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
April 23, 2009
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
Some of the following is repeat material that is shed in a different light.
It is hoped by doing it this way it will help the reader find his or her nitch in
understanding the whole scope of Lee’s website materials at
www.truthinlaw.net and Road Warrior Radio Program on the Republic
Broadcasting Network.
The 14th Amendment (1868) reads in part:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. (Bold emphasis
added)
The 14th amendment is an executive order (proclamation) Vol. 1 of Presidential
Executive Orders, 2 vols. (N.Y.: Books, Inc., 1944—Copyright by Mayor of N.Y.
1944).
“[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.
Private International Law Defined and Distinguished. "International law, in its widest
and most comprehensive sense-including not only questions of right between
nations, governed by what has be in appropriately called the law of nations; but
also questions arising under what is usually called private international law or the
conflict of law's, and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and
dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the
dominion, of another nation-is part of our law, and must be ascertained and
administered by the Courts of justice, as often as such questions are presented in
litigation between man and man, duly submitted to their determination." Hilton v.
Guyot, 159 U. S. 113. 16 S. C. Rep,. 139. Taken from LEADING CASES ON
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. By John W. Dwyer, LL.M.
The 14th Amendment paved the way for the nation to have a money system based
upon a commercial paper society by giving those who deal in commercial paper a
privilege of discharging their debts under private international law outside the
realm of the common law where the rule of law is “payment” of debt.
The 16th Amendment [1913] to wit:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever
source derived without apportionment among the several States, and without
regard to any census or enumeration.1
When a person receives a commercial instrument and signs that instrument without
any declaration as to the terms and conditions of the signature, it is considered
income because you have by your silence accepted a “discharge” of a debt. That
discharge is considered a quasi corporate privilege of limited liability in the
discharge of debt therefore taxable. In another words, there is a silent agreement
that HJR 1922 (attached at end of document), is a certifiable law despite the fact
that there is no enacting clause that states. “Be it enacted by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
and it is hereby enacted and declared, . . .”
As noted in Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, there is no charter of incorporation by HJR 192 of
the newly created several federal states and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents
and purposes; instead there is a resulting or implied (charitable) trust is formed by
operation of law. In other words, Congress created the conditions for a resulting or
implied trust with HJR 192. 3 See federal statute remedy at end of document at
footnote #6.
There is a distinction between a “debt discharged” and a “debt paid.” When
discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation
during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt
continues to exist which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it
subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something
which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an
otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by
assignment. Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 784.
Thus it is read, in Diedrich v. Commissioner, 457 U.S. 191 (1982). Pursuant to its
constitutional authority, Congress has defined “gross income” as income “from
whatever source derived.” Including “[I]ncome from discharge of indebtedness.”
[HJR 192]; 26 U.S.C. 61 (12). This Court has recognized that “income” may be
realized by a variety of indirect means. Still quoting from Diedrich, In Old Colony
Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, (1929), the Court held that payment of
an employee’s income taxes by an employer constituted income to the employee.
Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Taft concluded that, “[t]he payment of the tax
by the employe[r] was in consideration of the services rendered by the employee
and was a gain derived by the employee from his labor.” Id., at 729. The Court
made clear that the substance, not the form, of the agreed transaction controls.
“The discharge by a third person of an obligation to him is equivalent to receipt by
the person taxed.” [bold underline emphasis added].
When a gift is made, the gift tax liability falls on the donor under 26 U.S.C. 2502(d).
When a donor makes a gift to a donee, a “debt” to the United States for the
amount of the gift tax is incurred by the donor. “Although intent is relevant in
determining whether a gift has been made, subjective intent has not
characteristically been a factor in determining whether an individual has realized
income.” [Underline, italics emphasis added] End of Diedrich.
Lets analyze the clause
“Pursuant to its constitutional authority, Congress has defined “gross income” as
income “from whatever source derived.” Including “[I]ncome from discharge of
indebtedness.” [HJR 192]; 26 U.S.C. 61 (12). This Court has recognized that
“income” may be realized by a variety of indirect means.4 Old Colony Trust Co. v.
Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, (1929).
