color-of-title property law, if the landowner does not pay income tax, estate tax, property tax, mortgages or even a security note on personal property, then the “sovereign” – the government or the creditor – can justify the taking of the property, then the sale of that same property to another prospective “baron,” while leaving the owner with only limited defenses to such actions. The only real difference between this and common-law England is that now others besides the King can profit from the unwillingness or inability of the “landowner” to perform the socage or tenure required of every landowner of America.

No one is completely safe or protected on his property; no one can afford to make one mistake or the consequences will be forfeiture of the property. If this were what the people in the mid-1700s wanted, there would have been no need to have an American Revolution, since the taxes were secondary to having a sound monetary system and complete ownership of the land.

Why fight a Revolutionary War to escape sovereign control and virtual dictatorship over the land, when in the 2000s these exact problems are prevalent, with this one exception: private (fiat) tender now changes hands in order to give validity to the eventual and continuous takeover of the property between the parties?

This is hardly what the forefathers planned when creating the United States Constitution. What they did strive for is the next segment of the memorandum of law: allodial ownership of the land via the land patent. The next segment will analyze the history of this type of title so that the patent can be properly understood, making it possible to comprehend the patent’s true role in property law today.

As was seen in the previous sections, when distressful economic or weather conditions make it impossible to perform on the debt, there is little to protect the landowner who holds title in the chain of title. Under the color-of-title system, the property, one of those “inalienable rights,” can be taken for the nonperformance on loan obligations. This type of ownership is similar to the feudal ownership found in the Middle Ages.

Upon defeating the English in 1066 AD, William the Conqueror, pursuant to his 52nd and 58th laws, “effectually reduced the lands of England to feuds, which were declared to be inheritable. From that time the maxim prevailed there, that all lands in England are held from the King, and that all proceeded from his bounty.” (I.E. Washburn, Treatise on the American Law of Real Property, Section 65, p.44 [6th ed. 1902])

Prior to the creation of the feudal system in France and Germany, all lands in Europe were Allodial. Most of these lands were voluntarily changed to feudal lands as protection from the neighboring barons or chieftains. Since no documents protected one’s freedom over his land, once the lands were pledged for protection, the lands were lost forever. This was not the case in England.

England never voluntarily relinquished its land to William I. In fact, were it not for a tactical error by King Harold II’s men in the Battle of Hastings, England might never have become feudal.

Prior to the Conquest of AD 1066, a large proportion of the Saxon lands were held as allodial, that is, by an absolute ownership without recognizing any superior to whom any duty was due. The conveyance of these allodial lands was most commonly done by a writing or charter called a land-bloc or land allodial charter which, for safekeeping between conveyances, was generally deposited in the monasteries. In fact one portion of England, the County of Kent, was allowed to retain this form of land ownership while the rest of England became feudal. Therefore, when William I established feudalism in England to maintain control over his barons, that control created animosity over the next two centuries. (F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism, p. 114 [1964])

As a result of such dictatorial control, some twenty-five barons joined forces to exert pressure on the then-ruling monarch, King John, to gain some rights, not all of which the common man would possess. The result of this pressure at Runnymede became known as the Magna Charta (1215).

The Magna Charta was the basis of modern common law – a series of judicial decisions and royal decrees interpreting and following that document. The Magna Charta protected the basic rights that gave all people more freedom and power, rights that would slowly erode. Among these rights was a particular section dealing with ownership of the land. The barons still recognized the king as the lord paramount, but the barons wanted some of the rights their ancestors had had prior to A.D. 1066. (F. Goodwin, Treatise on The Law of Real Property, Ch. 1, p. 3 [1905])

Under this theory, as the visible owners, the barons would have several rights and powers over the land that had not existed in England for 150 years. The most important section, § 62, gave the most powerful barons letters of patent, raising their land ownership close to the level found in the County of Kent. Other sections – 10, 11, 26, 27, 37, 43, 52, 56, 57, and 61 – were written to protect the right to “own” property, to illustrate how debts affected this fight to own property, and to secure the return of property that was unjustly taken. All of these paragraphs were written with the single goal of protecting the “landowner,” helping him to retain possession of his land, acquired in the service of the King, from unjust seizures or improper debts. The barons attempted these goals with the intention of securing property to pass to their heirs.

Unfortunately goals are often not attained. Having re-pledged their loyalty to King John, the barons quickly disbanded their armies. King John died in 1216, one year after signing the Magna Charta. The new king did not wish to grant the privileges found in that document. When the barons who had forced the signing of the Magna Charta died, the driving force that created this great charter died with them. The Magna Charta may have still been alive, but the new kings had no armies at their door forcing them to follow policies, and the charter was to a great extent forced to lie dormant. Perhaps the barons who had received the letters of patent and other landholders should have enforced their rights, but their heirs were not in a position to do so and eventually the fiefs contained in the charter were forgotten. Increasingly, until the mid-1600s, the king’s power waxed, abruptly ending with the execution of Charles I in 1649. By then, however, the original intent of the Magna Charta was in part lost and the descendants of the original barons never required property protected, free land ownership. To a great extent to this day, the freehold lands in England are still held upon the feudal tenures.

This lack of complete ownership in the land, as well as the most publicized search for religious freedom, drove the more adventurous Europeans to the Americas to be away from these restrictions. The American colonists, however, soon adopted many of the same land concepts used in the old- world. The kings of Europe still had the authority to exert influence, and the American version of barons sought to retain large tracts of land. As an example, the first patent granted in New York went to Killian Van Rensselaer, dated in 1630 and confirmed in 1685 and 1704. (A. Getman, Title to Real Property, Principles and Sources of Titles – Compensation For Lands and Waters, Part Ill, Ch. 17, p.229 [1921].)

The colonial charters of these American colonies, granted by the king of England, had references to the lands in the County of Kent, effectively denying the more barbaric aspects of feudalism from ever entering the continent, but feudalism with its tenures did exist for some time.

It may be said that, at an early date, feudal tenures existed in this country to a limited extent. (C. Tiedeman, An Elementary Treatise on the American Law of Real Property, Ch. 11; The Principles of the Feudal System, Section 25, p. 22 [2nd ed. 1892].)

The result was a newly created form of feudal land ownership in America. As such, the feudal barons in the colonies could dictate who farmed their land, how their land was to be divided, and to a certain extent to whom the land should pass. But, just as the original barons discovered, this power was premised in part upon the performance of duties for the king. Upon the failure of performance, the king could order the grant revoked, and grant the land to another willing to acquiesce to the king’s authority. This authority, however, was premised on the belief that people recently arrived and relatively independent would follow the authority of a king based 3000 miles away. Such a premise was ill founded.

The colonists came to America to avoid taxation without representation, to avoid persecution of religious freedom, and to acquire a small tract of land that could be owned completely. When the colonists were forced to pay taxes and to allow their homes to be occupied by soldiers; they revolted, fighting the British and declaring their Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court of the United States reflected on this in Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419 (1793), stating:

… the revolution or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by state conventions, and other temporary arrangements. From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion, that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that crown, passed not to the people of the colony or states within those limits they were situated, but to the whole people; … ‘We, the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the state constitutions should be made to conform. … It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. …

The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here: at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the fight to govern; a nation or state sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereigns, in which the regents of Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rules have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.

The Americans had a choice as to how they wanted their new government and country to be formed. Having broken away from English sovereignty and establishing themselves as their own sovereigns, they had their choice of types of taxation, freedom of religion and, equally important, ownership of land. The American founding fathers chose allodial ownership of land. In the opinion of Judge Kent, the question of tenure as an incident to the ownership of lands “has become wholly immaterial in this country, where every vestige of tenure has been annihilated. At the present day there is little, if any, trace of the feudal tenures remaining in the American law of property. Lands in this country are now held to be absolutely Allodial.”

Upon the completion of the Revolutionary War, lands in the thirteen colonies were held under a different form of land ownership.

As stated in re Waltz et. al., Barlow v Security Trust & Savings Bank, 240 p.19 (1925), quoting Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 443 (1839) “after the American Revolution, lands in this state (Maryland) became Allodial, subject to no tenure, nor to any services incident there to.”

The tenure, as you will recall, was the feudal tenure and the services or taxes required to be paid to retain possession of the land under the feudal system. This new type of ownership was acquired in all thirteen states. Wallace v Harmstead, 44 Pa. 492 (1863)

The American people, before developing a properly functioning stable government, developed a stable system of land ownership, whereby the people owned their land absolutely and in a manner similar to the king in common-law England. As has been stated earlier, the original and true meaning of the word “fee” and, therefore, fee simple absolute is the same as fief or feud, this being in contradistinction to the term “allodium,” which means or is defined as man’s own land which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior. Wendell v Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 (1848) [27] Stated another way, the fee simple estate of early England was never considered as absolute, as were lands in allodium, but was subject to some superior on condition of rendering him services, and in which the such superior had the ultimate ownership of the land. In re Waltz, at page 20, quoting I Cooley’s Blackstone, (4th ed.) p. 512.

This type of fee simple is a Common-Law term and sometimes corresponds to what in civil law is a perfect title. United States v Sunset Cemetery Co., 132 F. 2d 163 (1943).

It is unquestioned that the king held an allodial title that was different from the Common Law fee simple absolute. This type of superior title was bestowed upon the newly established American people by the founding fathers. The people were sovereigns by choice, and through this new type of land ownership, the people were sovereign freeholders or kings over their own land, beholden to no lord or superior. As stated in Stanton v Sullivan, 7 A·696 (1839), such an estate is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being, in fact allodial in its nature. This type of fee simple, as thus developed, has definite characteristics:

1. it is a present estate in land that is of indefinite duration;
2. it is freely alienable;
3. it carries with it the right of possession; and most importantly
4. the holder may make use of any portion of the freehold without being beholden to any person.

(I. G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property, Section 1856, p. 412 [1st ed. 1924]).

