Articles
Cases
Donate
| Please consider supporting the lifetime research of Lee Brobst with a charitable donation. Thank you. |
Written by Lee Brobst
lee.eagleeye.brobst@gmail.com
May 1, 2009
ARE YOU SUBJECT TO - Part IV ©
Article Index
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part 4 of 5
From the Old Testament Concerning the King of Tyre:
Ezekiel 26:7 “for thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the
north Nebuchadrzzar king of Babylon, with horses, with chariots, and with
horseman, and an army with many people. 26:9 He will direct his battering rams
against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 28:18 “You
defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities. By the inquiry of your
trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midist; It devoured you, And I turned you
to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you.
The following definitions are taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (1890)
except BLD.
Hebrew in chaldee
Trade-Peddler, merchant, traffic. Traffic-commerce; trade; sale or exchange of
merchandise bills money and a like. The passing of goods or commodities from
one person to another for a equivalent in goods or money. BLD 5th ed.
Iniquities-(moral) evil, fault iniquity mischief punishment (iniquities) sin. STRONG’S
Defiled - to be foul, especially in a ceremony or moral sense (conteminatned),
pollute.. Defiled-to corrupt perfection of; to debase, to make ceremonially unclean;
to pollute. BLD 5th ed. P. 380.
Santuaries - a consecrated thing or place. In old English law a consecrated place
which had certain privileges annexed to it. BLD 5th ed. P. 1203. [underline
emphasis added]
LORD/LADY
A lady may seem removed from kitchen tasks, but in the days when she was just
the head farmer’s wife, (as any farmers wife today will tell) she has quite a job
baking bread for all the helpers. In truth, that occupation gave her her name (OE.
[Old English] Hlaefdige, from hlaf, loaf + dig, to knead). Dough is from the same
source (AS [Anglo Saxon] dag; ON [Old Norse] deig), which also gives us dairy
(ME. [Middle English] deyerie, from ME. dey, woman from AS. Daege, from dig, to
from ME. Dey, woman from AS. daege, from dig, to knead). By equal right, the lord
is the loaf-ward (OE, hlaford, from hlafweard; OE. weard, whence End. Ward,
warden. Reward, however, is from OFr, [not listed. Presumly Old French.] ONFr. Is
listed as Old North French.] reguarder, to regard, heed, hence repay). And the
servant was the loaf-eater (OE. hlafaeta, servant)! A steward was originally a
keeper of the pigs (AS. stigu, sty + weard). A knight was orginally a youth (AS.
cniht), then a servant, then a servant of a noble. A knave (AS cnafa, Ger. Knabe)
was at first a boy, then it became a term of scorn.
In Lady-bug, Lady-Day, and other combinations, there lingers the AS. use of Lady
to mean the Virgin Mary 14 [bold emphasis added] Take note the words that come
from English law as in the King James the First, 1603-1626, Bible. Keep in mind
also that William the Conquer from Normandy (Northern France) conquered
England in 1066. From DICTIONAY OF WORD ORIGINS, p. 207, by Joseph T.
Shipley (1945).
Warden. The chief administration officer of a prison. AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY, 21st Century, Fourth edition. There are no facts to describe who or
what is the Lord. It appears from the Origin of Words on the subject of Lord/Lady
the Lord is the warden of the minds of public policies unincorporated association of
“persons”. Said “persons” comprise the association when there are no facts
grounding those “persons” to the law of reality? How many of those “persons”
realize that each one of them is considered a fictitious person, specifically one
that is weak or flawed and not considered a sovereign???
The next buildings displaying the eye of the needle windows and doorways are the
churches. It would appear after studying Ezekiel above, that those displays are a
direct result of the teachings of the commercial law in the Bible.
Certain market places were just that, a common place where simple people took
their goods and services for buying, selling, and trading using hard coin in every
transaction without third parties. This was the law of reality under the Old
Testament.
Then appeared the large commercial trading centers or Fairs with their walled and
gated centers that would only permit privileged merchants to partake in. The Lord,
referring back to Ezekiel, said in essence, this kind of commerce is contrary to the
law of reality and he would have nothing to do with it. That eventually it will collapse
as all commercial systems do, because it is artificial in addition to the greed, lust,
incompetence, and just plain stupidity. In other words, the Lords statement is a
metaphor to drive home a point of the conflict of law of two different law forums.
It appears the Old Testament/ contract/proclamation dealt directly with payment of
debt with hard coin reflected in Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, and Article I Section 10 that
gave we the people access to (judicial) (P)ower under Article III courts to the
Constitution. The law of reality has no privileges and immunities.
Whereas; the New Testament deals primarily with special privileges and immunities
in the spirit of the law that has given the citizen “subjects”, legislative courts that
exercise (J)udical (p)ower under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2; 11th and 14th Amendments
for the sake of convenience, and expediency. In other words, Article I Section 10,
Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States = the Old Testament.
Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of United States = the New Testament.
There is a major problem with a fiat money system, it is based upon faith (in the
spirit of the law with no grounding). That faith can disappear overnight. Of course
the Marxists tell you a financial collapse as happened 1929 will not happen again.
Just like Russian communism was the final answer. If you believe in that hog wash,
you do believe in the tooth fairy. As mentioned above, and is worth repeating. You
will never control man’s greed, lust, incompetence and just plain stupidly. That is
why we are a nation of laws, not of men. It is up to us to see that it will remain that
way.
Regarding the debt/credit system concerning multiple demands upon what is
deposited in the bank, for example, there is $100 deposited with the bank. The
bank then collateralizes that $100 to 1000’s of dollars through the banking system
what is known as “Fractional Reserve Banking”. The question arises, is Article IV
Sec. 3. cl. 2; Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec. 1602 (c), (d), (e), Title 12 USC (95a); HJR
192, reflecting Matthew in the New Testament of the Bible to wit:
Mathew 14:15 When it was evening his disciples came to Him, saying, “This is a
deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they
may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” 14:16 But Jesus said to them,
“They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” !4:17 He said to
Him, “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fishes.” 14:18 He said,
“Bring them here to me.” 14:19 Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on
the grass. And He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven, he
blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave to
the multitudes. 14:20 So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve
baskets full of fragments that remained.
WALKING ON THE WATER
14:25 Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the
sea. 14:26 And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled,
saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out for fear. 14:27 But immediately Jesus
spoke unto them, saying, Be of good cheer! it is I;. be not afraid.14:28 And Pete
answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is you command me come to you on the water.”
14:29 So He said, “come”. And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he
walked on the water to go to Jesus. 14:30 But when he saw that the wind was
boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, “Lord, save
me!” 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand, and caught him, and
said to him. “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Peter was a commercial fisherman. He made his living above the high water mark
while in his boat under the letter and strict meaning of the ancient admiralty-
maritime law as a merchant and trader in law whereby he was “paid” in hard coin
for his goods and services. He lived in the world of reality engaged in bilateral
contracts with no privileges or immunities. In other words, Peter was not considered
a strawman, instead he lived in the natural world that is harsh. He was being
responsible for his actions such as “paying” for his debts, thus no third parties to
satisfy. Jesus prompted Peter, but Peter was afraid of the boisterous wind that
created a conflict as to what law forum he wanted to follow. The world of reality
under the letter and strict meaning of the law; or to enter into the spirit of the law
below the high water mark where he would receive privileges and immunities from
third parties. Those third parties would limit his liability for his debts but would cost
him some of his freedoms. Also, you can only walk on water in the spirit of the law.
