Edward Mandell House had this to say in a meeting with Wodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921]
“[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 effect our security as a chargeback 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 non 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.” ................................................
John J Schlabach, EA.
17511 North Greenbluff Road Colbert, Washington 99005 Telephone (509) 238-4697 Fax (509) 238-4697
John Q. Citizen c/o 123 Main St. Anywhere, U.S.A.
May 18, 1997
Dear Mr. Citizen:
At your request I have researched the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 U.S.C.) relative to an individual income tax return. I cannot tell you not to file an income tax return unless you have no tax liability. Each person involved, on his/her own, must make this determination.
First let me tell you something about myself. I am an Enrolled Agent. Enrolled Agents are defined in the IRS Regulations Circular 230 as a person who has demonstrated technical competence in interpreting and administering the Internal Revenue Code and regulations thereunder. This person has passed a strenuous test in all areas of taxation administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Enrolled Agents are licensed by the Treasury Department and must continue to show proficiency in the tax laws and regulations with documented continuing professional education hours in order to maintain their licenses.
There are two important issues that you need to address. What is the subject of the tax? Where is the liability for that tax? These questions are addressed more in detail later in this research letter. Let us look at some statutes that might concern you. Lets start with the failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, as stated in section 7203 as follows.
IRC SECTION 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "5 years" for "1 year".
As you can see by the highlighted words there are two essential elements that must be present. First, you must be required to pay a tax, or be liable for paying a tax. This means it is a crime only if you are a person required by law or regulation to pay a tax, file a return or keep such records. It is, therefore, important to determine if you are a person "required" to perform these functions. This will be the first subject discussed in this letter.
The government has to prove these elements in order to subject you to punishment. They must first prove you had "taxable income", that you are "liable" for a tax, and that the "liability" made you a "required person." If any of these elements cannot be proven, you cannot be subject to punishment.
Let's first see whether or not you are a "person liable." To start with, I look at the two code sections that address this issue under: Title 5, Section 552a(e)(3) [The Privacy Act], and Title 44, Section 3504(c)(3)(C) [The Paperwork Reduction Act].
The Privacy Act states that the Agency requesting information to:
(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual
(A) the authority (Ether granted by statute, or by executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used; (C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and
(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information...
The Paperwork Reduction Act states that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must include with his/her information request:
".... a statement to inform the person reviewing the request why the information is being collected, how it is to be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory..."
Now, here we have two statutes directing the government to tell us whether giving the IRS an income tax return is voluntary or mandatory. The IRS responds to the directives of the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice with the following statement:
"Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code section 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."
I have to point out to you that the IRS again uses the word "liable for".
Now, let's look at the Internal Revenue Code to see what it has to say. The two sections 6001 and 6011 follow as written in the code of 1994.
SECTION 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).
SECTION 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list
(a) General ruleWhen required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.
In these two sections we are instructed to file a return or statement for any tax we are liable for. Indeed, Section 6001 refers to "Every person liable for any tax imposed by [The Internal Revenue Code]..." and Section 6011 refers to "...any person made liable for any tax imposed by [The Internal Revenue Code]...". But, as you can see, nowhere in either of these two sections are we told who is liable for, in this case, the income tax. The government has , in effect, told us that a response is mandatory if we are liable for the tax, but neglected to tell us whether or not we are liable for the tax. The government has been very explicit in telling us that a response, either a return or statement, is mandatory for any tax that we are liable for; however, the government has remained silent in telling us who is liable for the tax. Thus, even after reading the government's official notices under the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act, we still do not know if an income tax return is required of us. In my opinion, by maintaining silence on this central issue, the government has not complied with either the spirit or the letter of the law of the two Acts. This opinion is shared by courts as well:
" 'Silence' is species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question... When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud...it will operate as an estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen 64 AT. 932 .
Since the government has not told you whether you are required to file an income tax return, you have asked me to research this matter. Since you must be a "person liable" to be a "person required", lets address this issue.
The right to tax comes from the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which authorizes the federal government to impose two broad categories of taxes: direct taxes under Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 9, and indirect taxes under Article I, Section 8. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States.
Briefly, a direct tax is a tax on an ownership interest which the owner cannot pass on, while an indirect tax is on an event where the transaction and the impact of the tax can be passed on, in whole or in part, to others. In order for a tax to fall into the indirect tax category the individual liable for the tax cannot be the ultimate, final consumer. This is so since the one paying the tax can then add it on to the price of the thing being taxed and recover it (pass it on) when it is sold. The ultimate, final consumer would have no way to recover (pass on) the tax, so any tax which the ultimate, final consumer is liable for would be a direct tax based on an ownership interest.
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects...,"Pack v Lowe, 247 U.S. 165. "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..." Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 US. 103, at 112.
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence in charter powers to the State, but the individual's right to live and own property are natural Rights for which an excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.
"Neither can the tax be sustained on the [natural] person, measured by income. Such a tax would be, by nature, a capitation rather than an excise. "Peck v Lowe, 247 US. 165. (emphasis added).
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporate excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The individual worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors merely an equal exchange of funds for services. "Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.. 240 US. 1, 17, 36 S. CT. 236, 241.
"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability" Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).
"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2d 575.
Also, please note the voluntary nature of Social Security or the use of the W-4? The only place in the code that addresses the Social Security issue is in Title 26 U.S.C. subtitle C, chapter 21(Social Security Tax Act) of the Internal Revenue Code starting in subchapter A. Subtitle C includes sections 3101 through 3510 of Title 26 U.S.C..
The first issue is whether subtitle C is relative/jurisdictional to you. To make this determination please note in Subtitle C, at subchapter c, §3121, which has specific definitions which relate to Social Security. In this jurisdictional section at 3121(e) State,
United States and citizen reads as follows:
3121(e) State, United States, And Citizen
For purposes of this chapter-
3121(e)(1) State
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
3121(e)(2) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.
The jurisdiction in this section is very specific as you can see.
Because there is no section that makes it mandatory in the 50
Union States it must be voluntary for citizens in these States.
2) The 50 states.
The principal difference in the jurisdictions is that the Constitution
of the United States of America has to be strictly adhered to in
making laws that affect the 50 states. However in Washington,
D.C., enclaves and territories, Congress has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction,
which means they can make any law they want to; The
Constitution is not considered. (Article 1, Section 8 U.S. Const). See
also CAHA v U.S. 152 U.S. 211:
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of
Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the
territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of
Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the national government."
DOWNES v. BIDWELL 182 U.S. 244 is also very explicit:
"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to
the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over
which Congress had exclusive legislative authority."
The Supreme Court has ruled consistently on this issue ever since
America's inception. In fact, the latest case was U.S. v. LOPEZ
115 S. CT. 1624 (1995). The Court ruled a law applicable in
Washington, D.C. was not applicable in San Antonio, Texas, because
it did not conform to Constitutional restrictions.
Since an income tax is a tax on income created by a transaction
which is (and must be) directly associated with, or effectively
connected with, some particular type of revenuetaxable
"privileged" activity [i.e. alcohol, firearms, tobacco, or other
privileged activity or excise], the Internal Revenue Code and its
implementing and controlling federal regulations must specify the
particular type or kind of tax arising from a revenuetaxable,
privileged activity that makes one a "person liable" or "made
liable". For example, Internal Revenue Code Section 5005
establishes that liability for the tax on distilled spirits is placed on
the distiller or the importer. Section 5043 places the liability for
the tax, from wine, on the proprietor of the bonded wine cellar or
on the importer. Section 5703 places the liability for the tax on
cigars and cigarettes on the manufacturer or importer. Also, to be
classified as an indirect tax, the individual liable for the tax must
not be the ultimate, final consumer.
In support of this, look at some closely related taxes. Section
2502(c) establishes liability for the gift tax on the donor, the one
giving the gift, not the donee, the one receiving the gift.
Section 2002 establishes liability for the estate tax on the
executor, not on the inheritors receiving the property. "Section
2002, liability for payment. The tax imposed by this chapter shall
be paid by the executor."
Since you must be liable for an income tax on your own income,
neither section 6001 nor section 6011 require you to file an
income tax return. However, I want to continue and discuss 6012,
which is the section many believe require income tax returns be
filed.
SECTION 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule Returns with respect to income taxes under
subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income
which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a
return shall not be required of an individual (i) Who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is
not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of
a household (as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year
has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount
plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(ii) Who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the
taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the
exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to
such an individual, (iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable
year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption
amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an
individual, or (iv) Who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross
income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is,
for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption
amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint
return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of
the taxable year, had the same household as their home.
To determine who must make returns lets see what type of taxes
can be assessed, by whom and for what classification of tax. For
this we must go to Section 6201 Assessment Authority, which
reads as follows:
Sec. 6201. Assessment Authority
6201(a) Authority Of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries,
determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest,
additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties)
imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal
revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time
and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to
and include the following:
6201(a)(1) Taxes Shown On Return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or
by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this
title.
6201(a)(2) Unpaid Taxes Payable By Stamp
Title 26 U.S.C. §6201 gives the secretary the authority to assess
taxes not duly paid by stamp or by the individual who has
assessed himself, ie: voluntary tax. Stamp taxes are associated
with subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code Title 26 or Title 27. Ie:
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Here, again, you have to determine
what activity you are involved in and does this activity pay taxes
by stamp.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
protects the freedom of speech and of the press. The freedom to
speak, you must understand, also involves the freedom not to
speak. If you do not have the right not to speak, (i.e. if the
government could compel you to speak) then you have no
freedom of speech. Since this right extends to printed and written
materials, you have a First Amendment Right not to fill out
government forms and not to give the government information.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
protects your privacy. You have a Fourth Amendment Right to
keep your personal financial affairs private, and not to voluntarily
give that information to the government. The Fourth Amendment
provides that if the government wants to examine your books and
records, a court order must be obtained. The mailing of a tax form
along with instructions on how to complete it is not, for Fourth
Amendment purposes, a valid order compelling a response.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
protects you as well, stating:
"No person shall . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself . . ."
The fifth amendment seems to apply only to criminal matters, but
the Supreme Court ruled in McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 US. 34, that
the fifth amendment "applies alike to criminal and civil
proceedings." Similar rulings have stated:
"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath
is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment. Sullivan v.
United States, 15 F. 2nd 809, and
'The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an
income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony
of a "witness" as that term is used herein.' Garner v. United
States, 424 US. 648.
Since you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself, and
since the Supreme Court has twice held that the filing of an
income tax return is an act of being a witness against one's self, it
follows that any statute compelling the filing of an income tax
return would violate the protections of the Fifth Amendment.
The effect of the government's actions has been noted by the
Supreme Court:
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the
surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only
appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waving their rights
due to ignorance." U.S. v. Minker, 350 US. 179, at 187.
Section 6012, moreover, specifies a condition that must be met
before the income tax return "shall be made". The individual has
to have "for the taxable year a gross income of the exemption
amount or more". Based on the following code sections, I will
show you where no individual has any item of gross income that
is includable:
First, look at the definition of "taxable year":
7701 (a) (23) Taxable year. The term "taxable year" means the
calendar year, or the fiscal year ending during such calendar year,
upon the basis of which the taxable income is computed under
subtitle A. "Taxable year" means, in the case of a return made for
a fractional part of a year under the provisions of subtitle A or
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the period for
which such return is made. (Section 441 (b) also defines Taxable
year: For purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable year"
means(1)"the taxpayer's annual accounting period").
The definition of "taxable year" is important since the law
requires that taxable income is to be computed on the basis of a
taxable year:
"Section 441(a) COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME Taxable income
shall be computed on the basis of the taxpayer's taxable year."
Now, let us look at the definition of "taxpayer" and "person":
Section 7701(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof (14) TAXPAYER The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to
any internal revenue tax.
(1) PersonThe term "person" shall be construed to mean and
include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association,
company or corporation. [Which is only an artificial, not a
natural, person / human being].
So, by substituting the term "person subject to any internal
revenue tax" for the term "taxpayer" in section 441(a), the
section requires the tax to be computed on the basis of the
taxable year of the person subject to the income tax. Using the
same substitution as above, you find:
"Section 451 (a) General rule. The amount of any item of gross
income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year
in which received by the taxpayer, unless, under the method of
accounting used in computing taxable income, such amount is to
be properly accounted for as of a different period.
The point is this: Taxable income is required to be computed on the
basis of the taxable year of the person subject to the income tax.
If the person does not have a liability, he cannot have a taxable
year in which any amount can be included.
Based on all of the above, it is my professional opinion, supported
by the Court in U.S. v. Flora, 362 US. 145, at 176, that the filing of
an individual income tax return is voluntary. Quoting the Court:
"Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and
payment, not upon distraint." U.S. v. Flora, id.
Also, by the testimony of Mr. Avis in the Internal Revenue
Investigation. "Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary
tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now,
the situation is as different as night and day." (Exhibit A)
You may be asking yourself, why is it that so many people file tax
returns each year? Let me give you a statement by Adolph Hitler.
"If you tell or report a lie often enough and long enough people
will eventually believe it." This is what has happened to the people
of the United States of America. Every year the IRS sends millions
of forms to people, along with instructions, on how to fill them
out. The people do not question the form nor do they determine if
there is a liability, but just fill in the lines and send them back
with whatever money the form requires. No one ever asks what
law requires them to fill out this form and does it apply to them.
Furthermore, the Privacy Act Notice says that the government
must tell you the effects, if any, of not filing the return. Until 1981,
the Privacy Act Notice read as follows: "If a return is not filed, or
if we don't receive the information we ask for, the law provides
that a penalty may be charged..." (the "penalty" being a penalty
for filing and paying the tax late). Since 1982, the Privacy Act
Notice has been revised, reading: "If you do not file a return, do
not provide the information we ask for, or provide fraudulent
information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties
and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution."
No mention was made in the previous Privacy Act Notice since it
only referred to not filing a return or providing information. Added
to the Privacy Act Notice in 1982 was a caution about "fraudulent
information" and "in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal
prosecution". Since it is true that filing a false or fraudulent return
is a crime under Code sections 7206 and 7207, the "certain cases"
referred to in the later Privacy Act Notice are undoubtedly cases
where a false or fraudulent return has been filed; however, the
Privacy Act Notice still has not told us that not filing a return is a
punishable offense.
If you remember, at the outset of this letter I said that in order
for the government to punish you for not filing an income tax
return, certain elements must be present: they must first prove
you had "taxable income"; then, they must prove that income
made you "liable" for a tax; next, they must prove that "liability"
made you a "required person", and lastly, that you failed to file a
"required return", and if any one of these elements cannot be
proven, you cannot be subject to punishment. The word "willfully",
when used in a criminal statute, means an act done with a bad
purpose. Felton v. United States, 96 US. 699: Potter v. United
States, 155 US. 438: Spurr v. United States, 174 US. 728, or
without justifiable excuse. Felton v. United States, supra;
Williams v. People, 26 Colo. 272, 57P. 701; People v. Jewell, 138
Mich. 620, 101 NW 835; St. Louis I. M. & S Ry. Co. v. Batesville & W.
Tel. Co., 80 Ark. 499, 97 SW 660; Clay v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 555, 107
SW 1129; or Stubbornly, obstinately, perversely. Wales v.
Miner, 89 Ind. 118, at 127; Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762;
109 S.E. 427; Claus v. Chicago Gt. W. Ry. Co., 136 Iowa 7, 111 N.W.
15; State v. Harwell, 129 N.C. 550; 40 S.E. 48. The word is also
employed to characterize a thing done without grounds for
believing it is lawful. Roby v. Newton, 121 Ga. 679, 49 S.E. 694,
or conduct marked by a careless disregard whether or not
one has the right so to act. United States v. Philadelphia & R.