This fee simple estate means an absolute estate in lands wholly unqualmed by any reservation, reversion, condition or limitation, or possibility of any such thing present or future, precedent or subsequent. Id.; Wichelman v Messner, 83 N.W. 2d 800, 806 (1957) It is the most extensive estate and interest one may possess in real property where an estate subject to an option is not in fee. In Bradford v Martin, [28] 201 N.W. 574 (1925), the Iowa Supreme Court went into a lengthy discussion on what the terms “fee simple” and “allodium” mean in American property law. The Court stated:

The word ‘absolutely’ in law has a varied meaning, but when unqualifiedly used with reference to titles or interest in land, its meaning is fairly well settled. Originally the two titles most discussed were ‘fee simple’ and ‘allodium.’ (Which meant absolute.) See Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. (Rawle Ed.) 134; Wallace v Harmstead, 44 Pa. 492; McCartee v Orphan’s Asylum, 9 Cow. (N.Y.) 437, 18 Am. Dec. 516.

Prior to Blackstone’s time the allodial title was ordinarily called an “absolute title.” An allodial title was superior to a “fee simple title,” the latter being encumbered with feudal clogs, which were laid upon the first feudatory when it was granted, making it possible for the holder of a fee-simple title to lose his land in the event he failed to observe his feudatory oath. The allodial title was not so encumbered. Later, however, the term “fee simple” rose to the dignity of the allodial or absolute estate, and since the days of Blackstone the words of “absolute” and “fee simple” seem to have been generally used interchangeably; in fact, he so uses them.

The basis of English land law is the ownership of the realty by the sovereign: from the crown all titles flow. People v. Richardson, 269 M. 275, 109 N.E. 1033 (1914); see also Matthew v. Ward, 10 Gill & J (Md.) 443 (1844) McConnell v. Wilcox, I Scam. (IR.) 344 (1837), stated it this way:

From what source does the title to the land derived from a government spring? In arbitrary governments, from the supreme head, be he the emperor, king, or potentate, or by whatever name he is known. In a republic, from the law, making or authorizing to be made the grant or sale. In the first case, the party looks alone to his letters patent; in the second, to the law and the evidence of the acts necessary to be done under the law, to a perfection of his grant, donation or purchase. The law alone must be the fountain from whence the authority is drawn; and there can be no other source.

The American people, newly established sovereigns in this republic after the victory achieved during the Revolutionary War, became complete owners in their land, beholden to no lord or superior; sovereign freeholders in the land themselves. These freeholders in the original thirteen states now held allodial the land they possessed before the war only feudally. This new and more powerful title protected the sovereigns from unwarranted intrusions or attempted takings of their land and, more importantly, it secured in them a right to own land absolutely in perpetuity.

By definition, the word perpetuity means: “Continuing forever. Legally, pertaining to real property, any condition extending the inalienability.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1141 In terms of an allodial title, it is to have the property of in-alienability forever. Nothing more need be done to establish the ownership of the sovereigns to their land, although confirmations were usually required to avoid possible future title confrontations. The states, even prior to the creation of our present constitutional government, were issuing titles to the unoccupied lands within their boundaries.

In New York, even before the war was won, the state issued the first land patent in 1781, and only a few weeks after the battle and victory at Yorktown in 1783, the state issued the first land patent to an individual. In fact, even before the United States was created, New York and other states had developed their own land offices with commissioners. New York was first established in 1784 and was revised in 1786 to further provide for a more definite procedure for the sale of un-appropriated State lands. Id. The state courts held:

The validity of letters patent and the effectiveness to convey title depends on the proper execution and record. (It has) generally been the law that public grants to be valid must be recorded. The record is not for purposes of notice under recording acts but to make the transfer effectual.

Later, if there was deemed to be a problem with the title, the state grants could be confirmed by issuance of a confirmatory grant. This then, in part, explains the methods and techniques the original states used to pass title to their lands, lands that remained in the possession of the state unless purchased by the still yet uncreated federal government or by individuals in the respective states. To much this same extent Texas, having been a separate country and republic, controlled and still controls its lands. In each of these instances, the land was not originally owned by the federal government and then later passed to the people and states.

This, then, is a synopsis of the transition from colony to statehood and the rights to land ownership under each situation. This, however, has said nothing of the methods used by the states in the creation of the federal government and the eventual disposal of the federal lands.

The Constitution in its original form was ratified by a convention of the States on September 17, 1787. The Constitution and the government formed under it were declared in effect on the first Wednesday of March, 1789. Prior to this time, during the Constitutional Convention, there was serious debate on the disposal of what the convention called the “Western Territories,” now the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota, more commonly known as the Northwest Territory. This tract of land was ceded to the new American republic in the treaty signed with Britain in 1783.

The attempts to determine how such a disposal of the Western territories should come about were the subject of much discussion in the records of the Continental Congress. Beginning in September 1783, there was continual discussion concerning the acquisition and later disposition of the lands east of the Mississippi River. Journals of Congress, Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, 11, folio 255, p. 544-557 (September 13, 1783):

and whereas the United States have succeeded to the sovereignty over the Western territory, and are thereby vested as one undivided and independent nation, with all and every power and right exercised by the king of Great Britain, over the said territory, or the lands lying and situated without the boundaries of the several states, and within the limits above described; and whereas the western territory ceded by France and Spain to Great Britain, relinquished to the United States by Great Britain, and guarantied to the United States by France as aforesaid, if properly managed, will enable the United States to comply with their promises of land to their officers and soldiers; will relieve their citizens from much of the weight of taxation; … and if cast into new states, will tend to increase the happiness of mankind, by rendering the purchase of land easy, and the possession of liberty permanent; therefore Resolved, that a committee be appointed to report the territory lying without the boundaries of the several states; … and also to report an establishment for a land office.

Later the then technically nonexistent federal government acquired land originally held by the colonial governments. As the years progressed, the goal remained the same – a proper determination of a simple method of disposing of the western lands. “That an advantageous disposition of the western territory is an object worthy the deliberation of Congress.” Id. February 14, 1786, at p. 68. In February 1787, the Continental Congress continued to hold discussions on how to dispose of all western territories. As part of the basis for such disposal, it was determined to divide the new northwestern territories into medians, ranges, townships, and sections, making for easy division of the land, and giving the new owners of such land a certain number of acres in fee. Journals of Congress, p. 21, February 1787, and Committee Book, Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 190, p. 132 (1788)

There were more discussions on the methods of disposing the land in September of that same year. Those discussions included debates about the validity and solemnity of the state patents that had been issued in the past. Only a week earlier the Constitution was ratified by the conventions of the states. Finally, the future Senate and House of Representatives, though not officially a government for another one and a half years, held discussions on the possible creation of documents that would pass the title of lands from the new government to the people. The first patents were created and ratified in these discussions, making the old land-bloc or land-allodial charters of the Saxon nobles, 750 years earlier, and the letters patent of the Magna Charta, guidelines by which the land would pass to the sovereign freeholders of America. Id., July 2, 1788, pp.77-286.

As part of the method by which the new United States decided to dispose of its territories, it created in the Constitution an article, section, and clause that specifically dealt with such disposal. Article IV, Section III, Clause II, states in part, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States.”

Thus, Congress was given the power to create a vehicle to divest the Federal Government of all its right and interest in the land. This vehicle, known as the land patent, was to forever divest the federal government of its land and place such total ownership in the hands of the sovereign freeholders who collectively created the government.

The members of Constitutional Congress ratified the land patents issued prior to the initial date of recognition of the United States Constitution. Those patents created by statute after March 1789 had only the power of the statutes and the Congressional intent behind such statutes as a reference and basis for the determination of their powers and operational effect originally and in the American system of land ownership today.

There have been dozens of statutes enacted pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. Some of these statutes had very specific intents of aiding soldiers of wars, or dividing lands in a very small region of one state, but all had the main goal of creating in the sovereigns, freeholders on their lands, beholden to no lord or superior. Some of the statutes include:

12 Stat. 392, 37th Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 75, (1862) (the Homestead Act); 9 Stat. 520, 31st Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 85 (1850) Military Bounty Service Act); 8 Stat. 123, 29th Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 8, (1847) (Act to raise additional military force and for other purposes); 5 Stat. 444, 21st Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 30 (1831); 4 Stat. 56, 18th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 174 (1824); 5 Stat 52, 18th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 173 (1824); 5 Stat. 51, 18th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 172, (1824); 3 Stat. 566, 16th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 51, (1820) (the major land patent statute enacted to dispose of lands); 2 Stat. 748, 12th Congress, Sess. I. Ch. 99 (1812); 2 Stat. 728, 12th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 77, (1812); 2 Stat. 716, 12th Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 68, (1812) (the act establishing the General Land-Office in the Department of Treasury); 2 Stat. 590, 11th Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 35, (1810); 2 Stat. 437, 9th Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 34, (1807); and 2 Stat. 437, 9th Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 31, (1807).

These, of course, are only a few of the statutes enacted to dispose of public lands to the sovereigns. One of these acts, however, was the main patent statute in reference to the intent Congress had when creating the patents. That statute is 3 Stat. 566.

In order to understand the validity of a patent in today’s property law, it is necessary to turn to other sources than the acts themselves. These sources include the congressional debates and case law citing such debates. For the best answer to this question, it is necessary to turn to the Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Monday, March 6, 1820, in the Senate, considering the topic “The Public Lands.” This abridgment and the actual debates found within it concern one of the most important of the land patent statutes, 3 Stat. 566, 16th Congress, Sess. 1. Ch. 51, Stat. 1, (April 24, 1820).

In this important debate, the reason for such a particular act in general and the protection afforded by the patent in particular were discussed. As Senator Edwards states,

It is not my purpose to discuss, at length, the merits of the proposed change. I will, at present, content myself with an effort merely to shield the present settlers upon public lands from merciless speculators, whose cupidity and avarice would unquestionably be tempted by the improvements which those settlers have made with the sweat of their brows, and to which they have been encouraged by the conduct of the government itself, for though they might be considered as embraced by the letter of the law which provides against intrusion on public lands, yet, that their case has not been considered by the Government as within the mischief ’s intended to be prevented is manifest, not only from the forbearance to enforce the law, but from the positive rewards which others, in their situation, have received, by the several laws which have heretofore been granted to them by the same right if preemption which I now wish extended to the present settlers.