The new contract (HJR 192) concerning commercial and communal limited liability
with its high water mark flooding over the land has created the upside down world
of make believe that defies logic. Today that is the mind of public policy’s Marxist
materialism. More on this infra.
Public money for payment of private debt was the breast of the dam that
guaranteed the separation of powers under Articles I, II, III, to the U.S. Constitution,
which withheld the admiralty-maritime from flooding over the substantive common
law of the incorporated states of the Union producing limited Government.
To the contrary, private money in “discharge” of public debt has flooded the land in
the spirit of the constitution, thus the water marks and unlimited government.
Admiralty-maritime is what gave us quasi in rem jurisdiction on land, i.e., attaching
the ship, the thing (debt res), to force the appearance of the owner of the ship,
(you). Today, instead of res the new term is strawman, owner of the debt to appear
before a government agency.
The truth of the matter is that all courts enforcing taxes today are in reality,
admiralty-maritime courts.
Readers beware, “The Law of the Sea Treaty” is very dangerous to the United
States and all it will take is a few liberal judges then look out.
It is hoped you are beginning to see the picture as to what is happening to the
people of United States. Remember, everything is possible under Article IV Sec. 3
cl.2.
CUSTOM OR DUTY TAXES
The taxing authorities go to the banks to get your records as evidence that your
cancelled checks and credit card receipts have traveled interstate commerce.
A part of the income tax liability, i.e., Custom or Duty taxes comes about when the
checks and credit card receipts that you create circulates as money in interstate
commerce. Said credit is foreign and antagonistic against the incorporated state
and its’ grounded substance and the general (commercial) federal common law as
evidenced by lawful and legal tender notes. Said notes must be protected by
Congress and the courts because those green backs represent the gold being
held in Fort Knox.. Federal Reserve Notes are gold notes, but not upon demand.
You must keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution of U.S. that forbids
Congress from making notes that are lawful and legal tender. The injunction in
“Payment” pertains to “the states”. When you create debt/credit, the debt/credit
that you create travels interstate commerce. The local, state, and federal
governments can impose a tax on that debt/credit because debt/credit is neither
legal tender nor lawful money produced by the United States Government under
Article I Sec. 8. Debt/credit is foreign commerce and a detriment to the grounded
substance of “the states”, and the general (commercial) federal common law. You
and the unincorporated banking association are in a conspiracy against the
grounded substance of the states and the general (commercial) federal common
law and must be controlled thus we read:
“The tax under consideration is a tax on bank circulation, and may very well be
classed under the head of duties.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 547.(1869)”
[underline emphasis added]
“Congress may restrain, by suitable enactment’s, the circulation as money of any
notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to
secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.” Id. 533, 549.
[underline emphasis added]
Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts
directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes,
were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and
exchange them for metallic money.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their
promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create
money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only
a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one
time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem
whatever volume of notes was presented for payment. Transaction deposits are
the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing
notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the
borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby “printing”
their own money. From Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, p. 3 last column February 2001. [Bold emphasis added].
“But in the case before us the object of taxation is not the franchise of the bank,
but property created, or contracts made and issued under the [privilege], or power
to issue bank bills. . . . it will hardly be questioned that contracts of [debt/credit] are
objects of taxation within the powers of Congress. And it seems difficult to
distinguish the taxation of notes issued for circulation from the taxation of these
[debt/credit] contracts. Both descriptions of contracts are means of profit to the
[individual] which issue them; and both, as we think, may properly be made
contributory to the public revenue.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S 533, 549. (1869).
[underline emphasis added]
If you think printing your own money isn’t limited liability for the privilege of
discharging debt outside the 16th amendment, think again. Remember, we are
dealing with your right to contract. See Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c, (d), (e),
Title 12 USC 95a.
Chancellor Kent observes, that Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the
Constitution, Vol. 3 p. 19, . . . the prohibition (of bills of credit) does not extend to
bills emitted by individuals, singly or collectively, whether associated under a
private agreement for banking purposes, as was the case with the Bank of New
York, prior to its earliest charter, which was in the winter of 1791, or acting under a
charter of incorporation. Id. 553, 554. [Underline emphasis added] See also The
United States Bank v. Planters Bank supra; Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c,
(d), (e), Title 12 USC 95a.
“It will be observed, the tax . . . upon the bills in circulation is not a tax on the
property of the institutions. The bills in circulation are not the property, but the
debts of the [unincorporated side of the bank, and, in their account of debits and
credits, are placed to the debit [and credit] side. Certainly, no government has yet
made the discovery of taxing both sides of this account, debit and credit, as the
property of a taxable person or corporation. If both these items could be made
available for this purpose, a heavy National debt need not create any very great
alarm.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 554, 555. This is why there has always
been a heavy national debt since the 1940’s. The government taxes both sides of
your debt/credit account. See Title 15 USC Sec 1602. It must be noted there was
no private foreign banking interest as third party with our public money for private
debt.
The Court in Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. supra, 113 noted, Looking, [p* 126] then, to
the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution
protects, we find that, when private property is "affected with a public interest, it
ceases to be juris privati only". This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than
two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg.Law Tracts 78,
and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of
property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when
used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at
large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has
an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must
submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the
interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use,
but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control. Munn v. Illinois
94 U.S. supra, 113. [Bold under line emphasis added]
THE 16TH AMENDMENT—FACT OR FICTION
The Court in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 noted: “the whole
purpose of the Amendment [16] was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from
apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.
Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the
[Pollock v. Farmer Loan & Trust 156 U.S. 429 (1895), and the ground upon which
the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the
Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the
principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether
a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the
taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden
which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express
terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the
income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment”
[Italics emphasis added].
The Pollock case was decided when we had our National “Standard” money in
“Payment” of Debt. That “Standard” money in “Payment” of Debt was the very
substance of the Common Law that was owned by the people that came from their
land, i.e., we had public money for private debt. Today we have private money for
public debt. You must also keep in mind, there was no public policy concerning
commercial paper under the Federal Reserve System at that point in time, only our
National “Standard” money therefore, as stated in Pollock, taxes on real estate or
rents or income of real estate were direct taxes. Taxes on personal property or
income derived from personal property were also direct taxes.
Washburn on Real Property, it is said that “a devise of the rents and profits of land,
or the income of land, is equivalent to a devise of the land itself, and will be for life
or in fee, according to the limitation expressed in the devise.” Volume 2, p. 695,
30. Quoted in Pollock 589.
In Jarman on Wills it is laid down that “a devise of the rents and profits or of the
income of land passes the land itself, both at law and in equity; a rule, it is said,
founded on the feudal law, according to which the whole beneficial interest in the
land consisted in the right to take the rents and profits.” Quoted in Pollock 589.