Ry Co., 223 Fed. 207, at 210; State v. Savra, 129 Iowa 122; 105
N.W. 387; State v. Morgan, 136 N.C. 628, 48 S.E. 670.
Thus, since the government's Privacy Act Notice and Paperwork
Reduction Act Notice do not meet its intended purpose and does
not specifically say that filing an income tax return is required, the
courts have recognized that the word "willfully" in these statutes
generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known
legal duty. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US. 346. The Supreme Court has ruled
as recently as January 8, 1991, that a belief that one is not
required to file an income tax return, based upon professional
advice, precludes the "willfulness" requirement [Cheek v. U.S., 498
US. 192, at 207 (1991)].
To sum up, the government must prove that you have a liability
and they must disprove your claim that you believed filing an
income tax return was not required or is voluntary, and instead
prove that you intentionally did not file one. This is a decision that
you have to make on your own. If you have a tax liability you will
have to file a return.
With all the facts and evidence presented herein, you should have
no problem defending yourself should the government try to
criminally prosecute you for not filing an income tax return if you
have no liability.
I sincerely hope that all points have been clarified. If any
additional questions arise please do not hesitate to write me
again.
Sincerely,
John J Schlabach, Enrolled Agent
Enrollment # 50614
*******************
John J Schlabach, EA.
17511 North Greenbluff Road
Colbert, Washington 99005
Telephone (509) 238-4697
Fax (509) 238-4697
Mark and Catherine American
123 Main Street
Any Town, U.S.A.
May 27, 1997
Mr. and Mrs American;
At your request I have researched the Internal Revenue
Code, Title 26 U.S.C., regarding Seizures and Levies. The
questions you were concerned with were the procedures
for levying a private persons property. Some of which are:
Where does the IRS get it's authority without a court
order? Does the property have to be turned over without
a court order? Are the rights, as guaranteed by the United
States Constitution, violated?
About my experience, I am an Enrolled Agent. Enrolled
Agents are defined in the IRS Regulations Circular 230, as
a person who has demonstrated technical competence in
interpreting and administrating the Internal Revenue Code
and regulations thereunder. This person has withstood an
extensive background check as to moral and ethical
practices and has passed a strenuous test in all areas of
taxation administered by the Internal Revenue Service.
Enrolled Agents are licensed by the Treasury Department
and must continue to show proficiency in the tax laws and
regulations with documented continuing professional
education hours in order to maintain their licenses.
The IRS frequently serves levy notices on third parties
who may be holding your property. The IRS knows that all
of the notices of levy that are sent to you or your
employer are incorrect unless you are involved in a
privileged activity as noted at the end of this letter. The
primary reason is their has been no assessment, because
the IRS can not legally assess a Private Citizen who has
his/her income from only private sources.
Further, in reading the information as stated on the levy, a
person is required to turn over property because a tax
liability exists and the person named has refused to pay.
You cannot refuse to pay something that cannot exist.
There can be no assessment pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6201,
without this there can be no levy, this a is evidenced by
the court also as follows:
"In order to place a lien/levy against property, the IRS
must make a valid assessment of taxes pursuant to 26
U.S.C. §6203. After the assessment is made, the IRS must
send a §6212 "Notice of Deficiency" to the taxpayer. Then
the IRS must provide a "Notice and Demand for Payment"
of assessed tax as required by §6303(a). Only after full
compliance with these procedures, may the IRS take a lien
on the delinquent taxpayer's property." Brewer v. U.S., 764
F. Supp. 309, 315 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
There are two concepts for me to get across. It is
important to discuss the difference between a "levy" and
a "seizure". A "seizure" means the act of taking into
custody or control something which before was not in
custody or control. A "levy" is not a single act, but rather
is the whole process by which the money needed to pay a
tax is raised, either by exercising control over something
already in custody and control of the government or by
distraining and seizing property not already in custody of
the government. The levy process includes the sale of
levied property and the application of the proceeds to the
unpaid tax.
I must now advise you that a, "Notice of Levy", is not a
levy or seizure. The "Notice of Levy" has no legal effect in
the private sector unless it is accompanied with a Judicial
Court Order and a "Notice of Seizure". The following cites
will demonstrate that a "Notice of Levy" carries no
authority to "Levy", and that a "Levy" must be done
through "seizure" of the property.
A Notice of Seizure should be given for a Notice of Levy to
be successful. That the levy was impermissible in the
absence of the required Notice of Seizure. Arford v. United
States, 934 F 2d 229 (9th Cir. 1991).
"A 'Levy' for-delinquent taxes requires that property be
brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or
constructive, and is absolute appropriation of property
levied on, and a mere NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A LEVY" (Emphasis added). Freeman v. Meyer.
152 F. Supp. 383, Affd 253 F. 2d 1295 (3rd Circuit 1968).
"A 'Levy' requires that property be brought into legal
custody through seizure, actual or constructive, and is
absolute appropriation in law of property levied on, and
MERE NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY IS INSUFFICIENT" Emphasis
added). United States v. O'Dell, 160 F. 2d 304, 307 (6th
Circuit 1947).
The IRS is to comply strictly to the conditions imposed by
statute in the seizure and levy process. Goodwin v. United
States, 935 f 2d 1061, (9th Cir. 1991). A stickler for
enforcing the statutory notice it is entitled to receive, the
government should be no less punctilious with respect to
the statutory notice it is required to give. Kulway v.
United States, 917 F 2d 729, 735 (2nd Cir. 1990).
There are specific procedures that must be followed for a
garnishment to be lawful unless one voluntarily consents.
This is also known by IRS Agents as evidenced by the
Internal Revenue Manuel, page 57(16), titled "Legal
Reference Guide for Revenue Officers" (February 9, 1990)
States: "A proper levy against any amounts held as due
and owing by employers, banks, stockholders, etc. must
issue from a warrant of distraint and not mere notice" it
then cites United States v. O'Dell, 160 F2d 304.
I hope I have covered the definitions of seizures and
levies for you. Now I will use Title 26 U.S.C. to tell you the
procedures the IRS must use. I will start with "seizures".
The authority for "seizures" comes from Internal revenue
Code sections 7321 and 7608 as follows: As stated in
Goodwin v. United States and Kulway v. United States,
(Supra) the IRS compliance with the Lien-seizure-levy
process must be strict and literal.
SECTION 7321. Authority to seize property subject to
forfeiture.
Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States
under any provision of this title may be seized by the
Secretary.
SECTION 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement
officers.
(a) Enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to
liquor, tobacco, and firearms Any investigator, agent, or
other internal revenue officer by whatever term
designated, whom the Secretary charges with the duty of
enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture
provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United
States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under
such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary
is responsible may--
(1) carry firearms;
(2) execute and serve search warrants and arrest
warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued
under authority of the United States;
(3) in respect to the performance of such duty, make
arrests without warrant for any offense against the
United States committed in his presence, or for any felony
cognizable under the laws of the United States if he has
reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed, or is committing, such felony; and
(4) in respect to the performance of such duty, make
seizures of property subject to forfeiture to the United
States.
(b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other
than subtitle E
(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division or
of the Internal Security Division of the Internal Revenue
Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty of
enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal
revenue laws, any other criminal provisions of law
relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which
the Secretary is responsible, or any other law for which
the Secretary has delegated investigatory authority to the
Internal Revenue Service, is, in the performance of his
duties, authorized to perform the functions described in
paragraph (2).
(2) The functions authorized under this subsection to be
performed by an officer referred to in paragraph (1) are--
(A) to execute and serve search warrants and arrest
warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued
under authority of the United States;
(B) to make arrests without warrant for any offense
against the United States relating to the internal revenue
laws committed in his presence, or for any felony
cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds
to believe that the person to be arrested has committed
or is committing any such felony; and
(C) to make seizures of property subject to forfeiture
under the internal revenue laws.
As noted in these sections, Internal Revenue Enforcement
Officers, when enforcing both Subtitle E taxes and other
taxes as defined in 7608, are given authority to make
seizures of "property subject to forfeiture". It becomes
important to know at this point exactly what property
comes within the meaning of "property subject to
forfeiture" since if the property is outside the scope of
the meaning of "property subject to forfeiture", the
Internal Revenue Enforcement Officer is not authorized to
seize it.
The definitions of "property subject to forfeiture" are
found in Internal Revenue Code sections 7301 through
7304, as follows:
SECTION 7301. Property subject to tax:
(a) Taxable articles--Any property on which, or for or in
respect whereof, any tax is imposed by this title which
shall be found in the possession or custody or within the
control of any person, for the purpose of being sold or
removed by him in fraud of the internal revenue laws, or
with design to avoid payment of such tax, or which is
removed, deposited, or concealed, with intent to defraud
the United States of such tax or any part thereof, may be
seized, and shall be forfeited to the United States.
(b) Raw materials--All property found in the possession of
any person intending to manufacture the same into
property of a kind subject to tax for the purpose of selling
such taxable property in fraud of the internal revenue
laws, or with design to evade the payment of such tax,
may also be seized, and shall be forfeited to the United
States.
(c) Equipment--All property whatsoever, in the place or
building, or any yard or enclosure, where the property
described in subsection (a) or (b) is found, or which is
intended to be used in the making of property described in
subsection (a), with intent to defraud the United States of
tax or any part thereof, on the property described in
subsection (a) may also be seized, and shall be forfeited
to the United States.
(d) Packages--All property used as a container for, or
which shall have contained, property described in
subsection (a) or (b) may also be seized, and shall be
forfeited to the United States.
(e) Conveyances--Any property (including aircraft,
vehicles, vessels, or draft animals) used to transport or
for the deposit or concealment of property described in
subsection (a) or (b), or any property used to transport or
for the deposit or concealment of property which is
intended to be used in the making or packaging of
property described in subsection (a), may also be seized,
and shall be forfeited to the United States.
SECTION 7302. Property used in violation of internal
revenue laws.
It shall be unlawful to have or possess any property
intended for use in violating the provisions of the internal
revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such laws,
or which has been so used, and no property rights shall
exist in any such property. A search warrant may issue as
provided in chapter 205 of title 18 of the United States
Code and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the
seizure of such property. Nothing in this section shall in
any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture
provision of the internal revenue laws, or of any other
law. The seizure and forfeiture of any property under the
provisions of this section and the disposition of such
property subsequent to seizure and forfeiture, or the
disposition of the proceeds from the sale of such property,
shall be in accordance with existing laws or those
hereafter in existence relating to seizures, forfeitures,
and disposition of property or proceeds, for violation of
the internal revenue laws.
SECTION 7303. Other property subject to forfeiture.
There may be seized and forfeited to the United States the
following:
(1) Counterfeit stamps--Every stamp involved in the
offense described in section 7208 (relating to counterfeit,
reused, cancelled, etc., stamps), and the vellum,
parchment, document, paper, package, or article upon
which such stamp was placed or impressed in connection
with such offense.
(2) False stamping of packages--Any container involved in
the offense described in section 7271 (relating to disposal
of stamped packages), and of the contents of such
container.
(3) Fraudulent bonds, permits, and entries--All property to
which any false or fraudulent instrument involved in the
offense described in section 7207 relates.
SECTION 7304. Penalty for fraudulently claiming drawback.
Whenever any person fraudulently claims or seeks to
obtain an allowance of drawback on goods, wares, or
merchandise on which no internal tax shall have been
paid, or fraudulently claims any greater allowance of
drawback than the tax actually paid, he shall forfeit triple
the amount wrongfully or fraudulently claimed or sought
to be obtained, or the sum of $500, at the election of the
Secretary.
These code sections give us the comprehensive list of
property which Internal Revenue Enforcement Officers
have authority to seize. If any property does not fall
within the above descriptions it is not "property subject
to forfeiture" and the Internal Revenue Enforcement
Officers have no authority to seize it.
The levy process includes the power of seizure as
authorized in section 7321 and 7608, which is evidenced
by sections 7701(a)(21) and 6331(b), as follows.
SECTION 7701. Definitions
(a) (21) Levy--The term "levy" includes the power of
distraint and seizure by any means.
SECTION 6331(b) Seizure and sale of property
--The term "levy" as used in this title includes the power
of distraint and seizure by any means.
The word "distraint" basically means to retain possession
of property, by force if necessary, once it is in the
possession of the government. the phrase "by any means"
applies to the seizures when and where authorized, and to
distraining the property once in the government's
possession. Internal Revenue Officers are thus given very
broad authority to carry out their legitimate functions.
The authority to "levy" comes from Internal Revenue Code
Section 6331, as follows:
SECTION 6331. Levy and distraint.
(a) Authority of Secretary--If any person liable to pay any
tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days
after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the
Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as
shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by
levy upon all property and rights to property (except such
property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to
such person or on which there is a lien provided in this
chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made
upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer,
employee, or elected official, of the United States, the
District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of
the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a
notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section
3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If
the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such
tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate
payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and,
upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof
by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day
period provided in this section.
(b) Seizure and sale of property--The term "levy" as used
in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by
any means. Except as otherwise provided in subsection
(e), a levy shall extend only to property possessed and
obligations existing at the time thereof. In any case in
which the Secretary may levy upon property or rights to
property, he may seize and sell such property or rights to
property (whether real or personal, tangible or
intangible).
(c) Successive seizures--Whenever any property or right
to property upon which levy has been made by virtue of
subsection (a) is not sufficient to satisfy the claim of the
United States for which levy is made, the Secretary may,
thereafter, and as often as may be necessary, proceed to
levy in like manner upon any other property liable to levy
of the person against whom such claim exists, until the
amount due from him, together with all expenses, is fully
paid.
(d) Requirement of notice before levy
(1) In general--Levy may be made under subsection (a)
upon the salary or wages or other property of any person
with respect to any unpaid tax only after the Secretary
has notified such person in writing of his intention to
make such levy.
(2) 30-day requirement--The notice required under
paragraph (1) shall be--
(A) given in person,
(B) left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such
person, or
(C) sent by certified or registered mail to such person's
last known address, no less than 30 days before the day
of the levy.
(3) Jeopardy--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a levy if
the Secretary has made a finding under the last sentence
of subsection (a) that the collection of tax is in jeopardy.
(4) Information included with notice--The notice required
under paragraph (1) shall include a brief statement which
sets forth in simple and nontechnical terms--
(A) the provisions of this title relating to levy and sale of
property,
(B) the procedures applicable to the levy and sale of
property under this title,
(C) the administrative appeals available to the taxpayer
with respect to such levy and sale and the procedures
relating to such appeals,
(D) the alternatives available to taxpayers which could
prevent levy on the property (including installment
agreements under section 6159),
(E) the provisions of this title relating to redemption of
property and release of liens on property, and
(F) the procedures applicable to the redemption of
property and the release of a lien on property under this
title.
(e) Continuing levy on salary and wages--The effect of a
levy on salary or wages payable to or received by a
taxpayer shall be continuous from the date such levy is
first made until such levy is released under section 6343.
(f) Uneconomical levy--No levy may be made on any
property if the amount of the expenses which the
Secretary estimates (at the time of levy) would be
incurred by the Secretary with respect to the levy and
sale of such property exceeds the fair market value of
such property at the time of levy.