Further, Senator King from New York considered the change as highly favorable to the poor man, and he argued at some length that it was calculated to plant in the new country a population of independent, unembarrassed freeholders; that it would cut up speculation and monopoly; that the money paid for the lands would be carried from the State or country from which the purchaser should remove; that it would prevent the accumulation of an alarming debt, which experience proved never would and never could be paid.

In other statutes, the Court recognized much of these same ideas. In United States v. Reynes, 9 How. (U.S.) 127 (1850), the Supreme Court stated:

The object of the Legislature is manifest. … [I]t was intended to prevent speculation by dealing for rights of preference before the public lands were in the market. The speculator acquired power over choice spots, by procuring occupants to seat themselves on them and who abandoned them as soon as the land was entered under their preemption right, and the speculation accomplished. Nothing could be more easily done than this, if contracts of this description could be enforced.

The act of 1830, however, proved to be of little avail, and then came the Act of 1835 (5 Stat 251) which compelled the preemptor to swear that he had not made an arrangement by which the title might inure to the benefit of anyone except himself, or that he would transfer it to another at any subsequent time. This was preliminary to the allowing of his entry, and it discloses the policy of Congress.

It is always to be borne in mind, in construing a congressional grant that the act by which it is made is a law as well as a conveyance and that such effect must be given to it as will carry out the intent of Congress. That intent should not be defeated by applying to the grant the rules of the common law … words of present grant, are operative, if at all, only as contracts to convey. But the rules of common law must yield in this, as in other cases, to the legislative will. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Kansas Pacific Railway Company, 97 US 491, 497 (1878).

The administration of the land system in this country is vested in the Executive Department of the Government, first in the Treasury and now in the Interior Department, the officers charged with the disposal of the public domain under are required and empowered to determine so far as it relates to the extent and character of the rights claimed under them, and to be given, though their actions, to individuals. Government, and courts of justice must never interfere with it. Marks v. Dickson, 61 US (20 How) 501 (1857); see also Cousin v. Blanc’s ex., 19 How. US 206, 209 (1856). “The Power of the Congress to dispose of its land cannot be interfered with, or its exercise embarrassed by any State legislation; nor can such legislation deprive the grantees of the United States of the possession and enjoyment of the property granted by reason of any delay in the transfer of the title after the initiation of proceedings for its acquisition.” Gibsion v Chouteau, 13 Wal. (U. S.) 92, 93 (1871)

State statutes that give lesser authoritative ownership of title than the patent cannot even be brought into federal court. Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74, 81 (1887) These acts of Congress making grants are not to be treated both law and grant, and the intent of Congress when ascertained is to control in the interpretation of the law. Wisconsin C. R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U.S. 46 (1895)

The intent to be searched for by the courts in a government Patent is the intent which the government had as that time, and not what it would have been had no mistake been made. The true meaning of a binding expression in a patent must be applied, no matter where such expressions are found in the document. It should be construed as to effectuate the primary object Congress had in view; and obviously a construction that gives effect to a patent is to be preferred to one that renders it inoperative and void. A grant must be interpreted by the law of the country in force at the time when it was made. The construction of federal grant by a state court is necessarily controlled by the federal decisions on the same subject. The United States may dispose of the public lands of such terms and conditions, and subject to such restrictions and limitations as in its judgment will best promote the public welfare, even if the condition is to exempt the land from sale on execution issued or judgment recovered in a State Court for a debt contracted before the patent issues. Miller v. Little, 47 Cal. 348, 350 (1874)

Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States and the whole legislation of the Government must be examined in the determination of such titles. Bagnell v. Broderick, 38 U.S. 436 (1839) It was clearly the policy of Congress, in passing the preemption and patent laws, to confer the benefits of those laws to actual settlers upon the land. Close v. Stuyvesant, 132 M. 607, 617.

The intent of Congress is manifest in the determinations of meaning, force and power vested in the patent. These cases all illustrate the power and dignity given to the patent. It was created to divest the government of its lands, and to act as a means of conveying such lands to the generations of people that would occupy those lands. This formula, “or his legal representatives,” embraces representatives of the original grantee in the land, the contract, such as assignees or grantees, as well as the operation of law, and leaves the question open to inquiry in a court of justice as to the party to whom the patent, or confirmation, should enure. Hogan v. Page, 69 US 605 (1864)

The patent was and is the document and law that protects the settler from the merciless speculators, from the people that use avarice to unjustly benefit themselves against an unsuspecting nation. The patent was created with these high and grand intentions for a sound reason.

The settlers as a rule seem to have been poor persons, and presumably without the necessary funds to improve and pay for their land, but it appears that in every case where the settlement was made under the preemption law, the settler … entered and paid for the land at the expiration of the shortest period at which entry could be made. Close v. Stuyvesant, 132 HI. 607, 623 (1890).

We must look to the benefit character of the acts that created these grants and patents and the peculiar objects they were intended to protect and secure. A class of enterprising, hardy and valuable citizens has become the pioneers in the settlement and improvement of the new and distant lands of the government. McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. (M.) 344, 367 (1837).

In furtherance of what is deemed a wise policy, tending to encourage settlement, and to develop the resources of the country, it invites the heads of families to occupy small parcels of the public land. … To deny Congress the power to make a valid and effective contract of this character … would materially abridge its power of disposal, and seriously interfere with a favorite policy of the government, which fosters measures tending to a distribution of the lands to actual settlers at a nominal price. Miller v. Little, 47 Cal. 348, 351 (1874)

The legislative acts, the Statutes at Large, enacted to divest the United States of its land and to sell that land to the true sovereigns of this republic, had very distinct intents. Congress recognized that the average settler of this nation would have little money. Therefore Congress built into the patent and its corresponding act the understanding that these lands were to be free from avarice and cupidity, free from the speculators who preyed on the unsuspecting nation, and forever under the control and ownership of the freeholder, who by the sweat of his brow made the land produce the food that would feed himself and eventually the nation.

Even today, the intent of Congress is to maintain a cheap food supply through the retention of the sovereign farmers on the land. United States v. Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979); see also Curry v. Block, 541 F. Supp. 506 (1982). Originally the intent of Congress was to protect the sovereign freeholders and create a permanent system of land ownership in the country. Today, the intent of Congress is to retain the small family farm and utilize the cheap production of these situations. It has been necessary to protect the sovereign on his parcel of land, and ensure that he remain in that position. The land patent and the patent acts were created to accomplish these goals. In other words, the patent or title deed being regular in its form, the law will not presume that such was obtained through fraud of the public right.

This principle is not merely an arbitrary rule of law established by the courts; rather, it is a doctrine founded upon reason and the soundest principles of public policy. It is one which has been adopted in the interest of peace in the society and the permanent security of titles. Unless fraud is shown, this rule is held to apply to patents executed by the public authorities. State v. Hewitt Land Co., 134 P. 474,479 (1913)

It is therefore necessary to determine exact power and authority contained in a patent. Legal titles to lands cannot be conveyed except in the form provided by law. McGaffahan v. Mining Co., 96 U.S. 316 (1877) Legal title to property is contingent upon the patent issuing from the government. Sabo v. Horvath, 559 P.2d 1038, 1040 (Aka. 1976)

That the patent carries the fee and is the best title known to a court of law is the settled doctrine of this court.
Marshall v. Ladd, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 106 (1869)

A patent issued by the government of the United States is legal and conclusive evidence of title to the land described therein. No equitable interest, however strong, to land described in such a patent, can prevail at law, against the patent
(Land Patents, Opinions of the United States Attorney General’s office, [September, 1969])

A patent is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles, until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal. Stone v. United States, 2 Wall. (67 U.S.) 765 (1865)

The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of Congress, passes title from the United States, and the patent, when regular on its face, is conclusive evidence of title in the patentee. When there is a confrontation between two parties as to the superior legal title, the patent is conclusive evidence of title in the patentee. When there is a confrontation between two parties as to the superior legal title, the patent is conclusive evidence as to ownership. Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 912 (1871)

Congress having the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of its titles has declared the patent to be the superior and conclusive evidence of the legal title. Bagnell v. Brodrick, 38 US 438 (1839)

Issuance of a government patent granting title to land is the most accredited type of conveyance known to our Law. United States v. Creek Nation, 295 US 103, 111 (1935); see also United States v. Cherokee Nation, 474 F.2d 628, 634 9 1973). The patent is prima facie conclusive evidence of the title. Marsh v. Brooks, 49 U.S. 223, 233 (1850). A patent, once issued, is the highest evidence of title, and is a final determination of the existence of all facts. Walton v. United States, 415 F. 2d 121, 123 (10th Cir. 1969); see also United States v. Beaman, 242 F. 876 (1917) File v. Alaska, 593 P. 268, 270 (1979)

When the federal government grants land via a patent, the patent is the highest evidence of title. Patent rights to the land is the title in fee, City of Los Angeles v. Board of Supervisors of Mono County, 292 P.2d 539 (1956), the patent of the fee simple, Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6 (1956), and the patent is required to carry the fee. Carter v. Rubby, 166 U.S. 493, 496 (1896); see also Klais v. Danowski, 129 N.W.2d 414, 422 (1964) 1423 (Interposition of the patent or interposition of the fee title).

The land patent is the muniment of title, such title being absolute in its nature, making the sovereigns absolute freeholders on their lands.

Finally, the patent is the only evidence of the legal fee simple title. McConnell v. Wilcox, I Scam (Ill.) 381, 396 (1837)

All of these various cases and quotes illustrate one statement that should be thoroughly understood at this time: the patent is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive of the ownership of land in courts of competent jurisdiction. This, however, does not examine the methods or possibilities of challenging a land patent.

In Hooper et al. v. Scheimer, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 235, Id. at 240 (1859), the United States Supreme Court stated:

I affirm that a patent is unimpeachable at law, except, perhaps, when it appears on its own face to be void; and the authorities on this point are so uniform and unbroken in the courts, Federal and State, that little else will be necessary beyond a reference to them.