Coke upon Littleton says: 'If a man seized of lands in fee by his deed granteth to
another the profits of those lands, to have and to hold to him and his heires, and
maketh livery secundum formam chartae, the whole land itselfe, doth passe; for
what is the land but the profits thereof?' Lib. 1, p. 4b., c. 1, 1. Quoted in Pollock 590
In Goldin v. Lakeman, Lord Tenterden, Chief Justice of the court of the king's
bench, to the same effect, said, 'It is an established rule that a devise of the rents
and profits is a devise of the land.' And, in Johnson v. Arnold, Lord Chancellor
Hardwicke reiterated profits of lands is a devise of the lands themselves' profits of
lands is a devise of the lands themselves'. Quoted in Pollock 590.
In other words, under Pollock the federal Government was trying to put a direct tax
on income derived from the substance of the Common Law of “the States” without
apportionment among the several states, which was declared unconstitutional. The
federal Government could not collect a direct tax on income unless done through
the states by apportionment because income taxes were direct taxes and “paid” in
the substance of the land in Hard Coin of the Common Law of “the State” to the U.
S. Treasury. The federal Government cannot collect a direct tax without
apportionment from individual sovereigns because, there is no federal common
law, Wheaton v. Peters supra.
With the coming of the 16th and the 17th Amendments in 1913, and the Federal
Reserve Act in 1914 creating Federal Reserve Banks under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2
with its commercial paper.
Brushaber’s income was derived, not from the substance of the land of the
Common Law, i.e. hard Coin but from the profit and gain from stocks and bonds
through the use of commercial paper issued by Union Pacific, a private
corporation. Said stocks and bonds are not “Standard” lawful money, lawful
money, legal tender of the United States or, “payment” of a debt but only a
“discharge” of an obligation as per HJR 192 via private international law, thus
subject to excise or indirect taxes. Brushaber’s wages under the Common Law were
not taxable but the profit from his stocks was taxable under private international
law. Brushaber became a volunteer to private international law when he purchased
stocks and bonds from the federally charted Union Pacific RR. In other words,
Brushaber voluntarily reached into a private corporation to receive an additional
advantage in monetary gain from the efforts of others.
"’The question whether it is a direct or an indirect tax cannot depend upon those
special events which may vary in particular cases, but the best general rule is to
look to the time of payment; and if at the time the ultimate incidence is
uncertain, then, as it appears to their lordships, it cannot, in this view, be called
direct taxation within the meaning of the second section of the ninety-second
clause of the act in question.’" Attorney General v. Reed, 10 App. Cas. 141, quoted
in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 601, 632 (1895) as the test to be
applied for determining whether a tax is direct or indirect. [Bold underline emphasis
added]
HJR 192 states that it is against public policy to demand “Payment” of a debt; that
the debt can only be “discharged”. Public policy has amended the constitution
without the proper process that is illegal under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 but not illegal
under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. That being the case in fact and in law, the ultimate
incidence is uncertain. Therefore, the only federal taxes that can be collected
today are indirect taxes. It must be noted here that a truck load of gold or silver
“Pays” nothing. Gold and silver whether it be coin, bars, ingots or whatever are a
commodity that only “discharges” an obligation just like commercial paper.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and other such
arguments are frivolous. The 16th Amendment cannot be properly ratified
pursuant to the Constitution because the amendment represents private
international law. In fact and in law, the 16th amendment became a moot issue with
the advent of HJR 192 in 1933.
Note: where the Court stated in Pollock and quoted supra, that “the 16th
Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future upon which the
Pollock case was decided.” The Court knew that the National “Standard” lawful
money would meet its demise by the yet to come Federal Reserve Act which would,
by its provisions of creating a commercial paper society in private international law,
drive out of circulation the National “Standard” lawful money of the Common Law.
In other words, the people would give up their Law which they did in 1933, and is
the reason the Government confiscated the Gold in the 1930’s. The Gold was the
Law and the people gave it up along with its Liberty under the philosophy of
George Hegel, 1770-1831, a German materialist. He devised what is called the
Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In other words, you have a
problem. Under Hegel’s ideas, you do not treat that problem instead, you create
another problem that mirror images the original then offer a solution to the created
problem therefore, the original problem is never solved. Hegel’s dialectic appealed
strongly to the socialist and was developed into Marxian dialectical materialism 15
Taken from THE COLUMBIA VIKING DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA Third Ed. 1968. It is
interesting to note that every year, a college or university has Hegel day. And we
are led to believe that communism only exists today in China and Cuba. United
States is next in line.
The question thus becomes, why repeal the 16th amendment??? I will tell you why.
The Hegelian dialects. Thesis-There is a problem, the nasty intrusive IRS and the
income tax. Anti thesis-offer a solution. Abolish the 16th amendment. The masses
rally and repeal the 16th amendment and in its place the fair tax, flat tax, value
added tax, national sales tax or whatever you name it. Repeal of the 16th
amendment takes place on such and such a date and the new tax will take effect
the following day. Several weeks later the masses receive their pay checks and
guess what? The income tax is still being taken out. All hell breaks loose. Any
number of law suits is filed. The courts including the U.S. Supreme Court rule the
repeal of the 16th amendment is frivolous. Synthesis-The solution. The problem is
the solution offered does not deal with the original problem and that is, the income
tax is primarily based upon a gift that you as a individual have created through
contract law. The masses have been swindled into creating a dual national taxing
system just like they have in Great Britain.
Remember, your contracts rights are launched from the state level, not from the
federal level as noted in footnote #3 supra. You have a right under contract law to:
No. 1. Give a gift to the government. It just so happens that by operation of law,
(see footnote #5), as explained above, that gift makes you “any person required to
file or make a return” under Title 26 USC (Internal Revenue Code) Sec. 7203. Said
gift is the largest chunk of the income tax and you did it with your own hand,
VOLUNTARLY.
No. 2. That Social Security (FICA) is a maritime insurance policy. That a maritime
insurance policy is a contract under maritime jurisdiction.
Here is the kicker concerning the 16th Amendment. No Congress, President or
Supreme Court can nullify your, or the association’s common law contracts rights to
sign a “Wage Withholding Certificate” that is considered a charitable subscription
whereby you or the association have legally entered into the commercial world for
whatever means, good or bad.
A “Wage Withholding Certificate” is the area of contract law called “third party
beneficiaries”. The problem is, the contract does not spell out what the terms and
conditions of the contract are, such as, who is the third party beneficiaries let alone
who is the second party? who is liable for what? where is the contract to take
place? what law is to be applied? etc. There is none of the above terms and
conditions contained in the “Wage Withholding Certificate”. The same can be said
of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
Therefore, the courts will determine such instruments as having charitable effects,
thus applying natural law and justice in the form of natural equity that you, or the
association of “persons” intended to create a charitable subscription as outlined in
this document.