You can see that there are conditions that must be met
before the Secretary is authorized to levy on property or
rights to property. First, you must be a person "liable" to
pay a tax. Second, you must have been sent a "notice and
demand" for payment of the tax. Third, you must have
neglected or refused to pay the tax. And fourth, ten days
must have elapsed after the notice and demand. (The ten
day period does not apply in the case of a jeopardy
determination).
After a levy is authorized, the property upon which the
levy extends is given in Section 6331(b), which says that
the Secretary may levy "only to property possessed and
obligations existing at the time thereof". If the property is
not already possessed by the Secretary, the property may
be brought into the Secretary's possession by seizure and
distraint, but remember only property "subject to
forfeiture" may be seized, Section 6331 embraces the
power given under Sections 7321 and 7608, it does not
expand upon it.
Section 6331(b) has given us a very important definition.
It has given us the definition of "property subject to
levy", a phrase which makes its appearance in certain key
places in both the Internal Revenue Code and in the
Treasury Regulations. "Property subject to levy" basically
means property which is not exempt from levy under
section 6334.
The term "Secretary" is defined in section 7701(a)(11):
SECTION 7701. Definitions
(a)(11) Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary,--
(A) Secretary of the Treasury--The term "Secretary of the
Treasury" means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally,
and shall not include any delegate of his.
(B) Secretary--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary
of the Treasury or his delegate.
Thus, "Secretary" means "The Secretary of the Treasury or
his delegate". Basically, the only property the Secretary
(or his delegate) would already have in his possession
would be accrued salaries or wages of federal or District
of Columbia employees which have not yet been paid out
of the federal coffers. Such accrued salaries or wages
would be the only Property upon which the Secretary
could levy without having to effectuate a seizure, and this
is confirmed within section 6331(a) itself.
Section 6331(a) states that a levy can be made on accrued
salaries or wages by serving a "notice of levy" on the
employer of an officer, employee, or elected official, of
the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency
or instrumentality of the United States or the District of
Columbia. This confirms what was said before since the
accrued salaries or wages of such officers, employees, or
elected officials represents an obligation of the Secretary
existing at the time the levy is made. Since these
described individuals are paid from the Federal Treasury,
the Secretary of the Treasury already has possession of
the funds which would be used to pay the obligation, and
the "notice of levy" is simply the Secretary's notice that
said funds are being applied to unpaid taxes instead of
being paid to the officer, employee, or elected official. No
seizure is necessary, and thus no "notice of seizure"
(explained later) is ever issued. The notice of levy is
usually served on the head of the Federal (or District of
Columbia) agency (or the agent designated by him who is
charged with payroll duties).
When the IRS must bring property into the possession of
the Secretary by seizure, then we have to refer to section
6335, as follows:
SECTION 6335, Sale of seized property.
(a) Notice of seizure--As soon as practicable after seizure
of property, notice in writing shall be given by the
Secretary to the owner of the property (or, in the case of
personal property, the possessor thereof), or shall be left
at his usual place of abode or business if he has such
within the internal revenue district where the seizure is
made. If the owner cannot be readily located, or has no
dwelling or place of business within such district, the
notice may be mailed to his last known address. Such
notice shall specify the sum demanded and shall contain,
in the case of personal property, an account of the
property seized and, in the case of real property, a
description with reasonable certainty of the property
seized.
So you see that whenever the IRS makes a seizure, they
are required by law to issue a "Notice of Seizure"(Form
2433). This notice also has another effect. Remember, at
the outset of this letter, I stated that a "levy" was not a
single act, but rather the whole process by which money
was raised and applied to an unpaid tax. The levy process
includes seizure and sale of the property, along with the
actual application of the proceeds. However, a levy must
be made within six years (see Section 6502(a) after the
tax is assessed, and there may come a time when a levy
proceeding occurs near the end of the six year period. So,
for the purpose of determining the exact point in time
when the law would consider that the levy was made,
section 6502(a) states;
SECTION 6502, Collection after assessment.
(b) Date when levy is considered made--The date on which
a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be
the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section
6335(a) is given.
The 9th Circuit Court agrees with these procedures. In
"Arford v. United States (supra)," a Notice of Seizure was
a procedural requirement in order to effectuate the actual
levy upon the seizure of Arford's retirement pay. This
finding is in accord with 26 U.S.C. section 6502(b) which
provides that a levy occurs on the date the Notice of
Seizure is given pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6335(a), and
not before.
The IRS levies on accrued salaries or wages by serving a
"notice of levy" (Form 668-A or 668-W) on the employer
of a Federal or District of Columbia officer, employee, or
elected official. This is the only time the Internal Revenue
Code states that the service of a "Notice of Levy" makes a
levy. In all other cases, section 6502(b) tells us that a levy
is considered made only when the "Notice of Seizure" is
given.
Now, after reading all this, it should occur to you that the
IRS's power to levy is actually very limited. Only property
already possessed by the Secretary is subject to levy, and
only property subject to forfeiture can be seized and
brought into the possession of the Secretary if that
property is not already possessed by the Secretary. So to
summarize, seizure is limited by statute to certain specific
items. Sections 7321 and 7608(b)(2)(C) strictly limit
seizure authority to "property subject to forfeiture". Such
property is described in sections 7301 through 7304.
Property not subject to forfeiture cannot be seized, and a
levy on any other property must be made on items already
in the possession of the government. Section 6331(b)
further states that a levy extends only to "property
possessed".
Of course, there is a third way the Secretary may acquire
possession of property which is not already in his
possession, but you won't find it written in the Internal
Revenue Code. The third way is simply an extension of the
Secretary's authority under section 6301 to accept
collection of internal revenue taxes which are voluntarily
paid to him. If the IRS can get property turned over to the
Secretary on a voluntary basis, then this property
becomes property subject to levy and the Secretary may
then levy upon it.
Yes, the IRS is actually bluffing non-federal employers,
banks, and other third-party asset holders into turning
over property to the Secretary when no authority to
enforce such is given in the Internal Revenue Code! I will
explain how the bluff works and why any employer, bank,
or other third-party asset holder may simply refuse to
turn over such property to the Internal Revenue Service,
and that there is no penalty for not turning over such
assets.
The first part of the bluff is Treasury Regulation
301.6331-1(a)(1), which states:
"Levy may be made by serving a notice of levy on any
person in possession of, or obligated with respect to,
property or rights to property subject to levy, including
receivables, bank accounts, evidence of debt, securities,
and salaries, wages, and other compensation."
Of course, we know now that when the regulation says
that the levy may be made by serving a "Notice of Levy"
on anyone having property "subject to levy", it means
that the levy is made on accrued salaries or wages when
the "Notice of Levy" is served on the employer of federal
or District of Columbia employees, and, in the case of any
other property already possessed by the Secretary, when
the "Notice of Levy" is served on the person who has such
property. This is a proper procedure for the IRS to adopt
since section 6331(b) provides for a levy on any other
property already possessed, but does not specifically
state how such levy is to be carried out. In the case of a
seizure, section 6502(b) already told us that the levy is
made when the "Notice of Seizure" is given.
Now, the average person reading this regulation doesn't
know what "property subject to levy" is, and when the
"Notice of Levy" is served on him, he is led to believe that
the law requires him to turn over to the IRS any property
he has which belongs to the delinquent taxpayer. You now
know, after reading all of the above, that this is not the
case.
The bluff continues when the IRS cites Code section 6332,
as follows:
SECTION 6332, Surrender of property subject to levy.
(a) Requirement--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, any person in possession of (or obligated with
respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy
upon which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of
the Secretary, surrender such property or rights (or
discharge such obligation) to the Secretary, except such
part of the property or rights as is, at the time of such
demand, subject to an attachment or execution under any
judicial process.
(b) (Not reproduced here. Deals only with life insurance
and endowment contracts)
(c) Special rule for banks--Any bank (as defined in section
408(n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or
execution under judicial process) any deposits (including
interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after
service of levy.
(d) Enforcement of levy
(1) Extent of personal liability--Any person who fails or
refuses to surrender any property or rights to property,
subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary, shall be
liable in his own person and estate to the United States in
a sum equal to the value of the property or rights not so
surrendered, but not exceeding the amount of taxes for
the collection of which such levy has been made, together
with costs and interest on such sum at the underpayment
rate established under section 6621 from the date of such
levy (or, in the case of a levy described in section
6331(d)(3), from the date such person would otherwise
have been obligated to pay over such amounts to the
taxpayer). Any amount (other than costs) recovered under
this paragraph shall be credited against the tax liability
for the collection of which such levy was made.
(2) Penalty for violation--In addition to the personal
liability imposed by paragraph (1), if any person required
to surrender property or rights to property fails or
refuses to surrender such property or rights to property
without reasonable cause, such person shall be liable for a
penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount recoverable
under paragraph (1). No part of such penalty shall be
credited against the tax liability for the collection of which
such levy was made.
Again, we see that the law requires the surrender of
"property subject to levy" upon which a levy "has been
made". And again, the average person doesn't know
exactly what all this means. You now know from reading
the above that a levy "has been made" when a "Notice of
Levy" is served on a person who has property "subject to
levy", which means the "Notice of Levy" is given to some
other delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury who has
such property in his possession (or, in the case of accrued
salaries or wages, to the head (or designated payroll
agent) of a Federal or District of Columbia agency or
instrumentality). It now becomes clear that this Code
section was directed to other Treasury Secretary
Delegates or heads of Federal or District of Columbia
agencies or instrumentalities who may have possession of
property, rights to property, or accrued salaries or wages
belonging to the delinquent taxpayer, and the law requires
them to surrender such property when the "Notice of
Levy" is served on them..
Section 6332(c) also hints that there are penalties for
failure to turn over property after a "Notice of Levy" has
been served. You now know enough to know that this
penalty would only apply if you have "property subject to
levy" and you fail to surrender it upon demand by the
Secretary. This was all discussed earlier and unless you're
a person having such property in your possession or
control, this penalty cannot possibly apply to you.
The IRS agents should take their case to court to allow you
to be heard or you rights of due process will be violated.
And indeed this is essentially what the IRS is supposed to
do in every case. To enforce collection of a delinquent tax,
the IRS needs a court order, just like any other judgment
creditor. A Notice of Levy is not sufficient to reach
property unless the asset holder is tricked by it into
voluntarily turning it over to the revenue agent, or the
property is already in the custody and control of the
Secretary. The procedure to reach property by suit is
given in the Internal Revenue Code under Code section
7401, as follows:
SECTION 7401, Authorization.
No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or
of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced
unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the
proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate
directs that the action be commenced.
And section 7403, as follows:
SECTION 7403, Action to enforce lien or to subject property
to Payment of tax.
(a) Filing--In any case where there has been a refusal or
neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in
respect thereof, whether or not levy has been made, the
Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the
Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district
court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United
States under this title with respect to such tax or liability
or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the
delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest,
to the payment of such tax or liability. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, any acceleration of payment under
section 6166(g) shall be treated as a neglect to pay tax.
(b) Parties--All persons having liens upon or claiming any
interest in the property involved in such action shall be
made parties thereto.
(c) Adjudication and decree--The court shall, after the
parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to
adjudicate all matters involved therein and finally
determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the
property, and, in all cases where a claim or interest of the
United States therein is established, may decree a sale of
such property, by the proper officer of the court, and a
distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to the
findings of the court in respect to the interests of the
parties and of the United States. If the property is sold to
satisfy a first lien held by the United States, the United
States may bid at the sale such sum, not exceeding the
amount of such lien with expenses of sale, as the
Secretary directs.
This is the due process written into the Internal Revenue
Code. If the IRS wants to enforce collection of a tax, they
have to file suit in Federal District Court, obtain a
judgment, and execute the judgment with a court order in
order to lawfully enforce the collection of the delinquent
tax. The only obvious exception to this is when the
Secretary already has possession of some property, in
which case no court order is needed to reach the property
since the property is already possessed.
Of course, the IRS likes to bluff people into voluntarily
turning property over to them by serving "Notices of
Levy" on them, as if this "makes" a levy and as if the
person must surrender to the IRS any property he has
belonging to the delinquent taxpayer. This is not the case,
but as long as enough people fall for this bluff the IRS is
going to continue using this ploy since it is far less
expensive and far more efficient than having to go to
court.
So the question comes down to this: What am I to do if I
am ever served with a "Notice of Levy"? Before I answer
this, you must realize that you do not have to surrender
any property to the IRS on the basis of such a notice,
unless of course you are in custody or control of property
"subject to levy". If the government wants to compel you
to surrender any property belonging to the delinquent
taxpayer, they must get a court order just like in any
other garnishment proceedings. Basically, you should just
sit back and wait for the Department of Justice to file suit.
This way you will be protected by the court should you
have to turn any property over to the government.
If you think that you can avoid being sued by complying
with the "Notice of Levy" and turning over the property to
the IRS, you would be wrong. It is true that you would
avoid being sued by the Department of Justice, but you
would then expose yourself to being sued by the person
whose property you turned over. His cause of action
would be against you since you turned his property over
to the government without a court order, without his
consent or permission, and without being required to
surrender the property under any statute. He would have
no cause of action against the IRS since the IRS basically
did nothing wrong, and they were acting within the scope
of their authority by accepting any property voluntarily
turned over to them.
No protection is offered by section 6332(d), as follows:
SECTION 6332(e) Effect of honoring levy--Any person in
possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or
rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has
been made who, upon demand by the Secretary,
surrenders such property or rights to property (or
discharges such obligation) to the Secretary (or who pays
a liability under subsection (d)(1)) shall be discharged
from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer
and any other person with respect to such property or
rights to property arising from such surrender or
payment.
This section relies on 6331 and both sections require a
levy on property. Because there is no judicial process and
no levy has been made the person taking property based
on a "Notice of Levy" is not relieved from liability to the
person owning the property. Also, this section was written
for the government's own Treasury Secretary Delegates or
heads (or designated payroll agents) of Federal or District
of Columbia agencies or instrumentalities who turn over
"property subject to levy" upon which a levy "has been
made". Unless you're a delegate of the Secretary of the
Treasury or head (or designated payroll agent) of a
Federal or District of Columbia agency or instrumentality
you are not indemnified and you are exposed to a lawsuit
by the owner of the property should you turn it over to
the IRS.
The IRS will attempt to make you believe they have the
authority pursuant to §6331, however their own
documents prove them wrong. As stated in the rules and
regulations filed in the federal register 11-23-73:
"this treasury decision recodifies the portion of 26 CFR
Part 301 entitled "Discovery of Liability and Enforcement
of Title" into 27 CFR Part 70"
Federal Register, Vol 38, NO 226-Monday, November 26,
1993
27 CFR Part 70 is exclusively for the enforcement of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Unless you are providing
services and or are involved in this type of activity the
taking of money on a Notice of Levy is theft.
Turn the property over, and the owner will sue you. Don't
turn the property over, and the government may sue you,
but should this happen you will have a judicial order
which will protect you and your company from civil action.
The best thing to do, under the circumstances, is to simply
not turn over any property to the IRS unless you get a
court order ordering you to do so. The "Notice of Levy"
has no legal muscle behind it as explained earlier.
When served with a "Notice of Levy", my suggestion
would be to write a letter to the IRS agent who signed the
notice and ask him the following questions:
3. Is this "Notice of Levy" the result of a judgment
entered by a court? Since it does not appear to be a court
order, and does not have a case number or a Judicial
signature. What will happen to me if I do not turn this
property over to you?