A patent cannot be declared void at law, nor can a party travel behind the patent to avoid it. Id. A patent cannot be avoided at law in a collateral proceeding unless it is declared void by statute, or its nullity indicated by some equally explicit statutory denunciations. One perfect on its face is not to be avoided in a trial at law by anything save an elder patent. It is not to be affected by evidence or circumstances, which might show that the impeaching party might prevail in a court of equity. A patent is evidence, in a court of law, of the regularity of all previous steps to it, and no facts behind it can be investigated. A patent cannot be collaterally avoided at law, even for fraud. A patent, being a superior title, must of course, prevail over colors of title; nor is it proper for any state legislation to give such titles, which are only equitable in nature with a recognized legal status in equity courts, precedence over the legal title in a court of law.

The Hooper case has many of the maxims that apply to the powers and possible disabilities of a land patent; however, there is extensive case law in this area.

The presumptions arise from the existence of a patent evidencing a grant of land from the United States that all acts have been performed and all facts have been shown which are prerequisites to its issuance, and that the right of the party, grantee therein, to have it issued, has been presented and passed upon by the proper authorities. Green v. Barber, 66 N.W. 1032 (1896) As stated in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Vol. H, p. 1834 (1914):

Misrepresentations knowingly made by the application for a patent will justify the government in proceedings to set it aside, as it has a right to demand a cancellation of a patent obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations.
United States v. Manufacturing Co., 128 U.S. 673 (1888).

But courts of equity cannot set aside, annul, or correct patents or other evidence of title obtained from the United States by fraud or mistake, unless on specific averment of the mistake or fraud, supported by clear and satisfactory proof. Maxelli Land Grant Cancellation, 11 How. (U.S.) 552 (1850) A patent fraudulently obtained by one knowing at the time that another person has a prior right to the land may be set aside by an information in the nature of a bill in equity filed by the attorney of the United States for the district in which the land lies. Id. A court of equity, upon a bill filed for that purpose, will vacate a patent of the United States for a tract of land obtained by mistake from the officers of the land office, in order that a clear title may be transferred to the previous purchaser Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. (U.S.) 232 (1866); but a patent for land of the United States will not be declared void merely because the evidence to authorize its issue is deemed insufficient by the court. Milliken v. Starling’s Lessee, 16 Ohio 61. A state can impeach the title conveyed by it to a grantee only by a bill in chancery to cancel it, either for fraud on the part of the grantee or mistake of law; and until so canceled it cannot issue to any other party a valid patent for the same land. Chandler v. Manufacturing Co., 149 U.S. 79 (1893)

Other cases espouse these and other rules of law. A patentee can be deprived of his rights only by direct proceedings instituted by the government or by parties acting in its name, or by persons having a superior title to that acquired through the government. Putnum v. Ickes, 78 F.2d 233, denied 296 U.S. 612 (1935)

It is not sufficient for the one challenging a patent to show that the patentee should not have received the patent; he must also show that he as the challenger is entitled to it. Kale v. United States, 489 F.2d 449, 454 (1973) A United States patent is protected from easy third party attacks. Fisher v. Rule, 248 U.S. 314, 318 (1919); see also Hooffiagle v. Anderson, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 212 (1822)

A Patent issued by the United States of America so vests the title in the lands covered thereby that it is the further general rule that such patents are not open to collateral attack. Thomas v. Union pacific Railroad Company, 588, 596 (1956) See also State v. Crawford, 475 P.2d 515 (Ariz. App. 1970) (A patent is prima facie valid, and if its validity can be attacked at all, the burden of proof is upon the defendant); State v. Crawford, 441 P.2d 586, 590 (Ariz. APP. 1968) (A patent to land is the highest evidence of title and may not be collaterally attacked); and Dredge v. Husite Company 369 P.2d 676, 682 (1962) (A Patent is the act of legally instituted tribunal, done within its jurisdiction, and passes the title. Such a patent is a final judgment as well as a conveyance and is conclusive upon a collateral attack) absent some facial invalidity, the patents are presumed valid. Murray v. State, 596 P.2d 805, 816 (1979)

The government retains no power to nullify a patent except through a direct court proceeding. United States v. Reimann, 504 F.2d 135 (1974) See also Green v. Barker, 66 N.W. 1032, 1034 (1896) (The doctrine announced was that the deed upon its face purported to have been issued in pursuance of the law, and was therefore assailable only in a direct proceeding by aggrieved parties to set it aside.)

Through these cases, it can be shown that the patent, which passes the title from the United States to the sovereigns, was created to keep the speculators from the land. It is assailable only in a direct proceeding for fraud or mistake. In no other situation may the courts eliminate the patent.

One question that may arise is what do the courts mean by a collateral attack and what can be done by courts of equity if a collateral attack is presented?

Perhaps the easiest means of defining a collateral attack is to show the converse corollary, a direct attack on a patent. As was stated in the previous paragraphs, a direct attack upon a land patent is an action for fraud or mistake brought by the government or a party acting in its place. Therefore, a collateral attack, by definition, is any attack upon a patent that is not covered within the direct attack list.

Perhaps the most prevalent collateral attack in property law today is a mortgage or deed of trust foreclosure on a color of title. In these instances it is determined that the mortgagee or another purchases the complete title and interest in the land in his place. Such a determination displaces the patentee’s ownership of the title without the court ever ruling that the patent was acquired through fraud or mistake.

This is against public policy, legislative intent, and the overwhelming majority of case law. Therefore, to see what powers the courts of equity have in protecting the rights of the challengers of patents, it is now necessary to determine the patent’s role in American property law today.

The attitude of the courts is to promote simplicity and certainty in title transactions, thereby they follow what is in the chain of title and not what is outside. Sabo v. Horvath, 559 p.2d 1038, 1044 (1976) However, in equity courts, title under a patent from the government is subject to control to protect the rights of parties acting in a fiduciary capacity. Sanford v. Sanford, 139 U.S. 290 (1891). This protection, however, does not include the invalidation of the patent.

The determination of the land department in matters cognizable by it in the alienation of lands and the validity of patents cannot be collaterally attacked or impeached. Therefore the courts have had to devise another means to control the patentee, if not the patent itself, as stated in Raestle v. Whitson, 582 P.2d 170, 172 (1978): “The land patent is the highest evidence of title and is immune from collateral attack. This does not preclude a court from imposing a constructive trust upon the patentee for the benefit of the owners of an equitable interest.” This then explains the most equitable way a court may effectively restrict the sometimes harsh justice handed down by a strict court of law. Equity courts will impose a trust upon the patentee until the debt has been paid.

As has been stated, a patent cannot be collaterally attacked; therefore, the land cannot be sold or taken by the courts unless there is strong evidence of fraud or mistake. However, the courts can require the patentee to pay a certain amount at regular intervals until the debt is paid unless, of course, there is a problem with the validity of the debt itself. This is the main purpose of the patent in this growing epidemic of farm foreclosures that defy the public policy of Congress, the legislative intent of the Statutes at large, and the legal authority as to the type of land ownership possessed in America. Why then is the rate of foreclosures on the rise?

Titles to land today, as was stated earlier in this memorandum, are normally in the form of colors of title. This is because of the trend in recent property law to maintain the status quo. The rule in most jurisdictions, in particular those that have adopted a grantor-grantee index, is that a deed outside the chain of title does not act as a valid conveyance and does not serve notice of a defect of title on a subsequent purchaser. These deeds outside the chain of title are known as “wild deeds.” Sabo v. Horvath, 559 P.2d 1038, 1043 (1976); See also Porter v Buck, 335 So.2d 369, 371 (1976); The Exchange National Bank v Lawndale National Bank, 41 Ill. 2d 316, 243 N.E.2d 193, 195-96 (1968) (The chain of title for purposes of the marketable title act, may not be founded on a wild deed. These stray, accidental, or interloping conveyances are contrary to the intent of the marketable title act, which is to simplify and facilitate land title transactions); and Manson v. Berkman, 356 Ill. 20, 190 N. E. 77, 79 (1934). This liberal construction of what constitutes a valid conveyance has led to a thinning of the title to a point where the absolute and paramount title is almost impossible to guarantee.

This thinning can be directly attributed to the constant use of the colors of title. Under the guise of being the fee simple absolute, these titles have operated freely, but in reality, they evidence something much different. It was said in common-law England that when a title was not completely alienable and not the complete title, it was not a fee simple absolute. Rather it was some type of contingent conveyance that depended on the performance of certain tasks before the title was considered to be absolute. In fact, normally the title never did develop into a fee simple absolute. These types of conveyance were evidenced in part by the operable word “conveyance” and in part by the manner in which the granter could reclaim the property. If the title automatically reverted to the grantor upon the happening of a contingent action, then the title was by a fee simple determinable. Scheller v. Trustees of Schools of Township 41 North, 67 Ill. App. 3d 857, 863 (1978).

This is evidenced most closely today by deeds of trust in some states. If it required a court’s ruling to reacquire the land and title, then the transaction and title were held by a fee simple with a condition subsequent. Mahrenholz v. Country Board of Trustees of Lawrence County, 93 Ill. App. 3d 366, 370-74 (1981) This is most closely evidenced by a mortgage in a lien or intermediate-theory state.

These analogies may be somewhat startling and new to some, but the analogies are accurate. When a mortgage is acquired on property, the mortgagee steps into the position of a grantor with the authority to create the contingent estate as required by the particular facts. This is exactly what the grantor in Common Law property law could acquire. All the grantor had to do was choose a particular type of contingency and use the necessary catchwords, and almost invariably the land would one day be refused due to a violation of the contingency.

In today’s property law, the color of title has little power to protect the landowner. When the sovereign is unable to pay the necessary principal and interest on the debt load, then the catchwords and phrases found in the deed of trust or mortgage become operational. Upon that occurrence, the mortgagee or speculator, having through a legal maneuver acquired the position of a grantor, is in a position to either automatically receive the property simply by advertising and selling it, or can acquire the position of the grantor and eventually the possession of the property by a court proceeding.

In Common Law, the grantor of a fee simple determinable could automatically take the land from the grantee holder, by force if necessary, where the contingency was broken or violated. If, however, the grant was a fee simple upon condition subsequent, when the contingency was broken, the grantor, to declare the grantee in violation and to order the grantee to vacate the premises, had to bring a legal proceeding to declare the contingence broken.