From Emanueal Law Outlines 324 supra, p. 21 above.
The third party beneficiary chapter goes on to show how the common law rule was
that a third party beneficiary could not recover on the contract, but that this rule
has been generally abrogated if one is the intended beneficiary. [You are the
intended beneficiary]
Joseph Story in his Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, 1: p. 21. noted:
…charities, arise from natural law and justice, and of freeing itself from all regard to
former rules and precedents, it would be the most gigantic in its sway, and the most
formidable instrument of arbitrary power, that could well be devised. It would
literally place the whole rights and property of the community under the arbitrary
will of the judge, acting, if you please, arbitrio et bone, according to his own notions
and conscience, but still acting with a despotic and sovereign authority.
The facts in the law are very clear and precise that: Repeal of the 16th Amendment
in no way, shape, or form, can interfere with you or the association of “persons”
from contributing or subscribing to a charity regardless, whether it be a “Wage
Withholding Certificate” or Federal Contributions Act (FICA}. Said charities come
into effect by operation of law, (see footnote #5) through HJR 192. Such contracts
invoke natural law and justice that absolutely prohibits government or public policy
from interfering with those natural rights.
The repeal of the 16th amendment will accomplish absolutely nothing except we will
still have the same taxing system we now have. Additionally, we will have an
additional tax by whatever name you call the tax in order to create another tax that
will be a total hoax and a fraud in fact and in law.
To pass such law will create more tyranny and violate the constitutional separation
of powers in that the law will subject those individuals who have not volunteered to
be “subject to” the 14th amendment and considered “other Property” under Article
IV sec. 3 cl.2. There are such individuals. State sales taxes are clearly
unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers doctrine in that the
states impose a tax upon individuals who are not residents of the United States
under federalism. The road to hell has been paved with many good intentions.
The separation of powers was the very cause of the American Revolution 16 that
has led to the conflict of law between the common law of “the states of the Union”
and the private international law.
Yes, the repeal of the 16th amendment will maintain the present day income tax
and create a flat tax by whatever name you want to call it and it will be done by the
peoples’ own hand. The only way the state or federal government has any
jurisdiction over you is by the fact that you have voluntarily reached into that
private forum under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2. Otherwise you are free but that freedom
comes at a cost; you must take responsibility for your own actions.
If the American people think they have access to the United States Constitution and
its’ Bill of Rights as was originally intended under the letter and strict meaning; as
opposed to the spirit and true meaning and that spirit and true meaning must be so
apparent as to override the words which the framers have employed as in Article IV
sec. 3 cl. 1. How can the “persons” override the spirit and true meaning when in
fact and in law they are drowning in a sea of debt, both public and private that is
owned by foreign interest under the corrupt Marxist United Nations. The people
truly live in a make believe world based upon faith.
Public policy has it that your wages are not absolute property because it is
presumed that you receive no wages 17, only income from the unincorporated
association in private international law. As a result of public policy, there are no
states in the common law under Art. IV Sec 3 cl.1, and is the reason the border
lines in the states’ constitutions have been removed.18 (check your state’s
constitution), leaving only federal states in private international law with no charter
of incorporation that spells out just what the duties and liabilities of this new
unincorporated social association are, therefore the government presumes the
people wanted to set up a charitable trust. Because the trust has no charter, the
administrative courts acting under Article IV sec. 3. cl.2, treat the trust and you as
“other property” or any other means at their disposal to measure the liability of you
not performing in a communal fashion. Members of the public trust are treated as
being incompetent and in a conspiracy against the grounded substance of “the
states” because the people have formed a new political society and have not
formulated a charter thus, leaving it to administrative bureaucrats to be governed
by private international law. It is said the people get the government they deserve.
One thing is for certain, the people must start providing for our own welfare and not
depend on government to solve our problems.
14 Highly recommended for reading. “The Warriors and the Bankers” by Alan
Butler and Stephen Dafoe ISBN 096835672-9. See also “The Knights Templar
Revealed” by the same authors. There are two ISBN numbers. 13: 978-0-7607
8118-4; 10: 0-7607-8178-8, Barnes & Noble Books. These are not conspiracy
books but books based upon facts in history. In fact, the two authors have not a
clue as to what they have revealed. The Knights Templar is what is behind the New
World Order under a One World Corporate Communist Monolith untouchable by
any government.
The Templers gave us the allodial land titles in order to break the strangle hold the
Church of Rome had on the Europeans. Although the Templers favored holding
everything in common, they recognized that man must also have a choice to be
free. Whoever owns the land controls the people.
15 Under Article IV sec. 3 cl.1 we worshiped a spiritual God where the family unit
was the cement that held our nation together in body, mind, spirit. We have traded
body, mind, and spirit for body, mind, and materialism where there is no morality for
“persons” because you have quasi corporate privileges and immunities. In other
words, you are a creation of the government because you enjoy limited liability for
the payment of debt under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2 and worship the material god of
materialism. The Marxist debt/credit system has turned the family unit into warring
cannibals and society into a vehicle of hate greed and the great I am.
16 It remained for Lord Mansfield, borrowing to a large extent from the Roman
Law, to extend the action to cover a whole new field, and thus to create a new
branch of the law—a new set of rights under the pretense of simply determining
whether, the plaintiff could use a new form of action. It was the celebrated case of
Moses v. Macferlan 2 Burr. 1005 (1760), that Jefferson was vehemently opposed
which sparked the American Revolution and not the tax on tea that we are lead to
believe. Mansfield said: "The first objection is that the action of debt would not lie
here and no assumpsit could lie where an action of debt might not be brought. . . .
. If the defendant be under an obligation, from the ties of natural justice, … the
law implies the debt, and gives this action, founded on the equity of the plaintiff's
case, as it were upon a contract ('quasi ex contractu' as the Roman Law expresses
it)." In other words, Lord Mansfield, infused the civil law of Scotland that was
derived from the admiralty-maritime into the common law that changed an action of
assumpsit whereby a twelve man jury trial could be demanded, into an equitable
action to be determined according to natural justice and natural equity. Thus, a
person ought to pay a sum of money that the law imposes a duty upon him to do
so. In addition, in order to compel the performance of the duty, the law implies a
fictitious promise to do so, so that compelled performance may be brought for the
breach of the fictitious or implied promise.
17 Today’s public policy considers wages as one and the same under Article IV
Sec. 3 cl.2 but not under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, there is a difference.
18 A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law since by its
constitutional status it does not have capacity to conduct foreign relations. United
States alone, not any of its constituent States, enjoys international sovereignty and
nationhood. "In respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear. As
to such purposes the State does not exist." United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324,
(1937).
“[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense
in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as
well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is
affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies
which had arisen with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the
Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative
Publishing Co., 1906), vol. 1, pp. 45-47. See also footnote no. 2.