All of these are legitimate questions which should express
genuine concerns you have about the whole levy
procedure. Of course, the IRS will try to hint that you
should turn the property over in order to avoid any
penalties and court proceedings, but when they answer
question #3, they will be forced to tell you that they will
simply have to go to court in order to reach the "Levied"
property. If you've ever been the garnishee in a
garnishment proceeding, it is really not that bad. I would
also suggest you give the agent a copy of this letter.
This letter should have answered most of your questions
about levies and what your duties are if you should ever
receive one. If you have any further questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me again.
Please use the check sheet that I have attached to help
you when you receive a Notice of Levy to see if it is valid
or just an attempt to deceive you.
___________________________
John J Schlabach, Enrolled Agent
Enrollment # 50614,
********************
*************************************************************************************************
UCC REDEMPTION Court Loses
IRS Case Loses
*****Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens)*****former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump (1989)
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20howard%20freemans%20ucc_conn.htm
THE UCC CONNECTION
Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny
by Howard Freeman
READ and STUDY - THINK
Forward
This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased
transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard
Freeman. It was prepared to make available the
knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search
for an accessible and understandable explanation of the
confusing state of the government and the courts. It
should be helpful to those who want to develop a deeper
understanding of this information without having to listen
to three or four hours of recorded material. The
frustrations many Americans feel about our judicial system
can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most
fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge.
Those of use how have chosen a path out of bondage and
into liberty are faced, eventually, w/the seemingly
tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the
mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have
been taught that we must "get a good lawyer," but that is
becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are
defending ourselves from the government, we find that
the lawyers quickly take our money and then tell us as the
ship is sinking, "I can't help you w/that -- I'm an officer of
the court." Ultimately, the only way for us to have ever a
"snowballs' change" is to understand the RULES OF THE
GAME and to come to and understanding of the true nature
of the Law. The lawyers have established and secured a
virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by
implying that the subject is just too difficult for the
AVERAGE PERSON to understand, and by creating a separate
vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common
usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated,
it is not that difficult to grasp -- are lawyers really as
smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone
who has been through a legal battle against the
government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize
that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr.
Freeman admits he is not a lawyer. and as such, he has a
way of explaining law to use that puts it well w/in our
reach. Consider also that the framer of the Constitution
wrote in language simple enough that the people could
understand, specifically so that it would NOT have to be
interpreted. So again we find, as in many other areas of
life, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!" It is we who must take the
responsibility for finding and putting to good use the
TRUTH! It is we who must claim and defend our God given
rights and our freedom form those who would take them
from us. It is WE who must protect ourselves, our families,
and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our
lives by those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and
talents of others. To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a
simple, hopeful explanation of our plight and a PEACEFUL
method of dealing w/it. Please take note that this lecture
represents one chapter in the book of his understanding,
which he is always refining, expanding, improvign. It is, as
all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to
begin our own journey into understanding, that we all
might be able to pas on to others: greater knowledge and
hope, and to God: the gift of lives lived in peace, freedom
and praise
THE UCC CONNECTION
*"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise
as a serpent and harmless as a dove."*
INTRODUCTION
When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court (SC) decisions.
If I had tried to use these in court, I would have been
convicted. I was involved with a patriot group and I
studied supreme Court cases. I concluded that the SC had
declared that I was not a person required to file an income
tax -- that that tax was an excise tax on privileges
granted by government. So I quit filing and paying income
taxes and it was not long before they came down on me
w/a heavy hand. They issued a notice of deficiency, which
had such a fantastic sum on it that the biggest temptation
was to go in with their letter and say "Where in the world
did you ever get that figure?" They claimed I owed them
some $60,000. But even if I had been paying taxes, I never
had that much money, so how could I have owed them that
much?
NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY
Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of
information: NEVER ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're
not required to file, what do you care whether they say
you owe sixty dollars or $60,000. If you are not required
to file, the amount doesn't matter. DON'T ARGUE THE AMOUNT
-- that is a fact issue. In most instances, when you get a
Notice of Deficiency, it is usually for some fantastic
amount. The minute you say "I don't owe that much," you
have agreed that you owe them something, and you have
given them jurisdiction. Just don't be shocked at the
amount on a Notice of Deficiency, (NoD) even if it is ten
million dollars! If the law says that you are not required to
file or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter. By arguing the
amount, they will just say that you must go to tax court
and decide what the amount is to be. By the time you get
to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are only
there to decide HOW MUCH YOU OWE. They will not listen to
arguments of law. So I went to see the agent and told him
that I wasn't required to file. He said, "You ARE required to
file, Mr. Freeman." But I had all these SC cases, and I
started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know
anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that
you are required to file, and you're going to pay that
amount or you're going to go to tax court." I thought that
someone there ought to know something about law, so I
asked to talk to his superior. I went to him and got out my
SC cases, and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know
anything about law, Mr. Freeman...." Finally I got to the
Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He
said that the only person above him was the District
Director. So I went to see him. By the time I got to his
office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he
was out. But I heard someone in his office, and I knew he
was there. I went down the elevator, around the corner to
the Federal Building and into Senator Simpson's office.
There was a girl sitting there at a desk, and she asked me
if she could help me. I told her my problem. I said that I
really thought the District Director was up there. I asked
her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator
Simpson's office calling and to ask if the District Director
was in. I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that
you are from the Senator's office and you have a person
who you are sending over to speak to him -- if he is, can
he wait just five minutes." It worked. He was there, and I
ran back up to his office.
His secretary met me when I came in and said, "Mr.
Freeman, you're so lucky -- the Director just arrived." The
Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies
and we sat and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to
talk to him about. (If you ever have someone say to you,
"I'm from the government and I'm here to do you a favor"
watch out! -- but we can turn that around and approach
them the same way.) So I said, "I thought you ought to
know that there are agents working for you who are
writing letters over your name that you wouldn't agree
with. Do you read all the mail that goes out of this office
over your signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't
read everything -- it goes out here by the bagful." That
was what I thought. I said, "There are some of your
agents writing letters which contradict the decisions of the
SC of the United States, and they're not doing it over their
name, they're doing it over YOUR name." He was very
interested to hear about it and asked if I had any
examples. I just happened to have some w/me, so I got
them out and presented them to him. [Supreme Court cases
supporting his position] He thought it was very interesting
and asked if I could leave this information with him, which
I did. He said he would look it over and contact me w/in 3
days. Three days later he called me up and said, "I'm sure,
Mr. Freeman, that you will be glad to know that your
Notice of Deficiency has been withdrawn. We've
determined that you're not a person required to file. Your
file is closed and you will hear no more from us." I haven't
heard another word from them since. That was in 1980 and
I haven't filed since 1969.
The Supreme Court on Trial
I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got
charged w/Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked
me to help him. I told him that they would have to prove
that he _willfully_ failed to file and I suggested that he
should put me on the witness stand. He should ask me if I
spoke at a certain time and place in Scott's Bluff and did I
see him in the audience. He should then ask me what I
spoke of that day.
When I got on the stand. I brought out all of the SC cases I
had used w/the District Director. I thought I would be
lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me
off, but I was reading whole paragraphs and the judge
didn't stop me. I read one and then another and so on. And
finally when I had read just about as much as I thought I
should, the judge called a recess of the court.
I told Bob I thought we had it made. There was just no
way that they could rule against him after all that
testimony. So we relaxed. The prosecution presented it's
case and he [Bob] decided to rest his case on my
testimony, which showed that he was not required to file.
and that the SC had upheld this position. The prosecution
then presented it's closing statements and we were just
sure that he had won. But at the very end, _the judge
spoke to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts
of this case and I will give you the law.
The law required this man to file an Income Tax form; you
decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury
convicted him. Later some of the members of the jury said,
"What could we do? The man had admitted that he had not
filed the form, so we had to convict him."_
As soon as the trial was over, I went around to the judge's
office and he was just coming in through his back door. I
said, "Judge, by what authority do you overturn the
standing decisions of the United States SC? You sat on the
bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a
District Court Judge, have the authority to overturn
decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says, "Oh, those were
_old_ decisions." I said, "Those are _standing_ decisions.
They have never been overturned. I don't care how old
they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision
of the US SC in a District Court." Public Law v. Public Policy
He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court
_after_1938_ and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you
read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those
decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior
to 1938, the SC was dealing w/_Public_Law_; since 1938,
the SC has dealt w/_Public_Policy_. The charge that Mr. S
was being tried for is a _Public_Policy_Statute_, not Public
Law, and those SC cases do not apply to the Public Policy."
I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had
already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell me any
more.
1938 and the Erie Railroad Well I began to investigate. I
found that 1938 was the year of the *Erie Railroad v.
Tompkins* case of the SC. It was also the year the courts
claim they blended _Law_ w/_Equity_. I read the Erie
Railroad case.
A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was
struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked
along besides the tracks. The district court had decided on
the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that
this man was not under any contract w/the Erie Railroad,
and therefore he had no standing to sue the company.
Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would
have had the right to sue. This overturned a standing
decision of over one hundred years. *Swift v. Tyson* in
1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the SC was
that in any case of this type, the court would judge the
case on Common Law of the _state_ where the incident
occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie
Railroad case, the SC ruled that all federal cases will be
judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There
would be _no_ _more_ _decisions_ _based_ _on_ _the_
_Common_ _Law_ at the federal level. So here we find the
blending of the Law w/ Equity. This was a puzzle to me.
As I put these new pieces together, I determined that _all
our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not
Common Law Courts._ There were still some pieces of the
puzzle missing.
A Friend in the Court
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't
make friends w/a judge if you go into the court like a
"wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him as
though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into
court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge
what the law is -- how he had better uphold the law or
else... Remember the verse: I send you out as a sheep in
wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.
We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and
not make demands. We must play a _little dumb_ and ask a
lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed
the judges into the corner where they had to give me a
victory or admit what they didn't want to admit.
I won the case and on the way out I had to stop by the
clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges
stopped and said "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman.
If you're ever in town, stop by and if I'm not sitting on a
case we will visit."
America is Bankrupt
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him my
problem w/the SC cases dealing with Public Policy rather
than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges,
the top attorneys and the US Attorneys were called
together into a secret_meeting, and this is what we
were told: America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned
completely by its creditors. The creditors own the
Congress, they own the executive, they own the Judiciary
and they own all the state governments. _Take silent
judicial notice_ of this fact, but _never_ reveal it openly.
Your court is operating in a Admiralty Jurisdiction -- call it
anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.
Admiralty Courts
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that
your defense would be quite different in Admiralty
Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In
Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless
there is a valid International contract in dispute. If you
know wit is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted
on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can
demand that the international maritime contract, to which
you are supposedly party, and which you supposedly have
breached, _be placed into evidence._ No court has
Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid
international maritime contract that has been breached. So
you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew
that I got involved with an international maritime contract,
so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking
jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in
evidence, so that I might challenge the validity of the
contract."
What they would have to do is place the _national debt_
into evidence. They would have to admit that the
international bankers own the whole nation, and that we
are their slaves. Not Expedient But the bankers said it is
not expedient at this time to admit that they own
everything and could foreclose on every nation of the
world.
[note: DAMN RIGHT! "at this time" That is the KEY behind the building
up of the UN as a MILITARY FORCE! That is the KEY to disarming
America, that is the KEY to "ending" the cold war. Like now we have
no more enemy, so we can melt all our guns. WRONG. The Bankers
PLAN to foreclose, they just don't want their HEADS BLOWN OFF WHILE
DOING IT, so they DICTATE to the "congress" to get rid of the guns.."
e.g. The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own
everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns.
[see! ITYS. :)e.g. There are uncooperative armies and other military
forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD
ARMY, and all courts into a WORLD COURT, it is not _expedient_ to
admit the jurisdiction of the courts are operating under.
When we understand these things, we realize that there
are certain secrets they don't want to admit, and we can
use this to our benefit. Jurisdiction The Constitution of the
united States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which
the courts may operate:
1. Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law: Anytime someone is
charged under the Common Law, there must be a
_damaged party._ You are free under the Common Law to
do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on
the life, liberty or property of someone else. You have a
right to make a _fool_ of yourself provided you do not
infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else.
The Common Law does not allow for any government
action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself.
For instance, when you cross over state lines in most
states, you well see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT
BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law,
because who would you injure if you did not buckle up?
Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But
Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of
Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
2. Equity Law
Equity Law is law which _compels performance. It compels
you to perform to the exact letter of any _contract_ that
you are under. So, if you have compelled performance,
there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being
compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract.
Now this can only be a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity
Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be
compelled to perform to the letter of the contract. If you
then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can
be charged with the contempt of court, this is a criminal
action. Are our set belt laws Equity laws? No. They are not,
because you cannot be penalized or punished for not
keeping to the letter of the contract. [this has of course
changed since the publishing of the article, so read
on....e.g.
3. Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is _civil_ jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which
also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of
the contract, but this only applies to International
Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt
laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax
codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for
failure to perform (such as willful failure to file) that is
Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid
international contract in force. However, the courts don't
want to admit that they are operating under
Admiralty/Maritime [hereafter noted by A/M] Jurisdiction,
so they took the international law or Law Merchant and
adopted it into our codes. This is what the SC decided in the
Erie Railroad case - that the decisions will be based on
commercial law or business law and that it will have
criminal penalties associated w/it. Since they were
instructed not to call it A/M Jurisdiction, they call is
Statutory Jurisdiction. [my note: I looked for Statutory
Jurisdiction in the 4th edition of Black's. It's not there, so
looked up Statue and under the definition is this
paragraph: This word is used to designate the written law
in contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster v. Brown,
199 Ga. 444, 34 S.E.2d, 530 535 See Common Law.
Unwritten law is common law, contradistinction you can
look up, but it means "as opposed to" "opposite to." Also I
looked up Common Law (w/my new understanding) and it's
quite enlightening! :)
Courts of Contract
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can
be charged w/failure to wear set belts and be fined for it.
Isn't the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he
is. But you must understand that the Constitution in Art. I,
Sect. 10, gives us the _unlimited right to contract_ as long
as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of
someone else. Contracts _are_ enforceable, and the
Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can
be enforced, _Equity_ or _Admiralty._ But we find them
being enforced in _Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the
embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to
box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will
cover this more later.
Contracts must be voluntary _Under the Common Law,
every contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void
and unenforceable._ These are characteristics of a
Common Law contract. There is another characteristic - it
must be based on substance. For example, contracts used
to read, "For one dollar and other valuable
considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That was a
valid contract -- the dollar was a genuine silver dollar.
Now suppose you wrote a contract that said, "For one
_Federal Reserve Note_ and other considerations, I will
paint your house.." And suppose for example, I painted
your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common
Law court and get justice? NO, you could not. You see a
Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no
substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract
would be unenforceable. Colorable Money-Colorable
Courts
The word "colorable" means something that appears to be
genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe
it spends like a dollar, but it if is not redeemable for lawful
money (silver or gold) it is "colorable." If a Federal
Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract
becomes a "colorable" contract. And "colorable" contracts
must be enforced under a "colorable" jurisdiction. So by
creating Federal Reserve Note, the government had to
create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that
use them. We now have what is called Statutory
Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction.
It is a "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are
enforcing because we are using "colorable money."
Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory
Jurisdiction.
Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.
Uniform Commercial Code The government setup a
"colorable" law system to fit the "Colorable" currency. It
used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of
Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt w/paper which
was redeemable in something of substance. But once
Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there
had to be a system of law which was completely
"colorable" from start to finish. This system of law was
codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been
adopted in every state. This is "colorable" law, and it is
used in all the courts. I explained one of the keys earlier,
which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no
rights. If the master says "Jump!" then the slave had
better jump, because the master has the right to cut his
head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the
creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a
system of law called the UCC. This "colorable" jurisdiction
under the UCC is the next key to understanding what has
happened.