These situations, though under different names and proceedings, occur every day in America. Is there really any serious debate, therefore, that the colors of title used today with the creation of a lien upon the property, become fee simple determinable and fee simples upon condition subsequent? Is this a legitimate method of ensuring a stable and permanent system of land ownership? If the color of title is weak, then how strong is a mortgage or deed of trust placed on the property?

Fee simple estates may be either legal or equitable. In each situation it is the largest estate in the land that the law will recognize. Hughes v. Miller’s Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 246 S.W.23 (1922) If a mortgagee, upon the creation of a mortgage or deed of trust, steps into the shoes of the grantor upon a conditional fee simple, does it then mean that the mortgagee has acquired one of the two halves of a fee simple, when cases have shown the fee simple is only evidenced by a patent?

Actually, courts have held in many states that a mortgage is only a lien. United States v. Certain Interests in Property in Champaign County, State of Illinois, 165 F.Supp.474, 480 (1958) (In Illinois and other lien theory states, the mortgagee has only a lien and not a vested interest in the leasehold.) See also Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Ganswer, 146 Neb. 635, 20 N.W.2d 689 (1945) Even after a condition is broken or there is a default on a mortgage, a mortgagee has only an equitable lien that can be enforced in proper proceedings. South Omaha Bank v. Levy, 95 N.W. 603 (1902). (Strict foreclosure will not lie when mortgagor holds the legal title.) First National Bank v. Sergeant, 65 Neb. 394, 91 N.W. 595 (1902) (Mortgagee cannot demand more than is legally due.) Morrill v. Skinner, 57 Neb. 164, 77 N.W. 375 (1898) (Mortgage conveys no estate but merely creates a lien.) Barber v. Crowell, 55 Neb. 571, 75 N. W. 1 109 (1898)

(Mortgage is mere security in form of conditional conveyance.) Speer v. Hadduck, 31 Freeman (Ill) 439, 443 (1863). (Assignments or conveyances of mortgages do not convey the fee simple; rather they hold only security interests.) In lien and intermediate-theory states, these cases amply illustrate that a mortgage or deed of trust is only a lien. Even in title theory of mortgage states, courts of equity have determined that the fee simple title is not really conveyed, either in its equitable or legal state. See Barber, supra, at 1110.

A fee simple estate still exists even though the property is mortgaged or encumbered. Hughes v. Miller’s Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 246 S.W. 23, 24 (1922) In fact, a creditor asserting a lien (mortgage) must introduce evidence or proof that will clearly demonstrate the basis of his lien. United States v. United States Chain Company, 212 F. Supp. 171 (N. D. If a mortgagee, even in the title theory states, has only a lien, yet when the mortgage or deed of trust is created he has a fee simple determinable or condition subsequent, then obviously the color of title used as the operative title has little force or power to protect the sovereign Freeholder. Nor can it be said that such a color of title is useful in the intenance of stable and permanent titles.

The patent, in almost all cases, has been originally issued to the first purchaser from the government. Theoretically, then, the public policy, Congressional intent from the 1930s through the last few decades should protect the sovereign in the enjoyment and possession of his freehold.

This, however, is not the case. Instead, vast mortgaging of the land has occurred. The agriculture debt alone has risen to over $220 billion in the past three decades. This is in part due to the vast expansion of mortgaged holdings and in part due to the rural sector’s inability to repay existing loans, requiring the increased mortgaging of the land. This is in exact contradiction to public policy and legislative intent if maintaining stable and simplistic land records; yet marketable titles (colors of title) were supposed to guarantee such records. Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d 800, 805 (1957).

Colors of title are ineffective against mortgages and promote the instability and complexity of the records of land titles by requiring abstracts and title insurance simply to guarantee a marketable title. Worse, in some of the states an injustice has prevailed that permits actions to determine titles to be maintained upon warrants for land (warranty deeds) and other titles not complete or legal in their character. This practice is against the intent of the Constitution and the Acts of Congress. Bagnell v. Broderick, 38 U.S. 438 (1839). Such lesser titles have no value in actions brought in federal courts, notwithstanding a State legislature that may have provided otherwise. Hooper et. al. v. Scheimer, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 235 (1859)

It is, in fact, possible that the state legislatures have even violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

These actions are against the intent of the founding fathers and against the legislative intent of the Congressman who enacted the statutes at large, creating the land patent or land grant. This patent or grant, since the “land grant” is in some states another name for the patent, the terms being synonymous, Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Barden, 46 F. 592, 617 (1891), prevented every problem that was created by the advent of colors of title, marketable titles, and mortgages. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the validity of returning to the patent as the operative title.

Patents are issued (and theoretically passed) between sovereigns; deeds are executed by persons and private corporations without these sovereign powers. Leading Fighter v. County of Gregory, 230 N.W.2d 114, 116 (1975) As was stated earlier, the American people, in creating the Constitution and the government formed under it, made such a document and government as sovereigns, retaining that status even after the creation of the government. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419 (1793)

The government, as sovereign, passes the title to the American people, creating in them sovereign Freeholders. Therefore, it follows that the American people, as sovereigns, should also have this authority to transfer the fee simple title, through the patent, to others. Cases have been somewhat scarce in this area, but there is some case law to reinforce this idea. In Wilcox v. Calloway, I Wash. (Va.) 38, 38-41 (1823), the Virginia Court of Appeals heard a case where the patent was brought up or reissued to the parties four separate times. Some patents were issued before the creation of the constitutional United States government, and some occurred during the creation of that government.

The courts determined the validity of those patents, recognizing each actual acquisition as being valid, but reconciling the differences by finding that the first patent, properly secured with all the necessary requisite acts fulfilled, carried the title. The other patents and the necessary requisition, a new patent each time, yielded the phrase “lapsed patent,” a lapsed patent being one that must be required to perfect the title. Id. Subsequent patentees take subject to any reservations in the original patent. State v. Crawford, 441 P.2d 586, 590 (1968).

A patent regularly issued by the government is the best and only evidence of a perfect title. The actual patent should be secured to place at rest any question as to validity of entries (possession under a claim and color of title). Young v. Miller, 125 So.2d 257, 258 (1960). Under the color of title act, the Secretary of Interior may be required to issue a patent if certain conditions have been met, and the freeholder and his predecessors in title are in peaceful, adverse possession under claim and color of title for more than a specified period. Beaver v. United States, 350 F.2d 4, cert. denied, 387 U.S. 937 (1965).

A description that will identify the lands (and possession) is all that is necessary for the validity of the patent, Lossing v. Shull, 173 S.W.2d 1, 1 Mo. 342 (1943). A patent to two or more persons creates presumptively a tenancy in common in the patentees. Stoll v. Gottbreht, 176 N.W. 932, 45 N.D. 158 (1920). A patent to be the original grantee or his legal representatives embrace the representatives by contract as well as by law. Reichert v. Jerome H. Sheip, Inc., 131 So. 229, 222 Ala. 133 (1930).

A patent has a double operation. In the first place, it is documentary evidence having the dignity of a record of the evidence of the title or such equities respecting the claim as to justify its recognition and later confirmation. In the second place, it is a deed of the United States or a title deed. As a deed, its operation is that of a quitclaim or rather of a conveyance of such interest as the United States possess in the land, such interest in the land passing to the people or sovereign freeholders. 63 Am. Jur. 2d Section 97, p. 566.

Finally, the United States Supreme Court, in Summa Corporation v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission, etc., 80 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984), made determinations as to the validity of a patent confirmed by the United States through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 9 Stat. 631 (1951). The State of California attempted to acquire land that belonged to the corporation. The State maintained that there was a public trust easement granting to the State authority to take the land without compensation for public use. The corporation relied in part on the intent of the treaty, in part on the intent of the patent and the statute creating it, and in part in the requisite challenge date of the patent expiring.

The Summa Court followed the lengthy dissertation of the dissenting judge on the California Supreme Court (see 31 Cal. 3d 288, dissenting opinion), in determining that the patent, which had been the apparent operative title throughout the years, was paramount and that the actions by the State were against the manifest weight of the Treaty and the legislative intent of the patent statutes. According to each of these cases, the patent, through possession, or claim and color of title, or through the term “his heirs and assigns forever,” or through the necessary passage of title at the death of a joint tenant or tenant in common, is still the operable title and is required to secure the peaceful control of the land.

These same ideas can also apply to state patents for lands that went to the state or remained in the hands of the state upon admission into the Union. Oliphant v. Frazho, 146 N.W.2d 685, 686,687 (1966); Fiedier v. Pipers, 107 So.2d 409, 411-412 (1958) (Not even the State could be heard to question the validity of a patent signed by the Governor and the Register of the State Land Office.)

No government can object to the intent and creation of a patent after such is issued, unless issued through fraud or mistake. The patent, either federal or state, has an intent to create sovereign freeholders in the land protected from the speculators (any lending institution speculates upon land), and a public policy to maintain a simplistic, stable and permanent system of land records. Land patents were designed to effectively insure that this intent and policy were retained. Colors of title cannot provide this type of stability since such titles are powerless against liens, mortgages, when the freeholder is unable to repay principle and interest on the accompanying promissory note. Equity will entertain jurisdiction at the instance of the owner of fee of lands to remove a cloud upon his title created by the sale of the premises and a deed issued thereto under a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon. Hodgen v. Guttery, 58 Free. (Il.) 431, 438 (1871) (Though this case dealt with an improper sale of land covered by a patent, any forced sales of lands covered by a patent is improper in view of the policy and intent of the Congress.)

Equity, however, will protect the mortgagee who stands to lose his interest in the property, thereby requiring a trust to be created until the debt is erased, making partners of the creditor and debtor. What then exists is a situation where the patent should be declared (confirmed or reissued) to protect the sovereign freeholder and to re-institute the policy and intent of Congress.

The patent as the paramount title, fee simple absolute, cannot be collaterally attacked, but when a debt cannot be paid, immediately placing the creditor in jeopardy, the courts will impose a constructive trust until the new “partners” can mutually eliminate the debt. If the debt cannot be satisfactorily removed, it is still possible, considering the present intent of the government, to maintain sovereign freeholders on the property, immune from the loss of the land, since it is Congress’ intent to keep the family farm in place.