<< Prev - Next >>
Last Updated on Thursday, 07 May 2009 05:44Print E-mail
lee.eagleeye.brobst@gmail.com
May 1, 2009
ARE YOU SUBJECT TO - Part IV ©
Article Index
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part 4 of 5
From the Old Testament Concerning the King of Tyre:
Ezekiel 26:7 “for thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the
north Nebuchadrzzar king of Babylon, with horses, with chariots, and with
horseman, and an army with many people. 26:9 He will direct his battering rams
against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 28:18 “You
defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities. By the inquiry of your
trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midist; It devoured you, And I turned you
to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you.
The following definitions are taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (1890)
except BLD.
Hebrew in chaldee
Trade-Peddler, merchant, traffic. Traffic-commerce; trade; sale or exchange of
merchandise bills money and a like. The passing of goods or commodities from
one person to another for a equivalent in goods or money. BLD 5th ed.
Iniquities-(moral) evil, fault iniquity mischief punishment (iniquities) sin. STRONG’S
Defiled - to be foul, especially in a ceremony or moral sense (conteminatned),
pollute.. Defiled-to corrupt perfection of; to debase, to make ceremonially unclean;
to pollute. BLD 5th ed. P. 380.
Santuaries - a consecrated thing or place. In old English law a consecrated place
which had certain privileges annexed to it. BLD 5th ed. P. 1203. [underline
emphasis added]
LORD/LADY
A lady may seem removed from kitchen tasks, but in the days when she was just
the head farmer’s wife, (as any farmers wife today will tell) she has quite a job
baking bread for all the helpers. In truth, that occupation gave her her name (OE.
[Old English] Hlaefdige, from hlaf, loaf + dig, to knead). Dough is from the same
source (AS [Anglo Saxon] dag; ON [Old Norse] deig), which also gives us dairy
(ME. [Middle English] deyerie, from ME. dey, woman from AS. Daege, from dig, to
from ME. Dey, woman from AS. daege, from dig, to knead). By equal right, the lord
is the loaf-ward (OE, hlaford, from hlafweard; OE. weard, whence End. Ward,
warden. Reward, however, is from OFr, [not listed. Presumly Old French.] ONFr. Is
listed as Old North French.] reguarder, to regard, heed, hence repay). And the
servant was the loaf-eater (OE. hlafaeta, servant)! A steward was originally a
keeper of the pigs (AS. stigu, sty + weard). A knight was orginally a youth (AS.
cniht), then a servant, then a servant of a noble. A knave (AS cnafa, Ger. Knabe)
was at first a boy, then it became a term of scorn.
In Lady-bug, Lady-Day, and other combinations, there lingers the AS. use of Lady
to mean the Virgin Mary 14 [bold emphasis added] Take note the words that come
from English law as in the King James the First, 1603-1626, Bible. Keep in mind
also that William the Conquer from Normandy (Northern France) conquered
England in 1066. From DICTIONAY OF WORD ORIGINS, p. 207, by Joseph T.
Shipley (1945).
Warden. The chief administration officer of a prison. AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY, 21st Century, Fourth edition. There are no facts to describe who or
what is the Lord. It appears from the Origin of Words on the subject of Lord/Lady
the Lord is the warden of the minds of public policies unincorporated association of
“persons”. Said “persons” comprise the association when there are no facts
grounding those “persons” to the law of reality? How many of those “persons”
realize that each one of them is considered a fictitious person, specifically one
that is weak or flawed and not considered a sovereign???
The next buildings displaying the eye of the needle windows and doorways are the
churches. It would appear after studying Ezekiel above, that those displays are a
direct result of the teachings of the commercial law in the Bible.
Certain market places were just that, a common place where simple people took
their goods and services for buying, selling, and trading using hard coin in every
transaction without third parties. This was the law of reality under the Old
Testament.
Then appeared the large commercial trading centers or Fairs with their walled and
gated centers that would only permit privileged merchants to partake in. The Lord,
referring back to Ezekiel, said in essence, this kind of commerce is contrary to the
law of reality and he would have nothing to do with it. That eventually it will collapse
as all commercial systems do, because it is artificial in addition to the greed, lust,
incompetence, and just plain stupidity. In other words, the Lords statement is a
metaphor to drive home a point of the conflict of law of two different law forums.
It appears the Old Testament/ contract/proclamation dealt directly with payment of
debt with hard coin reflected in Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, and Article I Section 10 that
gave we the people access to (judicial) (P)ower under Article III courts to the
Constitution. The law of reality has no privileges and immunities.
Whereas; the New Testament deals primarily with special privileges and immunities
in the spirit of the law that has given the citizen “subjects”, legislative courts that
exercise (J)udical (p)ower under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2; 11th and 14th Amendments
for the sake of convenience, and expediency. In other words, Article I Section 10,
Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 to the Constitution of United States = the Old Testament.
Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2 of the Constitution of United States = the New Testament.
There is a major problem with a fiat money system, it is based upon faith (in the
spirit of the law with no grounding). That faith can disappear overnight. Of course
the Marxists tell you a financial collapse as happened 1929 will not happen again.
Just like Russian communism was the final answer. If you believe in that hog wash,
you do believe in the tooth fairy. As mentioned above, and is worth repeating. You
will never control man’s greed, lust, incompetence and just plain stupidly. That is
why we are a nation of laws, not of men. It is up to us to see that it will remain that
way.
Regarding the debt/credit system concerning multiple demands upon what is
deposited in the bank, for example, there is $100 deposited with the bank. The
bank then collateralizes that $100 to 1000’s of dollars through the banking system
what is known as “Fractional Reserve Banking”. The question arises, is Article IV
Sec. 3. cl. 2; Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec. 1602 (c), (d), (e), Title 12 USC (95a); HJR
192, reflecting Matthew in the New Testament of the Bible to wit:
Mathew 14:15 When it was evening his disciples came to Him, saying, “This is a
deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they
may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” 14:16 But Jesus said to them,
“They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” !4:17 He said to
Him, “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fishes.” 14:18 He said,
“Bring them here to me.” 14:19 Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on
the grass. And He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven, he
blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave to
the multitudes. 14:20 So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve
baskets full of fragments that remained.
WALKING ON THE WATER
14:25 Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the
sea. 14:26 And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled,
saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out for fear. 14:27 But immediately Jesus
spoke unto them, saying, Be of good cheer! it is I;. be not afraid.14:28 And Pete
answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is you command me come to you on the water.”
14:29 So He said, “come”. And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he
walked on the water to go to Jesus. 14:30 But when he saw that the wind was
boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, “Lord, save
me!” 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand, and caught him, and
said to him. “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Peter was a commercial fisherman. He made his living above the high water mark
while in his boat under the letter and strict meaning of the ancient admiralty-
maritime law as a merchant and trader in law whereby he was “paid” in hard coin
for his goods and services. He lived in the world of reality engaged in bilateral
contracts with no privileges or immunities. In other words, Peter was not considered
a strawman, instead he lived in the natural world that is harsh. He was being
responsible for his actions such as “paying” for his debts, thus no third parties to
satisfy. Jesus prompted Peter, but Peter was afraid of the boisterous wind that
created a conflict as to what law forum he wanted to follow. The world of reality
under the letter and strict meaning of the law; or to enter into the spirit of the law
below the high water mark where he would receive privileges and immunities from
third parties. Those third parties would limit his liability for his debts but would cost
him some of his freedoms. Also, you can only walk on water in the spirit of the law.