If a person receives a check and that person signs that check, without any terms or
conditions other than your signature, that check becomes evidence that you
agreed to “discharge” the debt pursuant to HJR 192. “The Court made clear that
the substance, not the form, of the agreed transaction controls.” A check signed
without any terms or conditions is taxable. A check signed with terms and
conditions is a contract that is non taxable. Remember, everything dealing with
commercial instruments is governed by contract law. Take notice of the word
“assumption” at footnote 5 at § 163.
Assumption of Secured Indebtedness.
Now let us address the issue of what you do with the check after you sign it with
terms and conditions. In such a case deposit it in a debit account.
Otherwise, if the check contains no terms or conditions it becomes subject primarily
to HJR 192; secondarily to Title 15 USC Chap. 41 Sec 1602 c, d, e. In other words,
you have accepted a privilege for limited liability in the discharge of debt. A signed
check with no terms and conditions can also be considered a gift whereby you
have to fill out the forms and pay the tax under Title 26 U.S.C. 2502(d). In other
words, a check with no terms and conditions becomes a grab bag as to what the
government wants to do with it when it comes to taxing those commercial
instruments.
“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)” [One
year after the 14th amendment became law] [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 in discharge of debt a
privilege 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. Veazie Bank v. Fenno 75 U.S. 553, 554. [Underline
emphasis added] [See also The Bank of United States v. Planters Bank 9 Wheat.
904, 907 (22 U.S. 904).; 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 c, d, e. It must be noted
there was no private foreign banking interest in 1869 as third party with our public
money for private debt.
Every federal power must be express, or implied from some power or group of
powers; and any attempted exercise of power not delegated violates the Tenth
Amendment. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326.
The power to issue bills and “regulate values” of coin cannot be so enlarged as to
authorize arbitrary action, whose immediate purpose and necessary effect is
destruction of individual rights, as this Court has said, a “power to regulate is not a
power to destroy.” Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 398. The
5th Amendment limits all governmental powers. Perry v. United States 294 U.S. 373
(1933).
“The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where
one Branch invades the territory of another”, New York v. United States, 505 U.S.
144, 182, (1992). [The court has no power to accomplish a political act.]
§ 20. Co-partnerships and joint adventures.
At common law the distinction between the corporation and the partnership as a
type of business organization was very marked. In point of fact, one of the reasons
for the rapid development in the use of corporations was the inadequacy of the
partnership to serve many of the needs of business and commerce. In the absence
of statutory\modification or of special agreement between the associates, the
following are the chief respects in which the partnership differs from the
corporation:
A partnership is created by mere agreement between the partners. The approval
of the state is not necessary. On the other hand, in order to form a corporation
something more is needed than the mere agreement of the incorporators. It is
necessary to obtain special authority from the state in order to incorporate. Without
the consent and sanction of the sovereign state so obtained, the incorporators
cannot be treated by the law as legal persons. In any event, a corporation cannot
be compared in all matters to a principal acting through his agent or a partner
acting through his co-partner, because a corporation is a fictional being, a creation
of law, with neither will, purpose nor animation. It can act only through its agents. A
co-partnership, unlike a corporation, does not have the attribute of succession; a
change of name and personnel does not affect the identity of a corporation, and
there are other differences. The Supreme Court of Illinois has aptly said: "A
corporation cannot be constituted by agreement of parties. It can only be created
by or under legislative enactment." .However, the fact that legislative authorization
has been obtained for the creation of an association does not necessarily indicate
that the association is a corporation, since joint stock companies, "partnership
associations" and similar unincorporated associations are frequently authorized by
state authority. Thus, corporations becoming partners under provisions of
law permitting it do not thereby form a corporation,' and a private bank
organized as a partnership is not converted into a corporation by virtue of
the provisions of a statute regulating and supervising "the business of
banking by individuals, partnerships or unincorporated persons." So
individuals may enter into partnership agreements or joint ventures
independent of the corporate form, but they may not organize a
corporation for the purpose of carrying on a joint venture.