Contract or agreement
One difference between Common Law and the UCC is that
in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1)
knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the
UCC this is not so. First of all, contracts are necessary.
Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if
you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement" it is
presumed or implied that you intend to meet the
obligations associated w/the those benefits. If you accept
a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated
to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved
with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody
exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the
people what the benefit is. Some people think it's the
driver's license, the marriage license, or the birth
certificate, etc. I believe it's none of these. Compelled
Benefit I believe the benefit being used is that we have
been given the _privilege of DISCHARGING [my emphasis
e.g.] debt w/limited liability, instead of paying debt. When
we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a
quart of milk w/a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk,
and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance.
But if I use a Federal Reserve Note [hereafter FRN e.g.] to
buy the milk, I have not PAID for it. [my emphasis e.g.]
There is no substance in the FRN. It is worthless paper
given in exchange for something of substantive value.
Congress offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by
the federal United States, can be spent all over the
continental united States, it will be legal tender for all
debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that
you cannot be sued for not paying your debts. So now they
have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just
discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When
we use this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we
cannot use Common Law court. We can only use "colorable
court." We are completely under the jurisdiction of the UCC
-- We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments
and we are discharging debt rather than paying the debt.
Remedy and Recourse
Every system of civilized law must have two
characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to
get out from under the law. The Recourse is if you have
been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss.
The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the UCC
all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could
not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see the UCC
they will show you a shelf of books completely filled w/the
UCC. When you pick up one volume and start to read it it
will seem to have been intentionally written to be
confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the
Remedy and Recourse are found in the UCC. They were
found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves
whatever rights the person then possessed, and prevents
the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver
or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to remember
when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial,
international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I
DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most
likely say, "You mention the Constitution again and I'll find
you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how
he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution?
The rule here is: you cannot be _charged_ under one
jurisdiction and _defend_ under another. For example, if
the French government came to you and asked where you
filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to
the French Gov. and say, "I demand my Constitutional
Rights?" No. The proper answer is "THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY
TO ME -- I'M NOT A FRENCHMEN." You must make your
reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you
are charged - not under some other jurisdiction. So in a
UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under
the UCC 1-207. The UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a
waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof causes a loss of the right, and bars it's
assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9) You have to make
your claim known early. Further it says: The Sufficiency of
the Reservation -- Any expression indicating an intention
to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice."
(UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper, that
deals w/the FRNs in any way, shape or manner -- under
your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This
reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4 that you
have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is VERY
IMPORTANT to understand just what this means. For
example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic
ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by
writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to
the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts
involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket.
He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him
what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge
that he was not prejudice against anyone... The judge
knew that the man had NO IDEA what it meant and he lost
the case. You MUST know what it means. WITHOUT
PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 When you use "without prejudice
UCC 1-207" in connection w/your signature, you are
saying: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform
under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not
enter KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY. And
furthermore, I do not accept that liability of the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial
agreement. What is the compelled performance of an
unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use FRNs
instead of silver dollars is it voluntary? No. There is no
lawful money, so you have to use FRNs -- you have to
accept the benefit. The government has given you the
benefit to discharge your debts. How nice they are! But if
you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are
compelled to accept the benefit, and therefore obligated to
obey every statue, ordinance, and regulation of the
government, at all levels of government - federal, state
and local. If you understand this, you will be able to
explain it to the judge when he asks. And he WILL ask, so
be prepared to explain it to the court.
You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 -- the
argument and the recourse. If you want to understand this
fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections
from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson's edition.
Some of the law libraries will only have the West
Publishing version and it is very difficult to understand. In
Anderson, it is broken down w/decimals into ten parts and
most importantly, it is written in plain English.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the UCC at 1-103.6, which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which
remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A
statute should be construed in harmony with the Common
Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate
the Common Law. This is the argument we use in court. The
Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not, recognize
the Common Law, the government would have had to
admit that the US is bankrupt, and is completely owned by
it's creditors. But it is not expedient to admit this, so the
Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law
entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely,
and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may
then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with
the Common Law. If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may
demand that the court produce the injured person, who
has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were
charged w/failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask
the court who was injured as a result of your failure to
"buckle up." However, if the judge won't listen to you, and
just moves ahead w/the case, then you will want to read
to him the last sentence of 1-103.6, which states: The Code
cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action. Tell the
Judge, "Your honor, I can sue you under the Common Law,
for violating my rights under the UCC." I have a remedy,
under the UCC to reserve my rights under the Common
Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must
construe this statue in harmony with the Common Law. To
be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth
w/the damaged party. If the judge insists on proceeding
w/the the case, just act confused, and ask this question:
"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court
made a legal determination that the Sections of 1-207 and
1-103 of the UCC, which is the system of law you are
operating under, are not valid law before this court? Now
the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one
part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers,
"yes", then you say: "I put this court on notice, that I am
appealing your legal determination." Of course, the higher
court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows
this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.
Practical Applications -
Traffic Court Just so we can understand how this whole
process works, let us look at a court situation such as a
traffic violation. Assume you ran through a yellow light
and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.
1.The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at
least three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant
and cooperative w/the officer. Explain to him that you
are very busy and ask if he could please set your
court appearance for about three weeks away. (At
this point we need to remember that government's
trick: "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you."
Now we want to use this approach w/them.)
2.The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court
and say, "I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you,
because I want to save the government some money
(this will get his attention.) I am undoubtedly going to
appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I have to
have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a
court reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer's
money to run me through this court and then have to
give me a trial *de novo* [new trial] in a court of
record. I do need a transcript for appealing, and to
save the government some money, maybe you could
schedule me to appear in a court of record." You can
show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually
agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your
trial for a court of record. Now your first appearance
is in a court of record and not in traffic court, where
there is no record. When you get into the court there
will be a court reporter there who records every word
the judge speaks, so that judge is much more careful
in a court of record. You will be in a much better
situation there than in traffic court. If there is no
record, the judge can say whatever he wants -- he
can call you all sorts of names and tell you that you
have no rights, and so on -- and deny it all later.
3.When you get into court, the judge will read the
charges: driving through a yellow light, or whatever,
and this is in violation of ordinance xyz. He will ask,
"Do you understand the charge against you?"
4."Well your Honor, there is a question I would like to
ask before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I
think it could be answered if I could put the officer on
the stand for a moment and ask him a few short
questions. Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear
the officer in and have him take the stand."
5."Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (handing
him the traffic citation) Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of
it. The judge has the other portion of it." "Where did
you get my address that you wrote on the citation?"
Officer: "Well I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer you driver's license) "Is this the
document you copied my name and address from?"
Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it." "While you've got
that in your hand, would you read the signature that's
on that license?" (The officer reads the signature)
"While you're there, would you read into the record
what it says under the signature?" Officer: "It says,
`Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207." Judge: "Let me see
that license!" (He looks and turns to the officer) "You
didn't notice this printing under the signature on this
license, when you copied his name and address onto
the ticket?" Officer: "Oh no. I was just getting the
address -- I didn't look down there." Judge: "You're
not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I'm afraid
I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts
of this case. This case is dismissed."
6.In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out --
he could say that the officer was not observant
enough to be a reliable witness. He did not want to
admit the real nature of the jurisdiction of his court.
Once it was in the record that you had written
`Without prejudice UCC 1-207 on your license, the
judge knew that he would have to admit that: a. you
had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing `Without
prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your driver's license; c. the
statute would now have to be read in harmony with
the Common Law, and the Common Law says the
statute exists, but there is no injured party; and d.
since there is no injured party or complaining witness,
the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.
7.If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of
the case, then you will want to ask him the following
question: Your Honor, let me understand this correctly:
has this court made a legal determination that it has
authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating
under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform
Commercial Code which have been called to it's
attention? If he says yes, tell him that you put the
court on notice that you will appeal that legal
determination, and that if you are damaged by his
actions, you will sue him in a common law action--
under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work just
as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we
can use the UCC w/the IRS before we get to court.
Using the Code w/the IRS If the IRS sends you a
Notice of Deficiency this is called a "presentment" in
the UCC. A "presentment" in the UCC is very similar to
the Common Law. First we must understand just how
this works in the Common Law. Suppose I get a man's
name from a phone book -- someone I have never
meet. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice
letterhead which says, "For services rendered:
$10,000.00" I send this by certified mail to him at the
address taken from the phone book. The man has to
sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that
he received it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice
for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have
any questions concerning this bill or the services
rendered, you have thirty days to make your
questions or objections known." Of course he has
never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away
and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of
thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment
against him. He received a bill for $10,00, was given
thirty days to respond. He failed to object to it or ask
any questions about it. Now he has defaulted on the
bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000. That's
common law. The UCC works on the same principle.
The minute you get a notice of Deficiency from the IRS,
you return it immediately with a letter that says: The
presentment above is dishonored. ____(your
name)_____ has reserved all of his/her rights under
the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207. This
should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing
more that they can do. In fact, I recently helped
someone in Arizona who received a Notice of
Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as this,
dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back
that they could not make a determination at that
office, but were turning it over to the Collections
Department. A letter was attached from the
Collections Department which said they were sorry for
the inconvenience they had caused him and the NoD
had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it's
handled properly these things are easily resolved.
Impending Bankruptcy
On my way here, I had a chance to visit w/the the
Governor of Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he runs
for office this November, that there won't be a State of
Wyoming at the end of four years. He believes that the
International Bankers might foreclose on the nation and
officially admit that they own the whole world. They could
round up everybody in the state capital building, put them
in an internment camp and hold them indefinitely. They
may give them a trial, or they may not. They may do
whatever they want. As I explained earlier, it has not
been expedient to foreclose on the nation until they could
get everything ready.
This is where the Federal Emergency Management Agency
comes in. It has been put in place w/o anyone really
noticing it. FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has been designed for when America is officially
declared bankrupt, which would be a national emergency.
In a national emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all
law that previously existed, would be suspended. FEMA
has created large concentration camps where they would
put anyone who might cause trouble for the orderly plan
and process of the new regime to take over the nation.
Even a governor could be thrown into one of these
internment camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in
place now, and they are just waiting to declare a national
emergency. Then even state government could be
dissolved. Anybody who might oppose the new regime
could be imprisoned until a new set of laws could be
written and a new government set up. The Governor
knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't want
to be in office when all this happens. I visited with him and
I told him that there are certain action we should take
right now. I think we should consider the fact that,
according to the UCC, Wyoming is an accommodation party
to the national debt. To understand we must realize that
there are two separate entities know as the United States.
The Rothschild Influence When America was founded, the
Rothschild were very unhappy because it was founded on
the Common Law. The Common Law is based on substance,
and this substance is mentioned in the Constitution as gold
or silver. America is a Constitutional Republic -- that is: a
union of the States under the Constitution. When Congress
was working for the Republic, the only thing it could
borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild banks did
not load gold or silver. Naturally, they did not like this new
government. The Rothschild's had a deal w/the King of
England. He would borrow paper and agree to repay in
gold. But these united States, with their Constitution, were
an obstacle to them, and it was much to be the Rothschild's
advantage to get the colonies back under the King. So the
Rothschild's financed the War of 1812 to bring America
back under England. Of course, that didn't work, so they
had to find another way.
The Flaw in the Constitution:
Two Nations in One. It was around the time of the American
Civil War that they discovered a flaw in the Constitution.
The flaw was Art. I, Sect. 3, Clause 17. Remember that
there are two nations called "United States." What is a
nation? See if you would agree to this definition:
Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed
territory containing a body of people. [this is an easy to
understand restatement of how it's presented in Black's
Law Dictionary, btw] Is that a nation? Yes. We have a
governing body in the Republic -- the three branch
government. There are the legislative, the executive and
the judicial branches, with a constitution. There is a
prescribed territory containing a body of people. This is a
Constitutional Republic. But, Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 17
gave Congress which is the legislative branch of the three
branch government, exclusive rule over a given territory
known as the District of Columbia, containing a body of
people. Here we have a nation w/in a nation. This is a
legislative democracy w/in a Constitutional Republic. When
Congress was part of a Constitutional Republic, it had the
obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold and silver. Anyone who had a piece
of gold or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted
into coin. This was the medium of exchange for the
Republic. But in the Legislative Democracy (over
Washington DC) Congress is not limited by the Constitution.
Congress has exclusive rule over the District of Columbia.
The legislators can make the law by a majority vote -- that
makes it a democracy; they have the authority to have
administrative agents to enforce their own law; and they
have courts in the legislative branch of the government, to
try their own law. Here we have the legislature making the
law, enforcing the law and trying the law, all w/in the one
branch of government. This is a one branch government
w/in a three branch government.
Under the three branch government, the congress passes
the law which has to be in harmony w/the Constitution,
the executive enforces the law passed by the congress,
and the judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the
Constitution. THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
AND THE ONE BRANCH LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both
called the United States. One is the federal United States,
and the other is the continental united States. Are you a
United States Citizen? If you say that you are a United
States citizen, which United States are you referring to?
Anyone who lives in the District of the Columbia is a United
States citizen. The remaining population in the fifty states
is the national citizenry of the nation. We are domiciled in
various sovereign states, protected by the constitutions of
those states from any direct rule of Congress over us. In
the democracy, anyone who lives in those states known as
Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, or any of the other
federally held territories is a citizen of the United States
(DC) We must be careful with our choice of words -- we are
not citizens of the United States.
We are not subject to Congress. Congress has exclusive
rule over a given territory, and we are not part of that
territory. Where did Congress get the authority to write
the Internal Revenue Code? It is found in Art. I, Sect. 8
Clause 17 of the Constitution. To pass that law, they only
needed a majority vote. There is no other way that they
could pass laws directly affecting individuals. Title 26, the
Internal Revenue Code, was passed as law for another
nation. (remember our definition of `nation'), but Title 26 is
not consistent w/the Bill of Rights. If you try to fight the
IRS, you have no rights -- the Code does not give you any
of your Constitutional rights. It simply says, "You failed to
file an income tax form -- you failed to perform in some
specific manner." Remember, under the Common Law, you
are free to do whatever you want as long as you do not
infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. If
you do not want to perform, you don't have to. The only
way you can be compelled to perform under the
Constitution in the continental united States, is if you have
entered a contract. But if you are not under a contract you
cannot be compelled to perform. How can you be
compelled to file an income tax form, or any form? When
Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes must
be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
but when Congress works for the Legislative Democracy,
any law it passes becomes the law of the land (remember,
Congress has exclusive legislative control over federal
territory.) If you are charged w/Willful Failure to File an
income tax 1040 form, that is a law for a different nation.
You are a non-resident alien to THAT nation. It is a foreign
corporation to you. It is not the Republic of the continental
united States coming after you, it is a foreign nation -- a
legislative democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.
If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a
presentment from the federal United States, and then you
can use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention
that you are among the national citizenry of continental
united States, and you are a non-resident alien to the
federal United States. You never lived in a federal territory
and never had any income from the federal United States.
Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes
under the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve
Notes (FRNs), because you have reserved your rights
under the Common Law through the UCC at 1-207 Original
Intent of the Founders The Founding Fathers would never
have created a government that was going to boss them
around! There were 13 sovereign States. There were
nations, and they joined together for protection from a
foreign enemies. They provided a means by which the
union of the sovereign states could fend off foreign
enemies. But they never gave the congress of the federal
United States direct rule over any citizen of any state.