The new contract (HJR 192) concerning commercial and communal limited liability
with its high water mark flooding over the land has created the upside down world
of make believe that defies logic. Today that is the mind of public policy’s Marxist
materialism. More on this infra.
Public money for payment of private debt was the breast of the dam that
guaranteed the separation of powers under Articles I, II, III, to the U.S. Constitution,
which withheld the admiralty-maritime from flooding over the substantive common
law of the incorporated states of the Union producing limited Government.
To the contrary, private money in “discharge” of public debt has flooded the land in
the spirit of the constitution, thus the water marks and unlimited government.
Admiralty-maritime is what gave us quasi in rem jurisdiction on land, i.e., attaching
the ship, the thing (debt res), to force the appearance of the owner of the ship,
(you). Today, instead of res the new term is strawman, owner of the debt to appear
before a government agency.
The truth of the matter is that all courts enforcing taxes today are in reality,
admiralty-maritime courts.
Readers beware, “The Law of the Sea Treaty” is very dangerous to the United
States and all it will take is a few liberal judges then look out.
It is hoped you are beginning to see the picture as to what is happening to the
people of United States. Remember, everything is possible under Article IV Sec. 3
cl.2.
CUSTOM OR DUTY TAXES
The taxing authorities go to the banks to get your records as evidence that your
cancelled checks and credit card receipts have traveled interstate commerce.
A part of the income tax liability, i.e., Custom or Duty taxes comes about when the
checks and credit card receipts that you create circulates as money in interstate
commerce. Said credit is foreign and antagonistic against the incorporated state
and its’ grounded substance and the general (commercial) federal common law as
evidenced by lawful and legal tender notes. Said notes must be protected by
Congress and the courts because those green backs represent the gold being
held in Fort Knox.. Federal Reserve Notes are gold notes, but not upon demand.
You must keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution of U.S. that forbids
Congress from making notes that are lawful and legal tender. The injunction in
“Payment” pertains to “the states”. When you create debt/credit, the debt/credit
that you create travels interstate commerce. The local, state, and federal
governments can impose a tax on that debt/credit because debt/credit is neither
legal tender nor lawful money produced by the United States Government under
Article I Sec. 8. Debt/credit is foreign commerce and a detriment to the grounded
substance of “the states”, and the general (commercial) federal common law. You
and the unincorporated banking association are in a conspiracy against the
grounded substance of the states and the general (commercial) federal common
law and must be controlled thus we read:
“The tax under consideration is a tax on bank circulation, and may very well be
classed under the head of duties.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 547.(1869)”
[underline emphasis added]
“Congress may restrain, by suitable enactment’s, the circulation as money of any
notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to
secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.” Id. 533, 549.
[underline emphasis added]
Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts
directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes,
were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and
exchange them for metallic money.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their
promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create
money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only
a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one
time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem
whatever volume of notes was presented for payment. Transaction deposits are
the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing
notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the
borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby “printing”
their own money. From Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, p. 3 last column February 2001. [Bold emphasis added].
“But in the case before us the object of taxation is not the franchise of the bank,
but property created, or contracts made and issued under the [privilege], or power
to issue bank bills. . . . it will hardly be questioned that contracts of [debt/credit] are
objects of taxation within the powers of Congress. And it seems difficult to
distinguish the taxation of notes issued for circulation from the taxation of these
[debt/credit] contracts. Both descriptions of contracts are means of profit to the
[individual] which issue them; and both, as we think, may properly be made
contributory to the public revenue.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S 533, 549. (1869).
[underline emphasis added]
If you think printing your own money isn’t limited liability for the privilege of
discharging debt outside the 16th amendment, think again. Remember, we are
dealing with your right to contract. See Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c, (d), (e),
Title 12 USC 95a.
Chancellor Kent observes, that Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the
Constitution, Vol. 3 p. 19, . . . the prohibition (of bills of credit) does not extend to
bills emitted by individuals, singly or collectively, whether associated under a
private agreement for banking purposes, as was the case with the Bank of New
York, prior to its earliest charter, which was in the winter of 1791, or acting under a
charter of incorporation. Id. 553, 554. [Underline emphasis added] See also The
United States Bank v. Planters Bank supra; Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec.1602 (c,
(d), (e), Title 12 USC 95a.
“It will be observed, the tax . . . upon the bills in circulation is not a tax on the
property of the institutions. The bills in circulation are not the property, but the
debts of the [unincorporated side of the bank, and, in their account of debits and
credits, are placed to the debit [and credit] side. Certainly, no government has yet
made the discovery of taxing both sides of this account, debit and credit, as the
property of a taxable person or corporation. If both these items could be made
available for this purpose, a heavy National debt need not create any very great
alarm.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 554, 555. This is why there has always
been a heavy national debt since the 1940’s. The government taxes both sides of
your debt/credit account. See Title 15 USC Sec 1602. It must be noted there was
no private foreign banking interest as third party with our public money for private
debt.
The Court in Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. supra, 113 noted, Looking, [p* 126] then, to
the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution
protects, we find that, when private property is "affected with a public interest, it
ceases to be juris privati only". This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than
two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg.Law Tracts 78,
and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of
property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when
used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at
large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has
an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must
submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the
interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use,
but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control. Munn v. Illinois
94 U.S. supra, 113. [Bold under line emphasis added]
THE 16TH AMENDMENT—FACT OR FICTION
The Court in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 noted: “the whole
purpose of the Amendment [16] was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from
apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.
Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the
[Pollock v. Farmer Loan & Trust 156 U.S. 429 (1895), and the ground upon which
the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the
Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the
principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether
a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the
taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden
which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express
terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the
income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment”
[Italics emphasis added].
The Pollock case was decided when we had our National “Standard” money in
“Payment” of Debt. That “Standard” money in “Payment” of Debt was the very
substance of the Common Law that was owned by the people that came from their
land, i.e., we had public money for private debt. Today we have private money for
public debt. You must also keep in mind, there was no public policy concerning
commercial paper under the Federal Reserve System at that point in time, only our
National “Standard” money therefore, as stated in Pollock, taxes on real estate or
rents or income of real estate were direct taxes. Taxes on personal property or
income derived from personal property were also direct taxes.
Washburn on Real Property, it is said that “a devise of the rents and profits of land,
or the income of land, is equivalent to a devise of the land itself, and will be for life
or in fee, according to the limitation expressed in the devise.” Volume 2, p. 695,
30. Quoted in Pollock 589.
In Jarman on Wills it is laid down that “a devise of the rents and profits or of the
income of land passes the land itself, both at law and in equity; a rule, it is said,
founded on the feudal law, according to which the whole beneficial interest in the
land consisted in the right to take the rents and profits.” Quoted in Pollock 589.