Taken from FLETCHER , CYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW OF PRIVATE
CORPORATION'S
Originally Authored by William Mead Fletcher 1983 REVISED VOLUME
By Cynthia Van Swearingen, J.D. of the Publisher. Editorial Staff VOL. I
Cite as : Fletcher Cyc Corp § (Perm Ed) Callaghan CALLAGHAN & COMPANY
18201 Old Glenview Road/Wilmette, Illinois 60091
§ 20 FLETCHER CYC CORP Ch. 1
As the Court noted in The Propeller Genesee Chief: The law … contains no
regulations of commerce. … It merely confers a new jurisdiction on the district
courts; and this is its only object and purpose. … It is evident…that Congress, in
passing [the law], did not intend to exercise their power to regulate commerce. …
The statutes do no more than grant jurisdiction over a particular class of cases.
12 How. at 451-452 [Bold emphasis added]. Verlinden v. Bank of Nigeria. 461 U.S.
496 (1983).
Jurisdiction of the court extends by the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Those who
would withdraw any case from that description must sustain the exemption they
claim on the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution, and that spirit and true
meaning must be so apparent as to override the words which the framers have
employed. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821). [Bold emphasis added].
[The above case was rendered under Article III when the nation had public money
for private debt. In other words, the letter and strict meaning of the constitution
was the public mandate in 1821. The spirit and true meaning of the constitution
became the public mandate with HJR 192 that gave the nation private money for
public debt. The result was Erie RR v. Tompkins 304 US 64 in 1938 that set aside
Swift v. Tyson 16 Peters 1 (1842.) Erie RR reinforced HJR 192 by creating diversity
of citizenship; not in Article III courts but the legislative courts of Article I in
conjunction with the 11th and 14th Amendments; Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. . In the May
1984 issue of Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97 No. 7 noted: that whether Erie RR v.
Tompkins supra, or Swift v Tyson supra, is to apply is a contractual right up to
the individual. In other words, a person uses case law that pertains to the
incorporated states of the Union as his or her law. Most of that law is old law.
When an action is filed in the federal district court using a statute, here is what one
is confronted with.
In relation to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Article III Section 2.1, known as the case
“arising under” clause. The words “arising under … laws of the United States” have
chiefly been construed in cases involving not Article III directly, but the statutory
grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and its predecessors,
which is cast in the same language. It is universally acknowledged, however, that
the statutory grant does not exhaust the constitutional power. Romero v.
International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 379 n.51 (1959); Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 515 (1969); see National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater
Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 613-14 (1949) (Rutledge, J., concurring); Mishkin
supra, at 160-63; Note on the effect of the Statutory Adoption of the Constitutional
Language, Hart & Wechsler, at 870; Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3562 (1975).
As noted in 76 L Ed 2d 831 in reference to Verlinden v Bank of Nigeria 461 U.S.
480, concerning Article III Section 2 Clause 1, and “arising under”. “However, it
should be noted that the jurisdiction conferred by the constitutional ‘arising under’
clause is broader than the federal question jurisdiction provided by Congress in 28
U.S.C. §1331, even though the language of the statute is almost identical to that of
the constitutional clause. The reason given for this distinction is that there exists
policy consideration [i.e., an unincorporated association under Erie RR]
underlying the purpose of the jurisdictional statute that limit its
application and which do not enter into the picture when construing the
constitutional authorization for statutory federal question jurisdiction.”
As noted in Verlinden v. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 460. “It’s a statute, not a
Constitution we are expounding”, thus caution must be taken that the cases
being relied upon to answer jurisdictional questions are not discussing
statutory jurisdiction or vice versa.
[Bold emphasis added]. In other words, in a 28 USC 1331 action, Congress stands
between you and the constitution. In order to circumvent Congress’ intervention
you must produce evidence5 to prove that you are entitled to a true Article III ( j)
udical (P)ower court and that is accomplished with a Title 5 FOIA action. Otherwise,
the court will treat your petition as a Article I petition under (J)udical (p)ower under
the 11th and the 14th Amendment and Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, and the commerce
clause of Article I Sec. 8. The court will reject your petition as failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted or, failure to exhaust all your administrative
remedies. FOIA requests are designed to determine what can and cannot be used
for evidence in a court action. ©
(Copyrighted material)
Tom Jefferson stated that a majority is one man with courage.
Please take note that the following RESOLUTION has no enacting clause that
states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress Assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, . . .”