They were not going to be ordered around by that
government they set up.
Federal Regions
The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule
what Congress creates. Congress did not create the States,
but Congress did create federal regions. So Congress can
rule the federal regions, but Congress cannot rule the
States. How have we been tricked into Federal regions?
The Zip Code Trick Remember how the government always
comes to us and says, "I'm from the government, and I'm
here to help you." The government went out into the
various states and said, "We don't want you to have to go
to all that trouble of writing three or four letters to
abbreviate the name of the state -- such as Ariz. for
Arizona. Just write AZ instead of Ariz. Or you can just write
WY for Wyoming instead of Wyo." So all of the states of the
union have got a new two letter abbreviation. Even a state
such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is RI
instead of R.I. They have just left off the periods. When
you use a two letter state abbreviation, you are compelled
to use a zip code, because there are so many states, for
example, which start with `M.' ME is Maine -- MI is
Michigan. How many people do ever `i' or make an i that
looks like an `e?' With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc and some sloppy
writing, and you could not tell one from another. So we
have to use the zip code in order to tell them apart. But if
you wrote Mich. or Minn., or Miss., there would be no real
problem telling which state it was. There is no harm in
using the zip code, if you lawfully identify your state. I
found out that no state legislature has met to lawfully
change the abbreviation of the state from it's old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the
lawful abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter
new abbreviation, you have to use the zip code. Look on
page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you that
the first digit of your zip code is the federal region in
which you reside. If you us AZ for Arizona, you cannot use
the state constitution to protect you because you did not
identify your state. You used the zip code, which identifies
which federal region you live in. And Congress may rule
directly federal regions, but it cannot rule the citizens of
any state. Accommodation Party Let's look at how the
states have become the accommodation party to the
national debt. There are many people I have talked to,
including the Governor, who are very concerned about
this, and who know that it could happen very soon. If
America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a national
emergency. FEMA will take over, and anyone who opposes
the new government of the creditors can be sent to a
detention camp in Alaska. We will have no rights
whatsoever. They have already setup prison camps
w/work camps nearby so the people can be used for slave
labor. It could be the governors, legislators and other
leaders who would be hauled away to Alaska, while the
people now disenfranchised from power would likely be
chosen to run the new government. This could all happen
very soon, as the national debt is so large as to be
unpayable. Even the interest on the debt is virtually
unpayable. As I explained, the national debt -- more than
three trillion dollars -- [now almost double that in the 5
years since this was recorded] is not owed by the
Continental united States. It is the federal United States
that had the authority to borrow bank credit. When
Congress worked for the Continental united States, it could
only borrow gold or silver, so the national debts was
borrowed in the names of the federal United States. The
federal United States had to trap the States into assuming
the debt obligation of the federal debt. In the UCC, we find
the term, `accommodation party.' How did the states
become the `accommodation party' to the federal debt?
The federal government through our money system made
the states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which means that
everything the states does is `colorable.' Under the
`colorable' jurisdiction of the UCC, all of the states are the
accommodation party to the federal debt.
Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this
situation. I told the Governor that in the Common Law and
the Law of Merchants -- that's the International Law
Merchant -- there is a term called `no-interest contract.' A
no-interest contract is void and unenforceable. What is a
no-interest contract? No-Interest Contract If I were to
insure a house that did not belong to me, that would be a
no-interest contract. I would just want the house to burn
down. I would pay a small premium, perhaps a few
hundred dollars, and insure it for $80,000 against fire.
Then I would be waiting for it to burn down so I could
trade my small premium for $80,000. Under the Common
Law, that is called a no-interest contract, and it is void and
unenforceable in any court. Unconscionable Contracts In
the UCC, no-interest contracts are called unconscionable
contracts. The section on unconscionable contracts covers
more than forty pages in the Anderson Code. The federal
United States has involved the states as the
accommodation party to the federal debt, and I believe we
could prove this to be an unconscionable contract. We
should get some litigation into the courts before the
government declares a national emergency, claiming that
this state has no lawful responsibility for the national debt
(of the federal United States,) because it became an
accommodation party to this debt through an
unconscionable contract. If we have this litigation before
the courts under International Law when the nation is
declared bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this
matter first, and it would delay them. They would want the
new government to appear to be legitimate, so they could
not just move right in and take over the state, because it
would be in an International Court. This is very important
at this time.
Questions and Review:
Note: These are some of the questions asked after the
main lecture. Some are restatements of material presented
earlier, but they contain very valuable information which
is worth repeating.
Courtroom Techniques
Q) How did you "box in" the Judge?
A). This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't
know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little
dumb. If you are arrested and you go into court, just
remember that in a criminal action, you have to
understand the law or it is a reversible error for the court
to try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try
you. In any traffic case or tax case you are called into
court and the judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you
understand the charges?" Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do
not. Judge: Well, what is so difficult about that charge?
Either you drove the wrong way on a one-way street or
you didn't. You can only go one way on that street, and if
you go the other way it's a fifty dollar fine. What's so
difficult about this that you don't understand? D. Well, Your
Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather the nature
of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of
the Constitution gives me the right to request that court
explain the nature of any action against me, and upon my
request, the court has the duty to answer. I have a
question about the nature of this action. J. Well, what is
that -- what do you want to know? D. Well Your Honor, is
this a Civil or a Criminal Action? J. It is criminal. (If it were
a civil action, there could be no fine, so it has to be
criminal.) D. Thank you. Your Honor, for telling me that.
Then the record will show that this action against ___(your
name)___ is a criminal action, is that right? J. Yes. D. I
would like to ask another question about this criminal
action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in
the Constitution.: one is under the Common Law, and the
other deals w/International Maritime Contracts, under an
Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a
Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under
either Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles
me, Your Honor, is that there is no *corpus delecti* here
that gives this court jurisdiction over my person and
property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't
appear to me that this court is moving under Common Law.
J. No. I can assure you this court is not moving under the
Common Law. D. Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you
make the charge against me even more difficult to
understand. The only other criminal jurisdiction would
apply only if there was an International Maritime Contract
involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached, and the
court was operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction. I don't
believe I have ever been under any International
Maritime contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would
have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be
placed into evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely,
this court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put the words in the judges mouth. J. No, I can
assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean somewhere --
we're right here in the middle of the state of _____. No this
is not an Admiralty Jurisdiction. D. Thank you Your Honor,
but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this charge is not
under the Common Law or under Admiralty -- and those
are the only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the
Constitution -- what kind of jurisdiction could this court be
operating under? J. It's Statutory Jurisdiction. D. Oh, thank
you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have
never heard of that jurisdiction. So if I have to defend
under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal
Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me
where I might find those rules? There are no rules for
Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will get very angry at
this point and say: J. If you want answers to questions like
that, you get yourself a licensed attorney -- I'm not
allowed to practice law from the bench. D. Oh, Your Honor,
I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law
from the bench if you just answer a few questions to
explain to me the nature of this actions, so that I may
defend myself. J. I told you before, I am not going to
answer any more questions. Do you understand that? If
you ask anymore questions in regards to this, I'm going to
find you in contempt of court! Now if you cant afford a
licensed attorney, the court will provide you w/one. But if
you want those questions answered, you must get
yourself a licensed attorney. D. Thank you, Your Honor, but
let me just see if I got this straight. Has this court made a
legal determination that it has authority to conduct a
criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret
jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this
court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me that
right to defend in my own person? He has no answer for
that. The judge will probably postpone the case and
eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be wise as a
serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into
court w/a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black
sheep" country. Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out
as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and
harmless as a dove." Sheep do not attack wolves directly.
Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't understand
the charge, and remember -- they can't try you criminally
if you don't understand the charge. That would
automatically be a reversible error on appeal.
The Social Security Problem
If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting
out in my first job, I would not want Social Security. W/my
signature on the application, I would write, `Without
Prejudice' UCC 1-207, and I would reserve my Common
Law rights. But why wouldn't I want Social Security today?
I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I
paid into it dollars that had good purchasing power. Now
I'm getting a promised return in FRNs which have
considerably less value. For example, in 1940 you could
buy a deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today's FRNs
that won't buy the rear fenders and trunk on a new
Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I would not want to put
FRNs into SS now, and get back something later like the
German mark after WWI -- when it took a billion to buy a
loaf of bread. They will give you every FRN back they
promised you, but it might not buy anything. Assurance
Under the UCC, you have the right in any agreement to
demand a guarantee of performance. So, don't go to them
and say, "I want to rescind my SSN," or "I refuse to take
it." Just take it easy and say, "I would be happy to get a
SSN and enter into this contract, but I have a little problem.
How can I have assurance before I enter into this contract
that the purchasing power of the FRNs I get back at the
end of the contract will be as good as the ones that I pay
in at the beginning. They can't guarantee that, and you
have a right under the UCC to assurance of performance
under the contract. So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this
contract unless the government will guarantee to pay me
at the end of the contract w/the same value FRNs that I'm
paying in. Both may be called FRNs, but you know that
these FRNs don't hold their value. I want assurance on this
contract that the FRNs that I get in my retirement will buy
as much as the ones I'm giving you now in my working
years." They can't make that guarantee. If they won't give
you that guarantee, just say, "I'd be glad to sign this but if
you can't guarantee performance under the contract, I'm
afraid I can not enter the contract." Now, did you refuse or
did they refuse?
You can get the sections of the UCC which grant the right
to have assurance that the contract you have entered will
be fulfilled properly -- that the return will equal the
investment, and you can reject the contract using the
Code. Using their own system of law, you can show that
they cannot make you get into a contract of that nature.
Just approach them innocently like a lamb. It is very
important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with the
government or the courts -- never raise your voice or
show anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build
the judge up -- call him "Your Honor." Give him all the
`honor' he wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather
be cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the
judge to say the things which you need to have in the
record. THE COURT REPORTER In many courts, there will be a
regular court reporter. He gets his job at the judge's
pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease the judge. The
court reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of
every word that is spoken in the courtroom. But if the
judge make a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court
reporter and says, "I think you had better leave that out
of the transcript; just say it got a little to far ahead of you,
and you couldn't quite get everything in." So this will be
missing from the transcript. In one case, we brought a
licensed court reporter with us and the judge got very
angry and said, "This court has a licensed court reporter'
right here, and the record of this court is this court
reporter's record. No other court reporter's record means
anything in this court." We responded with, "Of course,
Your Honor, we're certainly glad to use your regular court
reporter. But you know, Your Honor, sometimes things
move so fast that a court reporter gets a little behind, and
doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't it be nice if we
had another licensed court reporter in the courtroom, just
in case your court reporter got a little behind, so that we
could fill in from this other court reporter's data. I'm sure,
Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I like to
use the saying; give bad dog a good name, and he'll live up
to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that moment
on, he was very careful of what he said. These are little
tricks to getting around in court. This is how to be wise as
a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter a
courtroom. There are others using the same information
presented here who end up in jail, handcuffed and hit over
the head, because they approach the situation with a chip
on their shoulder. They try to tell the judge what the law is
and he is a no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and
harmless.
UCC 1-207 Review
It is so important to know and understand the meaning of
"without prejudice" UCC 1-207, in connection w/your
signature, that we should go over this once more. It is
very likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So
please learn and understand this carefully: The use of
"Without prejudice" UCC 1-207 in connection w/my
signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law
right NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM under any contract
I did not enter into KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, and
INTENTIONALLY. And furthermore, I do not accept the
liability associated w/the the compelled benefit of any
UN-REVEALED CONTRACT OR COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT. Once
you state that, that is all the judge needs to hear. Under
the Common Law, a contract must be entered into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, by both parties
or it can be declared void and unenforceable. You are
claiming the right not to be compelled to perform under
any contract that you did not enter into knowingly,
voluntarily and intentionally. And you do not accept the
liability associated w/the compelled benefit of any
unrevealed contract or agreement. The compelled benefit
is the privilege to use FRNs to discharge your debts
w/limited liability rather than to pay your debts w/silver
coins. It is a compelled benefit, because there are no silver
coins in circulation. You have to eat, and you can only buy
food w/a medium of exchange provided by the
government. You are not allowed to print your own
money, so you are compelled to use theirs. This is the
compelled benefit of an unrevealed commercial
agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely and
explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and
you simply exercise this benefit rendered by government,
you will be obligated, under an implied agreement to obey
every statute, ordinance and regulation passed by
government, at all levels -- federal, state and local.
=========================================================
IN CONCLUSION
The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in
putting this to paper in an effort to make it readable and
somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to
Howard Freeman for the opportunity to work w/the
information so absolutely vital to our survival as dignified,
unenslaved human beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's
forgiveness for any errors committed in getting this to
print. [And again to e-test.] It's purpose, as stated in the
Foreword, is to make this knowledge and wisdom available
to as many people as will take the time and trouble to read
it. This is meant to be supplemental to Mr. Freeman's
recorded lectures, not a substitute. Indeed, there is NO
SUBSTITUTE for hearing him present this material in his own
words. It is not just the LAW and the FACTS that are
important here, but the way they are used. His numerous
reminders of Jesus' commission to be "like sheep among
wolves.." cannot be overstated, and is certainly good
advice to us in all dealings -- not just in court or with the
government. Hearing him explain this in his own words
brings to life the practical application and usefulness of
being "wise" and "harmless." In fact, after being
introduced to this approach, it becomes difficult to imagine
that any other way of defending oneself from the
government would be effective. It goes without saying
that none of this information presented here is in any way,
shape, or form offered as legal advice. For that, as you
know, you must "get yourself a licensed attorney." Having
said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the most
difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney --
even a good one -- may be knowing just whose side he is
on. (he is, after all, an OFFICER OF THE COURT)! So for those
of use who have concluded that having an attorney means
that you will soon be chained, gagged and lead to the
gallows, this information may be in-dispensable. For the
extraordinary challenges of appearing in court in one's
own person -- *pro per* --there are few reliable sources
of information. Learning to defend ourselves, that is, being
*responsible* instead of turning over one more area of our
lives to "professionals" -- may be the only way to have
any chance of digging ourselves out of this pit of legal
tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we face in
education today is the matter of widespread legal
illiteracy. Naturally, there will always be a number of
people who just don't care about these issues who either:
1.have a soft life which is supported and maintained by
this secret system of law and institutions which have
grown up around it (`I can make a bundle buying
these IRS seized homes cheap and reselling them.') or
2.don't believe that anything can be done about it (you
can't fight city hall.')
3.simply don't have the energy or inclination to do
anything about it. (`that's nice, but let's see what's on
TV'.) For those good `citizens' this whole effort may
seem useless or even threatening. But it is this writers
view that God did not intend for us to spend our lives
in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of
secret world manipulators, even if the `masters' grant
us some token of pleasures and diversions. Human
dignity requires much more than entertainment. The
door is there and the key exists; we must find it and
we must use it to return to freedom! Let us discover
the mistakes we have made, let us find the truth, let
us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us
gently but firmly reclaim the precious freedom which
we have so foolishly given up.
Well there you have it, The UCC Connection. There is also a
list of other publications available from American's for
Constitutional Government. If you found this information
useful, I would recommend contacting them for a list of
their materials. I hope I didn't put all this effort in only for
someone to tell me "Yea, that's on the Internet...." I tried
to find stuff like this for some time now and other then
John Freeman's articles, I found none. Also, I like the
authors approach here. Many of the so called "patriot"
organizations seem to be more "profiteers" than patriots.