Coke upon Littleton says: 'If a man seized of lands in fee by his deed granteth to
another the profits of those lands, to have and to hold to him and his heires, and
maketh livery secundum formam chartae, the whole land itselfe, doth passe; for
what is the land but the profits thereof?' Lib. 1, p. 4b., c. 1, 1. Quoted in Pollock 590
In Goldin v. Lakeman, Lord Tenterden, Chief Justice of the court of the king's
bench, to the same effect, said, 'It is an established rule that a devise of the rents
and profits is a devise of the land.' And, in Johnson v. Arnold, Lord Chancellor
Hardwicke reiterated profits of lands is a devise of the lands themselves' profits of
lands is a devise of the lands themselves'. Quoted in Pollock 590.
In other words, under Pollock the federal Government was trying to put a direct tax
on income derived from the substance of the Common Law of “the States” without
apportionment among the several states, which was declared unconstitutional. The
federal Government could not collect a direct tax on income unless done through
the states by apportionment because income taxes were direct taxes and “paid” in
the substance of the land in Hard Coin of the Common Law of “the State” to the U.
S. Treasury. The federal Government cannot collect a direct tax without
apportionment from individual sovereigns because, there is no federal common
law, Wheaton v. Peters supra.
With the coming of the 16th and the 17th Amendments in 1913, and the Federal
Reserve Act in 1914 creating Federal Reserve Banks under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2
with its commercial paper.
Brushaber’s income was derived, not from the substance of the land of the
Common Law, i.e. hard Coin but from the profit and gain from stocks and bonds
through the use of commercial paper issued by Union Pacific, a private
corporation. Said stocks and bonds are not “Standard” lawful money, lawful
money, legal tender of the United States or, “payment” of a debt but only a
“discharge” of an obligation as per HJR 192 via private international law, thus
subject to excise or indirect taxes. Brushaber’s wages under the Common Law were
not taxable but the profit from his stocks was taxable under private international
law. Brushaber became a volunteer to private international law when he purchased
stocks and bonds from the federally charted Union Pacific RR. In other words,
Brushaber voluntarily reached into a private corporation to receive an additional
advantage in monetary gain from the efforts of others.
"’The question whether it is a direct or an indirect tax cannot depend upon those
special events which may vary in particular cases, but the best general rule is to
look to the time of payment; and if at the time the ultimate incidence is
uncertain, then, as it appears to their lordships, it cannot, in this view, be called
direct taxation within the meaning of the second section of the ninety-second
clause of the act in question.’" Attorney General v. Reed, 10 App. Cas. 141, quoted
in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 601, 632 (1895) as the test to be
applied for determining whether a tax is direct or indirect. [Bold underline emphasis
added]
HJR 192 states that it is against public policy to demand “Payment” of a debt; that
the debt can only be “discharged”. Public policy has amended the constitution
without the proper process that is illegal under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 but not illegal
under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. That being the case in fact and in law, the ultimate
incidence is uncertain. Therefore, the only federal taxes that can be collected
today are indirect taxes. It must be noted here that a truck load of gold or silver
“Pays” nothing. Gold and silver whether it be coin, bars, ingots or whatever are a
commodity that only “discharges” an obligation just like commercial paper.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and other such
arguments are frivolous. The 16th Amendment cannot be properly ratified
pursuant to the Constitution because the amendment represents private
international law. In fact and in law, the 16th amendment became a moot issue with
the advent of HJR 192 in 1933.
Note: where the Court stated in Pollock and quoted supra, that “the 16th
Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future upon which the
Pollock case was decided.” The Court knew that the National “Standard” lawful
money would meet its demise by the yet to come Federal Reserve Act which would,
by its provisions of creating a commercial paper society in private international law,
drive out of circulation the National “Standard” lawful money of the Common Law.
In other words, the people would give up their Law which they did in 1933, and is
the reason the Government confiscated the Gold in the 1930’s. The Gold was the
Law and the people gave it up along with its Liberty under the philosophy of
George Hegel, 1770-1831, a German materialist. He devised what is called the
Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In other words, you have a
problem. Under Hegel’s ideas, you do not treat that problem instead, you create
another problem that mirror images the original then offer a solution to the created
problem therefore, the original problem is never solved. Hegel’s dialectic appealed
strongly to the socialist and was developed into Marxian dialectical materialism 15
Taken from THE COLUMBIA VIKING DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA Third Ed. 1968. It is
interesting to note that every year, a college or university has Hegel day. And we
are led to believe that communism only exists today in China and Cuba. United
States is next in line.
The question thus becomes, why repeal the 16th amendment??? I will tell you why.
The Hegelian dialects. Thesis-There is a problem, the nasty intrusive IRS and the
income tax. Anti thesis-offer a solution. Abolish the 16th amendment. The masses
rally and repeal the 16th amendment and in its place the fair tax, flat tax, value
added tax, national sales tax or whatever you name it. Repeal of the 16th
amendment takes place on such and such a date and the new tax will take effect
the following day. Several weeks later the masses receive their pay checks and
guess what? The income tax is still being taken out. All hell breaks loose. Any
number of law suits is filed. The courts including the U.S. Supreme Court rule the
repeal of the 16th amendment is frivolous. Synthesis-The solution. The problem is
the solution offered does not deal with the original problem and that is, the income
tax is primarily based upon a gift that you as a individual have created through
contract law. The masses have been swindled into creating a dual national taxing
system just like they have in Great Britain.
Remember, your contracts rights are launched from the state level, not from the
federal level as noted in footnote #3 supra. You have a right under contract law to:
No. 1. Give a gift to the government. It just so happens that by operation of law,
(see footnote #5), as explained above, that gift makes you “any person required to
file or make a return” under Title 26 USC (Internal Revenue Code) Sec. 7203. Said
gift is the largest chunk of the income tax and you did it with your own hand,
VOLUNTARLY.
No. 2. That Social Security (FICA) is a maritime insurance policy. That a maritime
insurance policy is a contract under maritime jurisdiction.
Here is the kicker concerning the 16th Amendment. No Congress, President or
Supreme Court can nullify your, or the association’s common law contracts rights to
sign a “Wage Withholding Certificate” that is considered a charitable subscription
whereby you or the association have legally entered into the commercial world for
whatever means, good or bad.
A “Wage Withholding Certificate” is the area of contract law called “third party
beneficiaries”. The problem is, the contract does not spell out what the terms and
conditions of the contract are, such as, who is the third party beneficiaries let alone
who is the second party? who is liable for what? where is the contract to take
place? what law is to be applied? etc. There is none of the above terms and
conditions contained in the “Wage Withholding Certificate”. The same can be said
of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
Therefore, the courts will determine such instruments as having charitable effects,
thus applying natural law and justice in the form of natural equity that you, or the
association of “persons” intended to create a charitable subscription as outlined in
this document.
From Emanueal Law Outlines 324 supra, p. 21 above.