192 73 Cong., 1st session (48 STAT 113) June 5, 1933 to wit:
Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United
States.
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are
therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which
purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of
coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United
States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value
of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of
the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or
issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts. Now,
therefore, be it.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a) every provision contained in or made
with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require
payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money
of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and
no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation
hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or
not such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be
discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the
time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision
contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of
the United States is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not
invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.
(b) As used in this resolution, the term “obligation” means an obligation (including
every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable on
money of the United States; and the term “coin or currency” means coin or
currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating
notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.
Sec. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the
Act entitled “An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by
increasing agriculture purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary
expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with
respect to agriculture indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-
stock land banks, and for other purposes.” approved May 12, 1933, is amended to
read as follows:
“All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes
and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations)
heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public
and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when
below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single
piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion of their actual weight.”
Approved, June 5, 1933, 4.40 p.m. [Codified at 31 USC 5118 2d]
Lee Brobst
eagleeye@pennswoods.net
FOOTNOTES ARE IN LARGE PRINT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THEM
1 The 16th Amendment has not applied since 1933 with the advent of
HJR 192. What was a quasi commercial paper system before 1933
has become a commercial paper society in its entirety. The revenue
dept. acquires jurisdiction thru Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2, the commerce
clause of Article I Sec. 8 cl.3; Amendments 11 and 14. The promotion
of the fair tax, flat tax, value added tax, national sales tax or whatever
you name it is a hoax and a lie.
The latest scam is being promoted by HR 25. This scam by passes
the 16th Amendment and imposes a federal fair tax, flat tax, value
added tax, national sales tax or whatever you name will be collected
by the states. Should that law be passed, such a 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 or
federal sales taxes collected by the states are clearly
unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers
doctrine in that the states and or federal government impose a tax
upon individuals who are not residents of the United States under
federalism. The problem with HR 25 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 an individual have created through
contract law. The masses have been swindled into creating a dual
federal taxing system just like they have in Great Britain. No
Congress, President or Supreme Court can nullify your, or the
association’s common law contract 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. The road to hell
has been paved with many good intentions. The separation of
powers was the very cause of the American Revolution that has led
to the “conflict of law” between the common law of “the states of the
Union” under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 and the federated states under the
private international law of Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2.
2 With the advent of HJR 192, the government confiscated the gold
and paid for all future goods and services. Fourteenth Amendment
citizens own their property but have no control over it. A commercial
paper society is driven not by statutes, because there are no
enacting clauses, but by the commercial paper itself that has taken
on a life of its own that has no boundaries. Said life perpetuated by
the peoples own greed and love for materialism and limited liability,
not only for the payment of debt, but mental decisions that contain
no moral responsibility such as “if it feels good, do it”, never mind
other people’s life, liberty, and property. In other words, the people’s
greed and the problems it creates, looks for something, such as
insensible materialism that in six months ends up in a land fill, and or
someone such as a king or savior to save them from their own
outward thinking instead of looking within themselves for solutions
to their problems. You do have that power within yourself but it is like
everything else, you must cultivate it in order for it to grow, and in the
process, you must trash the corporate mentality. In other words,
under limited liability, corporate or quasi corporate, a person assigns
somebody else to solve their problems. This is the whole crux of the
downfall of the nation. The credit system in the spirit of,
“discharging” your debt offers the pathway to create all the debt you
want, but be prepared for a corporate communist dictatorship
untouchable by any Government. Don’t be fooled by political
rhetoric. Go to my website to “Matter of Fact and Matter of Law
Regarding Passport” and see Dunn & Bradstreet.
3 Operation of law. This term expresses the manner in which rights,
and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere
application to the particular transaction of the established rules of
law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. Black’s Law
Dict. 5th ed.
4 Interest from stocks, bonds, saving accounts, are taxable. Stay
away from public accounts such as IRA’s and general checking
accounts. In fact you want a special banking account that will
separate your account from the liability of Title 15USC Chap. 41 Sec.
1602 c, d, e.
5 Use Title 5 USC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
because it creates evidence of your intent to be a member of the
INCORPORATED state of the Union under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1.
Last Updated on Friday, 08 May 2009 02:00