I understand bills need to be paid, but after reading lists
and lists of "products available for $xxxx" I saw this as a
little different. Good luck. And a few more quotes:
"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong
-- is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth,
then all Americans are in peril." Harry Truman
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man,
brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds
however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be
a patriot." Mark Twain
"Truth is less than truth until it is made known." John
Wheeler
Mr. Howard Freeman died in 1992, at the age of 92. He
gave lectures all over the country for more than fifty
years.
-----------------------------------
Police State
In trying to appraise this issue of law enforcement, much
has been written and much more will be written. One point
that everyone seems to agree on is that crime is out of
control, and something must be done about it.
We call America the land of the free, and refer to the
Soviet Union as a police state. But the facts tell us another
story: they show that this country holds more people per
capita in jail than any other country, including the Soviet
Union and South Africa.
In reality, most people in America live in a police state,
and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference
between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may
be. For example, the people of Poland:
have national identity cards-
cannot drive without licenses -
cannot work where they choose -
are required to register firearms and cars -
cannot build on their land without government
approval -
are compelled to buy insurance -
must show identification papers upon demand -
have a portion of their wages stolen -
are incarcerated without trial or due process -
have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear
and pay duties -
are subject to searches on their highways
may be arbitrarily taken into custody and
fingerprinted without court order
The list goes on. It makes no difference where you
may be located; citizens of any country who are so
constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It
matters not whether we think we have it somehow
"better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in
nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny
applied and the understanding of the system by the
citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny,
while Americans have been convinced that it can't happen
here, even though it has already come to pass. We
recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we
refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any
other name is still a police state.
There must be a simple solution; one which will free us
from this morass of crime and punishment. Any solution
must conform to our Constitution (if we wish to avoid
armed revolution), refrain from punishing the innocent,
and punish those who are guilty. The current system does
nothing but spawn an endless circle of recidivism and
contempt for law in general. Our prisons, rather than being
rehabilitative, are merely schools, which teach further
crime.
If a victim loses their property, the criminals lose their
freedom, but never make restitution to the damaged
party. And the taxpayers are fleeced out of their money to
fund these human warehouses. The beneficiaries of this
system are not the victims -- they are the public
defenders, lawyers, judges, jailers, prison guards,
policemen and political administrations, and they quite
literally thrive off the system.
Crime does pay, and quite handsomely. What is worse
is that the victim not only loses by having his original
property stolen, but by a continual drain of his resources
to provide food and shelter for the thief.
Solutions to the crime problem must provide
restitution for the victim, punish the criminal, decrease the
prison population, eliminate over- crowding of prisons
which cannot be emptied, eliminate capital punishment,
and make the entire criminal justice system
self-supporting by paying for itself in productive
accomplishment.
How many broken homes, welfare payments, divorces,
fines, jail terms and shattered lives must there be in the
name of law and order, merely for the benefit of the law
enforcement growth industry? How many people derive
their livelihood from this industry? How many agencies are
created by legislatures, city councils and Congress?
In the state of Idaho, it would probably be
conservative to estimate that there are over 2,500
persons employed in this industry. That sounds like a lot,
but consider the following:
1.There must be over 100 policemen in the city of Boise
alone. There must also be 50 or more cities in the
state which maintain a city police department and
employ from 3 to 100+ persons.
2.There are 44 counties, all employing a sheriff,
deputies and support personnel from 5 to 100+.
3.The state police employ several hundred officers and
support personnel. In addition, the state employs
many varied special agents. Then we must consider
the administrative agencies which bring actions
against citizens, such as building, electrical, health,
fire, welfare and plumbing departments and the like.
4.There is no way to estimate the number of federal
agents swarming over the state, from such agencies
as OSHA, EPA, FCC, BLM, BATF, etc.
5.There are the jail and prison staffs, and their
supporting personnel.
6.There is the judicial system at the county, state and
federal levels, their marshalls and support personnel.
7.And there is the lawyer workforce.
It should be quite clear that we have no idea how
many persons are employed by this industry. And each
and every one of these people are looking for
lawbreakers to apprehend and punish, in order to
justify their employment.
It seems as though it is the purpose of government to
build a system so big that everyone will either be
employed by it or imprisoned by it.
This industry is nothing more than a business and
customer relationship. Like any business, this industry
needs more and more customers to continue to grow and
prosper, in order to justify its existence and size to the
people, in order to obtain more funds to further that
growth. The cycle goes something like this:
1."We ought to have more laws."
2.The executive proposes new statutes to the
legislature.
3.The legislature passes those statutes, and creates a
criminal act where there was none before (i.e.,
eating bananas on Sunday).
4.The executive branch now has more statutes to
enforce, and therefore needs more employees to
enforce them.
5.The executive appeals to the legislature for more
funds, due to the increasing crime rate caused by
these legislated crimes.
6.Funds are made available, and more employees are
hired.
7.More employees must now justify their existence,
and therefore, must find (or entrap) more
"customers" into committing these so-called crimes.
8."We ought to have more laws."
9.Etc.
In order for the sheriff, or any administrator, to
justify their budget, they must itemize their expenses.
Every year, we see a steady rise in crime. We also see this
industry exploit their self-generated problem through the
media. We constantly hear about all the crime being
committed, and the answer proposed is always more
laws, more police, more prosecutors, more judges, more
money. We never hear how they propose to eliminate
crime, prisons, jails and jailers; all we hear is that more
money is needed. So we pass more laws, hire more police,
and spend more money, only to learn next year that crime
has risen by five percent, and we need more money to
combat it.
Headlines do not exist stating, "Idaho's Prison
Population Declines For Fifth Consecutive Year," or "Sheriff
Submits Third Successive Budget With 5% Reduction In
Requests." We have been spending more every year on
the criminal justice system. And we are getting exactly
what we have paid for: MORE CRIME.
As an example, let's look at a city, X. City X has one
hundred policemen. The crime rate is up 5% over last year,
so the media is told that the reason these one hundred
policemen could not hold crime to the same level as last
year is that they are understaffed and underbudgeted. Oh
yes, and there were some defects in the existing statutes.
So we need more money, and more laws.
City X gets five new policemen, 5% more money and
another 7% to compensate for inflation (another
government-created industry), and a few new laws to
enforce. The product the industry sells is crime; our
product line has been expanded by a few more laws, and
our sales staff has increased by 5%. Our operating budget
has been expanded to cover the additional overhead. Our
police chief, the sales manager, now has a larger sales
staff and additional responsibility, and needs a raise.
Supervisors have a similar gain, and also obtain raises.
Now we must prepare for the coming year's
expansion. We must justify our expanded budget, size and
new products to the board of directors (the legislature).
The sales staff is therefore sent into the street to ticket
more violators, arrest more drunks, catch or entrap more
prostitutes and drug pushers, etc. With proper
management, and a little luck, we increase our business
by 5%.
Now, we must make sure the media is aware of the
growing crime rate. The public must be made aware that
there is more crime because we are understaffed and
overbudgeted, and besides, there are several loopholes in
the laws that need filling. To illustrate the seriousness of
the problem, the chief of police will recount some of the
more horrendous crimes of the past year. Just like
insurance salesmen sell insurance by using fear of death
to motivate the prospective customer, the law
enforcement growth industry uses fear of crime.
So another year comes and goes, and now we have
110 police, at least a 10% increase over our budget of two
years ago, and a few more laws. Now our increased sales
staff can get back out on the street to find and entrap
more violators. This increases the population of the jail,
and causes the sheriff to go to the city commissioners to
request more funds to feed, house and guard the
increasing load of criminals (making sure the media is
made aware of his difficulties).
A proportion of the new increase in sales (arrests and
jailings) bleeds over into felonies, and these criminals
must be housed in the state prison. The warden, of course,
must now go to the legislature and request his own
budget increase, and maybe a new prison. Of course, all
this business creates activity in numerous support areas;
more food is needed to feed the criminals, more buildings
are needed to house them, more judges are needed to
handle the case loads, and more public defenders and
lawyers are needed to defend the customers (citizens).
The cycle is more or less complete at this point, and begins
all over again.
The customer of this industry is the average citizen. It
is the citizen who pays the bills; it is the citizen who is
persecuted in the name of crime prevention; it is the
citizen who is entrapped into committing violations
of statutes by law enforcement personnel, who are
simply justifying their existence by ensuring that
crime exists.
The following is an actual conversation between a
prisoner, "Joe," and another citizen. Joe is a bright college
student, low on funds.
Citizen: What happened to cause you to be put
in prison?
Joe (matter of factly): I stole $350.
Citizen: So you are guilty of the crime, and
deserve to be punished?
Joe: Okay, I was in the B.S.U. auditorium, broke
and didn't know how to make ends meet, and I
saw this lady's open purse on a chair. It had
money in it, so I took it. Apparently, someone
saw me take it and called the police. They told
the police who I was, and the police came to
my apartment and arrested me. That's all there
is to it. The law in Idaho is that any theft over
$150 is grand larceny. I was convicted of grand
larceny and sentenced to indeterminate five
years. That means I can spend anywhere from
eighteen months to five years in prison.
Citizen: Did you plead guilty to the charge?
Joe: No, I pled not guilty. My public defender
advised me to take it to trial.
Citizen: How long was the trial?
Joe: One and a half days.
Citizen: How much time have you served so far?
Joe: Eleven months.
Citizen: Did the lady get her purse and money
back?
Joe: No, I spent the money to pay bills and I
threw the purse away.
This conversation can be repeated in hundreds of
ways, hundreds of times. This shows how a real crime
happens: There was a real criminal, and a real victim. Let's
see how much this crime actually cost the taxpayers to
apprehend, try, convict, incarcerate and then parole back
into productive society.
It costs at least $2,000 to try, defend and incarcerate
Joe. He will spend an absolute minimum of eighteen
months in prison. It costs $15,000 per year to feed and
house Joe in the prison. Assuming Joe will be paroled for
the remaining three and a half years, at $13.86 per day,
his parole will cost another $27,771.50. And the lady didn't
even get her $350 back -- making a grand total cost for
Joe's crime of $67,271.50.
Who is paying this bill? The victim, and the rest of the
community. But what about Joe? Joe plays cards,
consumes food, needs clothes and shelter, and produces
nothing. In addition, he provides employment for everyone
involved in trying, convicting and incarcerating him.
Multiply this example by hundreds, even thousands, and
we can readily see how billions of dollars are wasted each
year in the name of law and order. The lady who had her
purse stolen would have been ahead if she had not
reported the theft of her purse. The victim sentenced
herself to a fine by taxation. She lost her purse and the
money in it, and on top of that, was taxed to support Joe
and the law enforcement growth industry for the next five
years. She would have been better off if she had simply
bought Joe an airplane ticket to California.
Joe is also a loser, and once again, the winner is the
industry. Just how is Joe a loser? This is a story in itself.
The law in Idaho which declares $150.00 as the
amount which indicates grand larceny was passed in 1949.
Because of inflation, his crime should now be a
misdemeanor. But he is branded a felon for life. It is his
first offense. Now he is in a school which teaches crime,
and he has learned from his mistakes. When he comes out
of prison, he will have a degree in crime. Society will be
biased against him beacuse of this mistake, and it is quite
likely that he will turn to further crime to make a living.
Crime pays, because most crimes are never reported, and
of the few that are reported, most are not solved. Joe will
be occasionally caught, and he will be a regular customer
of the industry for the rest of his life. When he is caught,
he will be institutionalized, and forced to live in an
unnatural, zoo-like environment.
Whether we like it or not, Joe is going to be out on the
street again, and everyone will be faced with another
problem. At some point, we will again have to deal with
Joe. For the past forty-plus years, we have been dealing
with all of these Joes, and what we have been doing has
not only not worked, it has failed disastrously. It is time to
admit that the criminal justice system needs drastic
reformation.
We know there is a problem, but what can we do
about it? There is another fact to examine: Where did
prisons and dungeons as a form of punishment come
from? The answer is lost in antiquity. In the Bible, there
are numerous accounts of individuals being imprisoned,
such as Joseph, Daniel and Peter. Many nations used
prisons and dungeons to punish criminals and political
prisoners.
The only exception is found in the time of Moses. When
the Isrealites crossed the Jordan River, they had a
different kind of law: a substantive law, based upon
substance and labor. The common law, and our Rights at
law which our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee to
each and every one of us, is likewise based upon
substance. The connection is seen in the axiom, "If there is
a remedy at law, equity may not prevail."
Our common law came from England, but its roots are
at Mount Sinai. Moses brought the law down from the
Mount, and it is recorded in Exodus 20. The next five
chapters of Exodus contain the criminal codes. They are
short and precise. There were no prisons or dungeons. The
Israelites borrowed the prison system from the Romans,
Egyptians and Babylonians, and we have that system in
use today.
The act of punishing the victim of a crime by taxing
him to house, feed and guard the criminal is adding crime
upon crime, and in addition, it is unusually cruel to lock a
man up like an animal.
Let's examine Joe's case again. Joe stole $350 cash,
but he also threw the woman's purse away, so the victim
has suffered a further loss of time to replace such things
as pictures, credit cards, etc. Let's set a value upon the
crime. It's a common law crime, since it involves the loss
of life, liberty or property. The common law is designed to
restore property and to remedy damages. Let's value
Joe's crime at $50,000, which is a bit excessive, but it's a
starting point for the sake of discussion. So Joe gets five
years or a fine of $50,000, whichever he prefers.
However, Joe is poor, which was the reason for the theft,
so we are going to enforce the option of five years. Since
Joe has an obligation -- let's have him work it off!
Let's put Joe in a productive capacity. Joe is not
dangerous. Let's teach him the dignity of work, and of
making restitution for the cost of his crime. Convict labor
is not a new idea; it has been used before in many places,
such as California. Joe can be placed at the Atlanta, Idaho
Prison Camp to work on forest projects, such as helping
fight fires, replanting trees, cutting down diseased trees
and firewood. He will be paid an hourly wage -- let's say
$5. If Joe works ten hours per day, six days per week, for
three years, he earns his freedom -- with no parole or
other strings attached. He is a free man. And the victim
receives her loss in tax credits or direct payments from
sales resulting from his labor.
Unions and the law enforcement growth industry will
resist change, as they have done in the past. But the State
is losing more with our present system. No one is hurt by
setting convicts to work, and there is an unending supply
of work. Numerous prisoners, when interviewed, have
stated that they would welcome a chance to work off
their sentences.
If the Scriptural examples cited earlier are repulsive to
you, then leave God out of the equation. Ignore God, and
rely only upon your own self-interest. Simple logic will tell
you that it is in the best interest of everyone to change
our prison system approach to crime and punishment. As
a victim, which would you prefer -- restitution for
the loss, or taxation to pay for the incarceration of
the thief?
Some years ago, a car was stolen, and when it was
recovered by the police, they issued the owner a ticket for
leaving the keys in the ignition. In other words, for every
crime that is committed, there may be another
manufactured by the legislature. Maybe they will pass a
law making it a crime to leave your house unlocked --
then when something is stolen from your house, you will
be guilty for failing to secure your property. Why should
the citizen even report the theft if he is going to be
hassled by the police? Oh, the insurance company needs
the report. In this class of "crimes," the real party of
interest is the insurance company. They are the ones that
want you to remove your keys from the car, and lock your
house. They are the ones who stand to lose profits from
your failure to perform these actions, and therefore, they
want you punished when you fail to perform. Such
legislation is using the police powers of the state to
enforce private interests (decreasing claims and
increasing profits of insurance companies).