The third party beneficiary chapter goes on to show how the common law rule was
that a third party beneficiary could not recover on the contract, but that this rule
has been generally abrogated if one is the intended beneficiary. [You are the
intended beneficiary]
Joseph Story in his Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, 1: p. 21. noted:
…charities, arise from natural law and justice, and of freeing itself from all regard to
former rules and precedents, it would be the most gigantic in its sway, and the most
formidable instrument of arbitrary power, that could well be devised. It would
literally place the whole rights and property of the community under the arbitrary
will of the judge, acting, if you please, arbitrio et bone, according to his own notions
and conscience, but still acting with a despotic and sovereign authority.
The facts in the law are very clear and precise that: Repeal of the 16th Amendment
in no way, shape, or form, can interfere with you or the association of “persons”
from contributing or subscribing to a charity regardless, whether it be a “Wage
Withholding Certificate” or Federal Contributions Act (FICA}. Said charities come
into effect by operation of law, (see footnote #5) through HJR 192. Such contracts
invoke natural law and justice that absolutely prohibits government or public policy
from interfering with those natural rights.
The repeal of the 16th amendment will accomplish absolutely nothing except we will
still have the same taxing system we now have. Additionally, we will have an
additional tax by whatever name you call the tax in order to create another tax that
will be a total hoax and a fraud in fact and in law.
To pass such law will create more tyranny and violate the constitutional separation
of powers in that the law will subject those individuals who have not volunteered to
be “subject to” the 14th amendment and considered “other Property” under Article
IV sec. 3 cl.2. There are such individuals. State sales taxes are clearly
unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers doctrine in that the
states impose a tax upon individuals who are not residents of the United States
under federalism. The road to hell has been paved with many good intentions.
The separation of powers was the very cause of the American Revolution 16 that
has led to the conflict of law between the common law of “the states of the Union”
and the private international law.
Yes, the repeal of the 16th amendment will maintain the present day income tax
and create a flat tax by whatever name you want to call it and it will be done by the
peoples’ own hand. The only way the state or federal government has any
jurisdiction over you is by the fact that you have voluntarily reached into that
private forum under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2. Otherwise you are free but that freedom
comes at a cost; you must take responsibility for your own actions.
If the American people think they have access to the United States Constitution and
its’ Bill of Rights as was originally intended under the letter and strict meaning; as
opposed to the spirit and true meaning and that spirit and true meaning must be so
apparent as to override the words which the framers have employed as in Article IV
sec. 3 cl. 1. How can the “persons” override the spirit and true meaning when in
fact and in law they are drowning in a sea of debt, both public and private that is
owned by foreign interest under the corrupt Marxist United Nations. The people
truly live in a make believe world based upon faith.
Public policy has it that your wages are not absolute property because it is
presumed that you receive no wages 17, only income from the unincorporated
association in private international law. As a result of public policy, there are no
states in the common law under Art. IV Sec 3 cl.1, and is the reason the border
lines in the states’ constitutions have been removed.18 (check your state’s
constitution), leaving only federal states in private international law with no charter
of incorporation that spells out just what the duties and liabilities of this new
unincorporated social association are, therefore the government presumes the
people wanted to set up a charitable trust. Because the trust has no charter, the
administrative courts acting under Article IV sec. 3. cl.2, treat the trust and you as
“other property” or any other means at their disposal to measure the liability of you
not performing in a communal fashion. Members of the public trust are treated as
being incompetent and in a conspiracy against the grounded substance of “the
states” because the people have formed a new political society and have not
formulated a charter thus, leaving it to administrative bureaucrats to be governed
by private international law. It is said the people get the government they deserve.
One thing is for certain, the people must start providing for our own welfare and not
depend on government to solve our problems.
14 Highly recommended for reading. “The Warriors and the Bankers” by Alan
Butler and Stephen Dafoe ISBN 096835672-9. See also “The Knights Templar
Revealed” by the same authors. There are two ISBN numbers. 13: 978-0-7607
8118-4; 10: 0-7607-8178-8, Barnes & Noble Books. These are not conspiracy
books but books based upon facts in history. In fact, the two authors have not a
clue as to what they have revealed. The Knights Templar is what is behind the New
World Order under a One World Corporate Communist Monolith untouchable by
any government.
The Templers gave us the allodial land titles in order to break the strangle hold the
Church of Rome had on the Europeans. Although the Templers favored holding
everything in common, they recognized that man must also have a choice to be
free. Whoever owns the land controls the people.
15 Under Article IV sec. 3 cl.1 we worshiped a spiritual God where the family unit
was the cement that held our nation together in body, mind, spirit. We have traded
body, mind, and spirit for body, mind, and materialism where there is no morality for
“persons” because you have quasi corporate privileges and immunities. In other
words, you are a creation of the government because you enjoy limited liability for
the payment of debt under Article IV sec. 3 cl.2 and worship the material god of
materialism. The Marxist debt/credit system has turned the family unit into warring
cannibals and society into a vehicle of hate greed and the great I am.
16 It remained for Lord Mansfield, borrowing to a large extent from the Roman
Law, to extend the action to cover a whole new field, and thus to create a new
branch of the law—a new set of rights under the pretense of simply determining
whether, the plaintiff could use a new form of action. It was the celebrated case of
Moses v. Macferlan 2 Burr. 1005 (1760), that Jefferson was vehemently opposed
which sparked the American Revolution and not the tax on tea that we are lead to
believe. Mansfield said: "The first objection is that the action of debt would not lie
here and no assumpsit could lie where an action of debt might not be brought. . . .
. If the defendant be under an obligation, from the ties of natural justice, … the
law implies the debt, and gives this action, founded on the equity of the plaintiff's
case, as it were upon a contract ('quasi ex contractu' as the Roman Law expresses
it)." In other words, Lord Mansfield, infused the civil law of Scotland that was
derived from the admiralty-maritime into the common law that changed an action of
assumpsit whereby a twelve man jury trial could be demanded, into an equitable
action to be determined according to natural justice and natural equity. Thus, a
person ought to pay a sum of money that the law imposes a duty upon him to do
so. In addition, in order to compel the performance of the duty, the law implies a
fictitious promise to do so, so that compelled performance may be brought for the
breach of the fictitious or implied promise.
17 Today’s public policy considers wages as one and the same under Article IV
Sec. 3 cl.2 but not under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1, there is a difference.
18 A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law since by its
constitutional status it does not have capacity to conduct foreign relations. United
States alone, not any of its constituent States, enjoys international sovereignty and
nationhood. "In respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear. As
to such purposes the State does not exist." United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324,
(1937).
“[T]he term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ . . . must be construed in the sense
in which the term is used in international law as accepted in the United States as
well as Europe. * * * The provision of the 14th Amendment alluded to . . . is
affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies
which had arisen with respect to citizenship.” Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the
Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, 3rd ed. (Lawyers Co-operative
Publishing Co., 1906), vol. 1, pp. 45-47. See also footnote no. 2.
<< Prev - Next >>
Last Updated on Thursday, 07 May 2009 05:44Print E-mail