The use of colors of title to act as the operative title is inappropriate, considering the rising number of foreclosures and the inability of the colors of title to restrain a mortgage or lien. However, the lending institutions, speculators on the land, maintain that the public policy of the country includes the eradication of the sovereign freeholders in the rural sector in an effort to implant large corporate holdings upon the country. This last area must be effectively met and eliminated.

To those who framed the Constitution, the rights of the States and the rights of the people were two distinct and different things. Throughout their debates, they had two objects foremost in their minds. First, create a strong and effective national government, and, second, protect the people and their rights from usurpation and tyranny by government.

The people’s liberties and individual rights and safeguards were to be kept forever beyond the control and dominion of the legislatures of the States, whom they distrusted, and against whom they so carefully guarded themselves. If such control and domination and unlimited powers were given to a few legislatures, they could override every one of the reserved rights covered by the first ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights); they could change the government of limited powers to one of unlimited powers; they could declare themselves hereditary rulers; they could abolish religious freedoms; they could abolish free speech and the right of the people to petition for redress; they could not only abolish trial by jury, but even the rights to a day in court; and most importantly they could abolish free sovereign ownership of the land.

The whole literature of the period of the adoption of the Constitution and the first ten amendments is one of great testimony to the insistence that the Constitution must be so amended as to safeguard unquestionably the rights and freedoms of the people so as to secure from any future interference by the new government matters the people had not already given into its control, unless by their own consent. United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 723-726 (1930)

The problem has not been in the lending institutions that simply practice good business on their part. The problem in the loss of freedoms by this present interference with allodial sovereign ownership lies with the state legislatures that created law or marketable title acts, that claimed to enact new simplistic, stable land titles and actually created a watered-down version of the fee simple absolute that requires complicated tracing and protection, and is ineffective against mortgage foreclosures.

None of these problems would occur if the patent were the operable title again, as long as the sovereigns recognized the powers and disabilities of their fee simple title. The patent was meant to keep the sovereign freeholder on the land, but the land was also to be kept free of debt, since that debt was recognized in 1820 as un-repayable and today is un-repayable.

The re-declaration of the patent is essential in the protection of the rural sector of sovereign freeholders, but also essential is the need to impress the state legislatures that have strayed from their enumerated powers with the knowledge that they have enacted laws that have defeated the intent and goal of man since the Middle Ages. That intent, of course, is to own a small tract of land absolutely, whether by land-bloc or patent, on which the freeholder is beholden to no lord or superior. The patent makes sovereign freeholders of each person who own his/her land. A return to the patent must occur if those sovereign freeholders wish to protect that land from the encroachment of the state legislatures and the speculators that benefit from such legislation.

They certainly cannot be the other forty-eight States united by and under the Constitution, because Alaska and Hawaii at that point in time had just joined the Union, right? The same definitions apply to the Social Security Act. So, what is left? Answer: the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, etc. These are the States of (i.e. belonging to) the “United States” and which are under its sovereignty and exclusive political jurisdiction. Do not confuse this term with States of the Union, because the word “of” means “belonging to” in this context.

Congress can also change the definition of “United States” for two sentences and then revert back to the definition it used before these two sentences. This is proven in Public Law 86-624, page 414, under School Operation Assistance in Federally Affected Areas. Affected Areas, section (d)(2):

The fourth sentence of such subsection is amended by striking out ‘in the continental United States (including Alaska)’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘(other than Puerto Rico, Wake Island, Guam, or the Virgin Islands)’ and by striking out ‘continental United States’ in clause (ii) of such sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ‘United States’ (which for purposes of this sentence and the next sentence means the fifty States and the District of Columbia). The fifth sentence of such subsection is amended by striking out ‘continental’ before ‘United States’ each time it appears therein and by striking out ‘including Alaska.’

This one section, standing alone and by the words of its construction, contains all the evidence needed to prove that the term “United States” on either side of these sentences do not mean the fifty States united by and under the Constitution. If that is not convincing, then see the following:

26 C.F.R. 31.3121(e) 1 -1 State, United States, and citizen.

(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “State” includes [in its restrictive form] the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states, (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes [in its expansive form] Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes [in its restrictive form] a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa. [Emphasis added]

Alaska and Hawaii fit the definition of “State” only before joining the Union. That means that the definition of “State” was never meant to be the forty-eight, now fifty, States of the Union unless distinctly expressed.

If paragraph (b) clouds men’s mind, the following is submitted:

The word “geographical” was never used in tax law until Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union, and it is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. So, we must use the definition found in the Standard Random House Dictionary:

ge.o.graph.i.cal 1. of or pertaining to geography 2. or pertaining to the natural features, population, industries, etc., of a region or regions.

Were you born in the “United States”? The preposition “in” shows that the “United States” in this question is a place, a geographical place named “United States.” It is singular, even though it ends in “s.” It also can be plural when referring to the Union States, which are places that exist by agreement.

Every human in a nation is a natural Citizen of a place called a nation if he was born in that nation. Those same people must be naturalized (born again) if they want to become a citizen of another nation. Original citizenship exists because of places, not agreements. This is what is referred to as Jus soli, the law of the place of one’s birth.^ae Here are two questions, your own answers to which will prove the status distinction. In a geographical sense, where is the State of Minnesota located on the American Continent? In a geographical sense, where is the “United States” (Congress) located on the American Continent?

Additional supporting argument is found in legislation written by Congress to solve a problem caused by the admission of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union. Since typewriters were purchased by the government from the areas that had just joined the Union, namely Alaska and Hawaii, according to Title 1 USC, Congress was required to use a term that is NOT used in the Internal Revenue Code, in order to buy the same typewriters from the same geographical area:

Sec. 45. Title 1 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1960, is amended by striking out the words “for the purchase within the continental limits of the United States of any typewriting machines” and inserting in lieu thereof:

for the purchase within the STATES OF THE UNION AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF ANY TYPEWRITING MACHINES. [Emphasis added]

The Supreme Court obviously understands the distinction of citizenship for purposes of declarations made under penalties of perjury. The Court approved the statute^af which separately defines declarations to be made by citizens made WITHIN and WITHOUT the “United States” as follow:

If executed WITHOUT the United States: I declare … under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. [Emphasis added]

If executed WITHIN the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare … that the foregoing is true and correct. [Emphasis added]

The latter declaration above is the declaration found on IRS Form 1040 and similar IRS forms.

And, 28 USC 1603(a)(3) states as follows:

(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c] and (d) of this title …

Section 1332(d):

The word “States” as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Examples of Two Definitions of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C.

First Definition:

Title 26 U.S.C. 7701(a) (9):

(9) United States. – The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Second Definition:

Title 26 U.S.C. 4612(a)(4)(A):

(A) In general. – The term “United States” means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. [Emphasis added]

The Supreme Court clarified the issue in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsey,^ag stating that the District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore it is apparent that the meaning of the term “States” in the first definition above can mean only the territories and possessions belonging to the “United States” because of the specific mention of the District of Columbia and the specific omission of the fifty States.^ah The District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution; therefore, the fifty States are specifically excluded from this first definition of the term “United States.”

Congress has no problem naming the “fifty States” when it is legislating for them, so, in the second definition of the term “United States” above, Congress expressly mentions them and there is no misunderstanding. If a statute in 26 U.S.C. does not have a special “word of art” definition for the term “United States,” then the first Definition of the term “United States” is always used (see above) because of the general nature of that term as defined by Congress. English Grammar is inflexible and any use of the language in violation of the law of grammar is a fraudulent use of the English language. The total abandonment of grammatical discipline may be found in many of the Internal Revenue Services Forms.^ai

When citizens or residents of the first “United States” are without the geographical area of this first “United States,” their “compensation for personal services actually rendered” is defined as “foreign earned income.”^aj

911(b) Foreign Earned Income.

911(d)(2) Earned Income.

(A) In general. – The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

A citizen or resident of the first “United States” does not pay a tax on his “compensation for personal services actually rendered” while residing outside of the first “United States” because Congress has exempted all such compensation from taxation under 26 U.S.C., Section 911(a)(1), which reads as follows:

911(a) Exclusion from Gross Income. – … [T]here shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation … [1] the foreign earned income of such individual. …

When residing without (outside) this “United States,” the citizen or resident of this “United States” pays no tax on “foreign earned income” but is required to file a return, claiming the exemption.^ak (Exhibit # )

Title 26 C.F.R., Section 871-13 (c) permits the District citizen to abandon his citizenship or residence in the “United States” by residing elsewhere.

Title 26 C.F.R. Section 1.911-2(g) defines the term “United States” as follows:

(g) United States. The term United States, when used in a geographical sense, includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States. It includes the states [Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc.], the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, the territorial waters of the United States, the airspace over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law.

This term “state” evidently does not embrace one of the fifty States of which Plaintiff is a free inhabitant, united by the Constitution, because they are separate governments or foreign states with respect to the “United States,” District of Columbia, its territories, possessions and enclaves. None of the fifty united States comes under the sovereignty of the “United States” and subsection (h) defines the fifty States united by the Constitution as “foreign countries”:

(h) Foreign country. The term “foreign country,” when used in a geographical sense, includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.^al

All of the fifty States are foreign with respect to each other and are under the sovereignty of their respective Legislatures, except where a power has been expressly delegated to Congress. The Citizens of each Union State are foreigners and aliens with respect to another Union State unless they establish a residence therein under the laws of that Union State. Otherwise, they are non-resident aliens with respect to all the other Union States.

The regulations at 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1 (a) state, in pertinent part:

(a) General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a non-resident alien individual.

Title 26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes a tax on “taxable income” as follows, in pertinent part:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of … every married individual … who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013 …

The regulations promulgated to explain 26 U.S.C. Section 1 are found in26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1, and state in pertinent part:

(a) General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a non-resident alien individual.

Please note that the term “taxable income” is not used as such in the above statute because the “income” of those classes of individuals mentioned is taxable as “taxable income”.

Section 1.871 Classification and manner of taxing alien individuals

(a) Classes of aliens. For purposes of the income tax, alien individuals are divided generally into two classes, namely, resident aliens and non-resident aliens.