The traffic courts provide a further example of
government protecting private interests. Who cares if a
person "speeds," especially if that person is in the only
vehicle on the road? If we are at home and asleep, do we
really care? But statistics show that "speed kills," and
therefore, increasing claims at the insurance window;
these cause an increase in operating costs, and therefore,
a decrease in profits.
The "Law of Merchants" has crept in upon us and
attempted to deny us our inalienable rights. Unfortunately,
most citizens have passively, and sometimes even
voluntarily, accepted this system.
Let's look at the traffic code to illustrate how we have
enveloped ourselves in tyranny.
We begin at the time when there were no traffic laws,
for traffic on roads, trails and highways preceded traffic
codes. Whether on foot, in wagons, on horseback, carriage
or stagecoach, there was traffic. In all human endeavor,
there are bound to be mishaps. When our common law
was in everyday use, affixing fault without any statutory
law was done by litigation to determine liability and
assess damages to the injured party.
With the advent of the "horseless carriage," we began
to see a proliferation of traffic laws. As their number
increased, the average person shifted his status,
sometimes knowingly, but more often unknowingly, from
"at law" to "equity" by entering into a quasi-contract
through the use of the "driver's license."
Through the use of licenses and permits, the age-old
rivalry of the equity courts and the common law courts
took a decided turn to equity by status, and the death of
the common law began. Eighty years later, we find the
common law in use only in major crimes, and the grand
jury, for all practical purposes, has been abolished. If our
Constitution is based upon the common law, and the grand
jury is a fixed right pursuant to the Bill of Rights,
government cannot eliminate it, for as the Supreme Court
said:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule-making or
legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491.
How, then, can any state abrogate the entire common
law by statute? Simply by coercing everyone to waive
their common law rights by getting them to volunteer into
equity jurisdiction by the use of contracts. The state
simply licenses everyone, inducing them to accept a
privilege in place of rights.
No foreign power, by force of arms or ideology, has
enslaved us. Our lack of understanding of our common law
heritage, and ignorance of, or unwillingness to obey,
natural law, has enslaved us to this Civil jurisdiction.
The police state imposed upon the Polish people by
force in 1945 is no different than that which we Americans
have imposed upon ourselves today, except in one area:
We paid to have our rights subjugated to contract. The
Poles, at least, saved some money.
We still have our Constitution, and we can
reject limited liability, perpetual slavery and debt
whenever we want to accept responsibility for our
actions and debts.
The Poles cannot.
There are not many people who want to trade their
slavery for the rigors of the life of a freeman. But for
those few men and women who want to be free, the
choice is theirs. Every person who wants to be free
can free themselves, but no other person can free
them.
Redress of greivances comes on the courtroom floor.
Not in a political rally. Not in a union meeting. Not in a
letter to the editor. The courts are open, and are manned
by knowledgeable jurists who will listen to, and rule in
favor of, a person's natural inalienable rights, if only they
know how to claim them. And they will just as quickly
slam the door on a slave, and leave him in his security.
There is no security in freedom -- only boundless
opportunity.
There are thousands of freemen in America, not
millions. The masses prefer security, welfare, limited
liability, and the satisfaction of having others control their
lives. To claim your rights, you must be compelled to
defend them on the courtroom floor.
Limits on Congress
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20limit%20on%20congress%20power.htm
Obsolete info: From the Patriot Archives ftp site at:
ftp://tezcat.com/patriot. Note: This piece was written sometime in the
early 80's. This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to
the Patriot Archives FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection
of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20social%20pecking%20order%20steve%20pattison.htm
From: "Steven Pattison" The following in part is from
1. GOD created man...
2. Man (that's you) created the Constitution
3. The Constitution created government...
4. Government created corporations...etc.
The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately,
it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such
as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.
As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a
REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote
system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system.
Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American citizens have
not been informed of their other two votes.
Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who
are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be
done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or
expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective
means by which the common people of any nation on earth have
ever had in controlling those appointed to serve
them in government.
The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before
anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by
those acting in the name of government, permission must be
obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis
Star and Tribune in the March 27th 1987 edition noted a purpose of
the Grand Jury this way:
"A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an
overzealous prosecutor."
The third is the most powerful vote; this is when you are acting as
a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck
stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE
POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges
combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or
some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and
judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be
punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity,
choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in
rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for
any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of
the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come
before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.
YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!
As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of
innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY.
The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great
concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their
RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article
appearing in its
November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the
juries" stated:
"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as
defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American
jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when
prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful
because juries refused to convict."
"Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to
the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While
our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict
of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the
opposite."
"Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to
inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who
made...Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and
charges of contempt of court."
"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant
but no right to know about the power? The court decisions that have
suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resove this
paradox."
"More than logic has suffered. As orignally conceived, juries were to
be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of
the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the
community. If they are to funciton effectively as the 'conscience of
the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and
the right to say no to a
prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off
from this information is to undermine one of our most important
institutions."
"Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then citizens called
for jury duty could teach the judge a needed lesson in civics."
This information is designed to bring to your attention one important
way our nation's founders provided to insure that you, (not the
growing army of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats, rule
this nation. It will focus on the true power you possess as a JUROR,
how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on
which you must decide not only the facts placed in evidence but also
the validity or application of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or
instruction given by any man seated as a judge or attorney when
you serve as a JUROR.
One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUILTY VOTE!" He can nullify
bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"
The only power the judge has over the JURY is their ignorance!
"WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics.
___________________________
End of snip please go to the site to read what they have printed for
you.
Lessons
1. Go to sites:
3. Read the information located here:
If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found in
the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something very
interesting. The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you get to
the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868. After that, it's no
longer capitalized. This isn't an isolated occurrence either. In the definition
of "Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case decided before the
fourteenth amendment, they capitalize "Citizen," but everywhere else in the
dictionary,where it refers to the laws of today, the word isn't capitalized. As
you shall see, this is just one small indicator of many that the fourteenth
amendment created a new class of citizen.
snip
6. Read the information located:
What is Sovereign Citizenship? Sovereign Citizenship is the status
held by our forefathers. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and everyone
else who won their freedom from the British Empire had this status. It was the
birthright of all Americans, and we were generous in extending this
most important right to foreign-born persons through the naturalization
laws.
With this status, our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property
couldn't be infringed. During the Civil War a method was discovered
by the leading attorneys, financiers, and politicians of the day to deprive us
of this status. Fortunately, we can get it back.
This brings us to the question, "What are we getting back?" What
does it mean to be a Sovereign Citizen?
The word "sovereign" is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law
Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, A person, body, or state in
which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a
king or other ruler in a monarchy." Prior to the War for American
Independence, the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this:
snip
7. Learn that you can make a difference. Read and understand how
we lost our "Natural Rights". Copy and give to everyone that you care about.
8. Learn that nothing will happen until you and everyone that you
share this with does something. Learn that as a 14th Amendment
Citizenship, you will not be able to win any of the battles that you currently are
involved in. Make a promise to yourself to inform ten people and get a
commitment that they will inform ten people. This alone will make a difference.
9. When you learn the truth then go to:
The reason why there are two classes of citizens is because there
are two classes of states. There are, in contemplation of law, Citizens of the
35 states(1) respectively, and citizens of the 50 States(2) respectively.
This fact was discovered working backwards. Realizing that modern
law doesn't refer to the same "states" that we had back in 1789, from
there it was just a matter of tracing the existence of the States(2) back to
their origin. Here are just a few of the differences between the states(1)
from before the war, and the States(2) from after the war:
snip
The colonies appealed to God, the Supreme Judge of the world. We
will all have to appeal to God, no matter what we all do!
Respectfully submitted,Steven Pattison
SOCIALISTS Politicans believe "that the only constitutional right in the United
States which is absolute & is your right to believe anything you want."
From: Jeff Gordon Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 9:31 am
Subject: Sen. McClintock, Remarks on Freedom, 9-Jun-01
Senator Tom McClintock
Date: June 9, 2001
Publication Type: Speech or Statement
A Speech by Senator Tom McClintock
Western CPAC Conference, Los Angeles, June 9, 2001
There are two modern views of government that begin from entirely
different premises.
There is the 18th Century American view propounded by our nation's founders. They believed, and formed a Republic form government based upon that belief, that each of us is endowed by our Creator with certain rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights. This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the American Bill of Rights.
The second view is 19th Century German in origin and expressed in the
philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater good defined, of course, by government.
In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in public policy, I have seen the growing influence of this 19th Century German view. It disdains the view of the
American Founders. It rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the laws of nature and of nature s God. In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested.
I mention this, because of a debate that occurred last week on the floor
of the State Senate. It was a debate that occurred under the portrait of George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto, Senatoris Est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri - (The Senators protect the Liberty of the Citizens.)
At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license
to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state.
We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon
the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your betters, who will license you to
exercise that right at their discretion.
During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the liberty of the citizens.
She said, I want to focus on that statement: "The only constitutional right which
is absolute is your right to believe anything you want."
Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn't utter it or act on it he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own
thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master whether that master is a state or an owner.
Now, let us continue to look at this new constitutional principle
propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of George Washington to the delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the proud words above them, is to Protect the Liberty of the Citizens.
She continued, "Other than that [the right to your own thoughts]
government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people
your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It's a balance of
your rights and my rights because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for government is how do we balance those rights"
Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. An excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your fist so that you can never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my own fist to protect my nose?
Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe government has the legitimate
authority to do so. It is simply the question of balancing.
It is very important that we understand precisely what Senator Kuehl and the Socialist Left are saying.
A thief balances your right to your wallet against his right to eat. A
murderer balances your right to life against his right to freedom. A master balances your right to work and toil and make bread, against his right to eat it. These are matters of balance.
The American view is quite different. In the view of the American
Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature s God endow each of us with rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. These rights are absolute. But in a state of nature, there are predators who would deny us those
rights. And thus we come together to preserve our freedom. In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by one government over its people, is to secure these rights.
Senator Kuehl continues, "My right to defend myself in the home does not extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps, that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living room."
Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious fact that a tank is only an
instrument of self-defense against a power that employs a tank. But let us turn to the more reasonable side of her argument: that rights can be constrained by government; that there is, after all, no right to shout fire in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and yet constrained by government?
To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is simply, it's easy -
whenever we say so. Or, in
her words, government has the ability to say (so) on behalf of all the people.
The American Founders had a different view, also, not surprisingly,
diametrically opposed
to Senator Kuehl's way of thinking.
The right is absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to
forbid me from
speaking because I might shout fire in a crowded theater. Government has no
authority to forbid
me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike
your nose. And
government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might
shoot an
innocent victim.
Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be
brought against me if I
discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does
not have the authority
to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them.
Senator Kuehl continues, "In my opinion, this bill is one of those
balances. It does not say
you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says if
you are going to be
owning and handling and using a dangerous item you need to know how to use it,
and you need to
prove that you know how to use it by becoming licensed."
How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic!
We must understand what they are arguing, because it is chilling. They
are arguing that
any of our most precious rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights , any at least
which they decide are
conceivably dangerous -- may only be extended through the license of the
government.
If that is the case, they are not rights. With that one despotic
principle, you have just
dissolved the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights. You have created a
society where your only
right is to your own thoughts.
Inalienable rights are now alienated to government, and government may
extend or refuse
them upon its whim or, more precisely, upon a balancing act to be decided by
government. Let us
follow in our minds at least a little farther down this path.
Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate their hatred and racism.
Sick individuals
in our society act upon this hatred. The Oklahoma City bombing killed a score
of innocent
children. Shouldn't we license printing presses and Internet sites to prevent
the pathology of hate
from spreading? Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a press. It does not
say you cannot
express yourself. It do say if you are going to be owning and handling a
printing press, you should
know what not to say and prove that you can restrain yourself by becoming
licensed.
And what are we to do about rogue religions like those that produced
Heaven's Gate and
Jonestown? How many people around the world are killed by acts of religious
fanaticism every
year? Should we not license the legitimate churches? Such an act doesn't say
you cannot have a
church. It does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be
running and conducting
a church, that you must know how to worship and prove that you know how by
becoming licensed.
The only right you have is the right to believe anything you want!, the
only right of a slave.
The rest is negotiable or to use the new word, balanceable.
In 1838, a 29-year-old Abraham Lincoln posed the question for which he
would ultimately
give his life. Years later, he would debate Stephen Douglas, who argued that
freedom and slavery
were a matter of political balance. But in this speech, he spoke to the larger
question that we must
now confront:
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the
ocean, and crush us at a
blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the
earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a
commander, could not by
force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a
trial of a thousand years.
At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it
ever reach us, it must
spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot,
we must ourselves
be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all
time, or die by
suicide."
The American Founders worried about the same thing. Late in life,
Jefferson wrote to
Adams, "Yes we did create a near perfect union; but will they keep it, or will
they, in the
enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance is the
surest path to
destruction."
And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim that the only constitutional
right in the United
States which is absolute & is your right to believe anything you want, and as I
gazed at the portrait
of George Washington, and as I thought about the solemn words " the Senators
Protect the Liberty
of the Citizens " I couldn't help but think of an aide to George Washington by
the name of James
McHenry, who accompanied the General as they departed Independence Hall the day
the
Constitution was born. He recorded this encounter between Benjamin Franklin
and a Mrs.
Powell. She asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Answered Dr.
Franklin, For this generation, that is no longer a hypothetical question. History
warns us that, to one
generation in five falls the duty, the highest duty, and the most difficult
duty of this Republic " to
preserve the liberty of the citizens." It is the most difficult, because as
Lincoln warned, it is a threat
that springs up not on a foreign shore, where we can see it; it springs up
amongst us. It cannot be
defeated by force of arms. It must be defeated by reason.
Have you noticed yet, that ours is that generation? And how ironic it
would be that the
freedoms won with the blood of Washington's troops, and defended by so many who
followed,
should be voluntarily thrown away, piece by piece, by a generation that had
become so dull and
careless and pampered and uncaring, that it lost the memory of freedom.
The Athenian Democracy had a word for "citizen", that survives in our
language today.
Politikos. Politician. The Athenians believed that a free people who declare
themselves citizens
assume a duty to declare themselves politicians at the same time. It is time
we took that
responsibility very seriously.
In 1780, the tide had turned in the American Revolution, and the
Founders began to sense
the freedom that was within sight. John Adams wrote these words to his wife
that spring. He
said, "The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other
sciences; the arts of
legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of,
indeed exclude, in a
manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have
liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography,
natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in
order to give
their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture,
statuary, tapestry and
porcelain."
Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about guns. It is about
freedom. And the wheel has
come full circle. Our generation must study politics that we may restore the
liberty that our
parents and grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
If we fail, what history will demand of our children and grandchildren,
in a society where
their only right is to their own thoughts, is simply unthinkable. And be
assured, history will find
it unforgivable. A generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the
universe " freedom "
and throws it away, deserves to be reviled by every generation that follows and
will be, even though
the only right left to them is their own thoughts.
But, if we succeed in this struggle, we will know the greatest joy of
all ; the joy of watching
our grandchildren secure with the blessings of liberty, studying arts and
literature in a free nation
and under God's grace, once again.
Ladies and Gentlemen, isn't that worth devoting the rest of our lives to
achieve?
Warning - Please NOTE !!!! There are articles & links on UCC REDEMPTION on these pages, the information is interesting to read but case loses linked below tells it not a good way to go !
NOTICE READ SEN. W. STUMP
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will
do!
Everett Hale
Remember this !
"There is only one constitutional right in the United States
which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want."
"We hold these
truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed."
They cannot be alienated.
"A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