(b) Classes of non-resident aliens. (1) In general. For purposes of the income tax, non-resident alien individuals are divided into the following three classes:

(i) Non-resident alien individuals who at no time during the taxable year are engaged in a trade or business in the United States,

(ii) Non-resident alien individuals who at any time during the taxable year are, or are deemed under Section 1.871-9 to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States, and

(iii) Not Applicable (concerns residents of Puerto Rico)

Title 26 C.F.R., Section 871-13 states as follows:

(a) In general. (1) An individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States at the beginning of the taxable year but a non-resident alien at the end of the taxable year, or a non-resident alien at the beginning of the taxable year but a citizen or resident of the United States at the end of the taxable year, is taxable for such year as though his taxable year were comprised of two separate periods, one consisting of the time during which he is a citizen or resident of the United States and the other consisting of the time during which he is not a citizen or resident of the United States.

Beginning in 1933 the federal and state governments switched from common law into Equity/Admiralty, because the country was bankrupt, as we have no more gold.

Being that the sovereign, the natural person with the Christian appellation written in upper and lowercase letters, was distinct and separate from the citizen subject of the government, they had to give the natural person the same benefit or the same privilege or right on the other side in equity as given to legal fictions. And that person was described in statute as a non-resident alien, someone who is not subject to the jurisdiction.

These are terms out of Black’s Law Dictionary. So when the person reads the law, he must read it in terms of Black’s or another law dictionary and not in terms of Webster’s, because the words mean something totally different.

The legal fiction is the person whose name is spelled in all capital letters, and that person is described as a vessel of the United States. You will locate that in the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, available in most law libraries. In section 11.7 of the Manual, it says:

Names of vessels are quoted in matters printed in other than lowercase roman.

It examples a vessel written in all capital letters.

A vessel of the United States has been defined in Title 18, §9:

Vessels of the United States defined.

The term vessel of the United States as used in this title means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States or any State or Territory or district or possession.

Insurance, which is social security, is under admiralty law jurisdiction.

Benedict on Admiralty, Admiralty Law, Title 22 - Foreign Relations, Sub-chapter I, Shipping and Seamen, Part 81 - General, 22 CFR. A7 §81.1, Definitions.

(b) ‘American vessel’ means any United States-owned vessel, which is not registered under the laws of a foreign government, vessels of the United States, and American undocumented vessels.

(c) ‘American public vessel’ means any vessel owned or operated by a United States Government department or agency and engaged exclusively in official business on a non-commercial basis.

(d) ‘Vessel of the United States’ means any vessel documented under the laws of the United States.

(e) ‘American undocumented vessel’ means any American vessel, other than an American public vessel, which is not documented under the laws of the United States. …

(f ) ‘Foreign vessel’ means any foreign-owned vessel, or any vessel regardless of ownership, which is documented under the laws of a foreign country.

(i) ‘Seaman’ means any person employed as a member of the crew of a vessel.

(k) ‘Alien seaman’ means a seaman of foreign nationality who does not have status as an American seaman.

22 CFR, A7 §81.3, Status of Vessels of the United States.

Vessels documented under the laws of the United States are entitled to privileges and subject to the obligations prescribed by the laws of the United States for merchant vessels. The type of privileges and obligations appertaining to such vessels depends upon the form and the purpose of their documentation.

22 CFR, A7 §81.4, Status of American Undocumented Vessels.

American undocumented vessels are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and consequently are not subject to the obligations nor entitled to the protection accorded vessels of the United States abroad. However, such vessels are entitled to the same degree of protection accorded any other property abroad owned by United States citizens.

This typically describes a vessel that is registered, enrolled or licensed. So anyone who is licensed, or registered, is considered a vessel, belonging in whole or in part to the United States. All would be under Admiralty Jurisdiction.

When a person signs up for social security, he is creating a vessel in all capital letters. When you walk into the social security office, you have to have a birth certificate.

The History and System of the Common Law states in pertinent part regarding persons:

In law, PERSONALITY means capacity of having, acquiring and exercising rights, using the term in its widest sense. A legal person is an entity having interests which the law recognizes and secures, or, as it is commonly put, a subject of rights. The type is the individual human being as a natural person and in modern law every human being as a natural person has also a legal personality.

A Juristic personality begins when the legal requirements for recognition of a group of associates as a legal person have been fulfilled, and the law in consequence clothes the association with the capacity of exercising a legal control over or influence upon the acts of others. Natural personality, the legal personality of the individual human being, begins upon birth and survival of birth.

When you get your birth certificate that is when the person with the three names comes into existence; that is your remedy in equity.

If a person were to put all of his property under the name on the birth certificate, that is written in upper and lowercase letters, that person’s property would be protected and, if he doesn’t use a social security number, he and his property will be protected from the government, because that is considered in law as a foreign situs trust.

In Black’s, under “trust,” a subsection describes “foreign situs trust” as:

A trust which owes its existence to foreign law. It is treated for tax purposes as a non-resident alien individual.

Many of us in this movement have heard that expression. But what we didn’t know is that it is a trust, because all of equity is a trust.

Two types of birth certificates are issued. One is titled a “Certificate of Live Birth.” It has the name written in upper and lowercase letters. Another is titled a “Certification of Vital Records.” It is written in all upper case letters. So when babies are born and get social security numbers, they very seldom get Certificates of Live Birth, they get Certifications of Vital Records, and the person identified on it in all capital letters is considered a vessel of the United States owned in whole or in part by the United States. That is the Juristic Personality or legal fiction created by the government.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States created the status of “person.” There are two constitutions. One is based upon law, and one is based on equity. They re-wrote the Constitution shortly after the Civil War, creating our constitution under equity.

There are many who go around arguing that a lot of the laws of the United States are unconstitutional; however, that is patriot mythology.

Constitution, Article III, section 2, says:

The judicial powers shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and the treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

The social security is under admiralty law, so that is constitutional. Equity is constitutional as well. They can operate in equity, and equity is voluntary and by contract.

The following explains the agency relationship that we have with all these government agencies. It says they are all contractual.

3 American Jurisprudence 2d, under agency, section one.

The term ‘agency’ means a fiduciary relationship by which a party confides to another the management of some business to be transacted in the former name or on his account, and by which such other assumes to do the business and render an account of it. It has also been defined as a fiduciary relationship, which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control and consent by the other so to act. Thus the term agency in its legal sense always imports commercial or contractual dealings between two parties by and through a medium of another.

Hence, the commerce clause has been used in regulating peoples’ activities, since all these arrangements of agency are contractual or commercial in nature.

The 14th amendment refers to a person being born subject to the jurisdiction. When you look up the word “born” you will find that it describes “delivery” – when the res is transferred constructively over to another party (the “res” meaning the thing or the person, the property or future rights to property).

We are looking at some very fundamental relationships in the law which are crucial to our understanding if we want to be free, and you are convinced that the law still embodies freedom and that it can still be exercised. I guess that remains to be seen.

The problem remains that, if you don’t know your proper status or rights, you don’t have any. When legislative bodies pass a statute, they always must create a remedy to that statute in law, because this is still a free country.

Don’t worry too much about the laws that are being passed; just concern yourself with the remedy because the majority of the laws being passed pertain to persons or entities in personam. It doesn’t refer to the natural person. You will discover that in personam is always in capital letters, and that is the way they always invite you – your name written in all capital letters. You will see that on your driver’s license, your credit cards, when you do business with corporations, and in any court actions.

Patriot mythology says that if you cross the bar in the courtroom you granted jurisdiction. You actually granted jurisdiction when you signed up for social security. That is when you changed your name. Trust law states that whenever title is transferred, a trust is created by operation of law, or whenever money is transferred, it is the operation of law. A trust is automatically created. That is stated in Am. Jur. under trusts.

The 13th amendment states, “… neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. …” Those are prohibitions; there is no option. It says nothing regarding voluntary servitude: that is your choice. If you contract to be in voluntary servitude, that is your choice.

Then the 14th Amendment, following immediately on the tail of the 13th amendment, reads – “… born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction …”

When you fill out forms, they always ask if you are a citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Jurisdiction is the modern word for allegiance, which is a feudal term meaning relationship to the land or the liege.

So are you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as a citizen of the United States and of the state in which you reside?

The term “residence in a state” is not citizenship of a state. It is something less, usually commercial in nature. So on government applications, job applications, etc., they ask if you are a U.S. citizen and they ask for a residence address.

The combination of being a citizen of the United States and a resident in a state means you are volunteering to be treated as though you are a second-class citizen – property of the United States.

When the term “United States” is used in the US Code, it usually refers to territories and possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. “Citizen of the United States” is defined in the Code as being someone from Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. You can find that at 20 CFR, §404.1004, Part 4:

Citizens of the United States includes citizens of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

When one person delivers money to another for a specific purpose, the transaction becomes a trust. So it is axiomatic that whenever title is transferred, a trust is automatically created. It is by operation of law, and it is an express trust because you went requesting to have it done. You walked in with your birth certificate, the one in upper and lowercase letters and you transferred title, and from then on you were known, not as the named person on the birth certificate, but as the person in all capital letters.

That “person” comes into existence with signing the SS-5 application for the social security account which states, “Your card will show your full middle and last name unless you show otherwise.” So however you write it on the application – if you use three names, two names or initial – that is the way it will show on your card in all capital letters. So now you have asked the government to step in and take a fiduciary responsibility over the property of the trust. The property of the trust is you.

You will find in 26 CFR, §301.7701-6, Definitions, Persons, Fiduciary.

You are the corpus of the trust that you created by the signing of the SS-5 application, and you authorized the government to be the Trustee of the Trust. That is why when people go into court, they can not understand why they are not being treated as a sovereign citizen in common law under an Article III court and they do not get any justice – because they are in equity, not in law, and they are the property that is being administered.

26 CFR, section 301.7701-6, Definitions, Persons, Fiduciary. Fiduciary distinguished from an agent. There may be a fiduciary relationship between an agent and a principal. …

The principal is the person who walks in and signs up with the government. The agent or the representative is the IRS, so forth.

But the word “agent” does not denote a fiduciary. An agent having an entire charge of property with authority to effect and execute leases and tenants. …

Remember, we are tenants on our own property and we are leasing it.

Entirely on his own responsibility and without consulting the principal (you), merely turning over the net proceeds from the property periodically to the principal by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by a power of attorney.

People need to realize the power of attorney is the 1040 form.

26 CFR, §601.503 gives the description of a power of attorney:

Requirements of a Power of Attorney, Signatures, Fiduciary’s and Commissioner’s authority to substitute other requirements.

This describes what a power of attorney consists of. The 1040 fits the description. It has everything the power of attorney must have; that is where we gave them the power of attorney.

One of the reasons we can not get any remedy is because we do not address the issue of the power of attorney. Where others have revoked it, they have not done it on the proper form. The Paper Reduction Act states you have to use their form when a remedy is provided.

The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the constitution to administer the judicial powers of the United States therein conferred. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that compact. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 US. 298.

That is the reason people do not get justice; they are in the wrong court. The proper court to go into is the “district court of the United States,” small “d,” small “c,” and that is the law side of the court. However, to get into that court your status must be correct.

26 CFR, §1.676A-1, Power to revest title to portions of the trust property in grantor; general rule. If a power to revest in the grantor title to any portion of a trust is exercisable by the grantor or non-adverse party or both, without the approval or consent of an adverse party. …

That is the government. So you have the power to revoke the power of attorney and revest and to terminate. You must do this on a government form.

The name in all capital letters, however it is written, is the vessel of the United States, and that is the trust. That is created where the government owns that in part and you own part of it. What they always come after is their part. That puts you in a fiduciary relationship for their part of this trust.

Your first and last name is written in upper and lowercase letters, the way a proper noun is supposed to be written. That consists of two names. You will find that under “name” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1023.

The name on the birth certificate with the three names written in upper and lowercase letters is the foreign situs trust because equity deals only with trusts. Trusts came out of equity. You do not put periods, comas, colons, semi-colons or anything else, because every time you do something like that, it is not the way it is written on the original birth certificate you change the meaning of it. That is what they mean by title or appellation. Whenever you do something that is distinctive and different, you change the meaning of it.

The next name is the name written in upper and lowercase letters with an initial. That person comes into being on the W-4 form. The W-4 form says, “Write your first name, middle initial and last name.” That is the trustee who turns over the res to the federal government, because a trust is created whenever property or money or title is transferred, and that is automatic.

There is another name, which is a corporate name, but we are not dealing with corporations. You can have a corporation named after yourself, and that is a separate entity, too. That is in all capital letters. Most corporations are vessels of the United States, and that is why whenever you see “in personam,” in personam is contractual, and the contract that got you into this was the SS-5 SSA application.

Statutes at Large, Volume 48, 73rd Congress, Session 2, Chapter 756, June 26, 1934. Under that section you will find that the trust is called #62 Puerto Rico Special Fund Internal Revenue. So Title 26 contains the laws of the trust. In fact, all the titles are the laws of the trust.

The funds appearing on the books of the government and listed in subsection (b) and (c) of this section, shall be classified on the books of the Treasury as trust funds. All monies accruing to these funds are hereby appropriated and shall be disbursed in compliance with the terms of the trust. Hereafter, monies received by the government as trustee analogous to these funds named in section (b) and (c) of this section and not otherwise herein provided for …

It gives the names of quite a few of the trusts, and #62 is the Puerto Rican Trust.

Another section people want to look at is Title 31 Money and Finance, sub-chapter 2, Administrative, §321, General Authority of the Secretary, and #2 under that says:

For purposes of the federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph 1 shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

So all the monies that are given to the United States are from the trust and they are gifts, because the trust that is created on the social security account is a charitable trust, and the government is not taxing the individual; they are taxing the trust because they cannot tax the flesh and blood person without apportionment. So they are obeying the law, but we don’t know what the law says.

Legal name. Under common law, consists of one Christian name and one surname, and the insertion, omission, or mistake in middle name or initial is immaterial. The legal name of an individual consists of a given or baptismal name usually assumed at birth and a surname deriving from the common name of the parents. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 896.

A person who is the non-resident alien, or the person who is neither a citizen nor resident of the United States, sui juris, is the Christian appellation or the legal name (legal as opposed to equity).

The reason why I believe that is because it is that individual who is not under a legal incapacity. The common law person is sui juris, outside of equity, so he is the only one that can do this procedure. Another thing is the address must be written in a foreign address because it is the law of domicile which determines what laws are going to be applicable.

Most people, unfortunately, don’t know how they were born subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Look up “born” in the dictionary. We are thinking in terms of Webster’s Dictionary, not in terms of the legal definitions, which mean something totally different. When you look up “born,” you find the word “deliver.” When you look up “delivery,” it is when the res of your trust, the birth certificate (written in upper and lowercase letters, not the one that is now in capital letters on the bank paper), is transferred constructively to the Federal government.

In Am Jur, under “trust,” it says that whenever title or property is transferred, a trust is automatically created by operation of law, regardless of the intent of the parties. So, when you applied for a Social Security Card and signed an SS-5 application with your birth certificate in upper and lowercase letters, you transferred title, you created this new entity in all capital letters, the Straw Man, Juristic Personality or legal fiction.

The proper designation in law for the straw man is found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1142, definitions of “persons.” To understand this even further, Black’s uses the word “entity.” When you look up “entity,” it is defined on page 532 as “a real being, existence, an organization or being that possesses separate existence for tax purposes.” So they got you to create this separate being, this so-called straw man, person, entity, corporation, trust, partnership, whatever, so they could tax that. That is the entity they are taxing because they have no legal authority to tax the individual. The 16th Amendment gave them no new authority to tax anybody.

The law says that when you do this, you are responsible for that vessel or entity – the legal fiction. As an example, if you own a car, that is considered in their law to be a vessel. That is because they brought the admiralty law on shore so the government could get jurisdiction, because the government is in admiralty jurisdiction. So if you have a car and it slips out of gear and hits another car, they are not going to drag the vessel in, which is in all capital letters; they are going to drag you in because you are responsible for that and you own it.

Some people seem to think we do not own this thing, and we do own it. The government owns it only constructively, not actually.

Title 26 USC, §676(a):

A grantor [that’s the guy who created this trust] shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust, whether or not he is treated as such owner under any other provision of this part, where, at any time, the power to revest in the grantor title to such portion is exercisable by the grantor or non-adverse party, or both.

So the law says you have the power to change this situation and to revoke that situation at any time.

National Law Library, Volume IV, Business Law, by Nathan Isaac, talks about the different kinds of law that must be dealt with: contract, agency, corporation, and trusteeship. One not mentioned here is admiralty, which is insurance. That is where the Social Security comes in that puts us in admiralty. It says each one of those things must be dealt with, if you have contracts, on each level.

There is an agency relationship. If you look up “agency” in Black’s you’ll find that you hired the IRS to handle this account for you, and it is a power of attorney. If you do not revoke the power of attorney, then the attorney can come around your back and undo everything you have done.

Rocky Mountain News, November 13, 1995, in Colorado:

The power of attorney should not be given to another person lightly. It depends on the scope of the document. … If it is financial [the power of attorney], it can give the agent [the person who gets the power of attorney] the ability to rob you blind.

And that is what these guys are doing to us: they are robbing us blind.

Many patriots seem to be under the impression that you revoke the signature, but that is not correct. You revoke the instrument.

The UCC covers only two things: orders to pay and promises to pay. Murder does not come under that. It has been said that commerce is defined in Title 27 and that all crimes are commercial. That may be, but they are commercial because they are admiralty. What puts you in admiralty is the insurance program of social security. Insurance is under admiralty law. That is what gets us into commercial activity with the government, across state lines. All the crimes in Title 27 are under admiralty law because there are no common law crimes in the federal jurisdiction, so they all must be commercial. That is why they are commercial crimes, and what puts you in that jurisdiction is the contract.

20 CFR, §404.1004, part 3, American vessel means a vessel documented or numbered under the laws of the United States.

So that is what a vessel is. Remember, the vessel is the straw man. You will see that in the Government Style Manual (which you can get when you go to a law library, usually at the reference desk) which will tell you what a vessel of the United States is. On Benedict on Admiralty, and I already quoted where that is found, it says:

Status of vessels of the United States. Vessels documented under the laws of the United States are entitled to privileges and subject to the obligations described by the laws of the United States for merchant vessels.

22 CFR, §81.4 under Regulations, Appendix B-13, Status of American undocumented vessels.

American undocumented vessels are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and, consequently, are not subject to the obligations nor entitled to protections.

Here it is saying it is the documentation that gets you in trouble. Then if you want to find out what the number does, you go to 29 CFR, §783.41, which talks about the number of the vessels, and it says you are required to have a number if you are going to operate in admiralty waters, which is on their highways and their business and contracts – that it is not the number that gets you in trouble; it is the documentation.

Oddly enough, the government has a form to cancel the documentation of the SS-5 application. They think it is very important to cancel the application. It says nothing about the number. When you apply for Social Security, it does not say on the SS-5 that you are applying for a number; it says you are applying for a card, or the documentation. …

So unless you get rid of the documentation, and there is a form to do that (however, it must be done in the correct way), then you are subject to the obligations. And if anyone wants to see what the documentation is, they even define what documentation is, and here it is. You will find it in the same thing, Benedict on Admiralty, section 783.41: “Numbered vessels.” And in it, it says it is not the number that does you in; you need a number to operate in admiralty.

So the straw man is a person, corporation, trust, and all those things, which are considered vessels or entities – real beings possessing separate existence for tax purposes. And you create that entity when you sign up for Social Security. That is when you created the straw man. You created it, they did not, and the law says you created this when you walked in and you transferred title. Another thing about the document of title: I believe there are two birth certificates. There is the one they give now, which is on the bank note paper. I believe that one you actually transfer title. The previous ones written in upper and lowercase letters are certificates of live birth, versus those new ones you get now, which are documents of title that you still hold, but what it says is you transferred it constructively. When you look up “delivery,” it says it is not actual transfer; it is constructive delivery of the trust. It is constructive, not actual, so you still have title. And at all times you have the power to revoke. Oddly enough, there is a law that says you can revoke this fiduciary relationship of principal and agent that you got yourself into.

You now have much of the story of the treason, which has been foisted upon you. It is now up to you.

THE END