This information below is cut and pasted for you education.

You may find that some words have an extra space, or are not correct in some manor.

That is the case as this web page only makes so many adjustments, so we did the best we could, and we feel you will still get the over all picture.

==============================

Under thee doctrine of Parens Patriae, "Government As Parent", as a result of the manipulated bankruptcy of the United States of America in 1930, ALL the assets of the American people, their person, and of our country itself are held by the Depository Trust Corporation at 55 Water Street, NY, NY, secured by UCC Commercial Liens, which are then monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve. It may interest you to know that under the umbrella of the Depository Trust Corporation lies the CEDE Corporation, the Federal Reserve Corporation, the American Bar Association, the legal arm of the banking interests, and the Internal Revenue Service, the system's collection agency.

Did you ever hear of the Independent Treasury Act of 1920? No, you say.... Hmmmmmmm....?

The Independent Treasury Act of 1920 suspended the de jure (meaning "by right of legal establishment") Treasury Department of the United States government.

Our Congress turned the treasury department over to a private corporation, which when seen in its true light, is a fascist monopolistic cartel, the Federal Reserve and their agents.

The bulk of the ownership of the Federal Reserve System, a very well kept secret from the American Citizen, is held by these banking interests, and NONE is held by the United States Treasury:

Rothschild Bank of London
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Lehman Brothers of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York

The Federal Reserve is at the root of most of our present statutory regulations, "laws", in the control and regulation of virtually all aspects of human activity in the United States, through successively socialistic constructions laid upon the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Reserve is the "STATE" of the United States

Thomas Jefferson once said:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."-- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

Jefferson's prophesy has come true.

How did this happen? ......Hmmmmm..... Well, that is going to take a while to explain.

All our law is private law, written by The National Law Institute, Law Professors, and the Bar Association, the Agents of Foreign Banking interests. They have come to this position of writing the law by fraudulently deleting the "Titles of Nobility and Honor" Thirteenth Amendment from the Constitution for the United States creating an oligarchy of Lawyers and Bankers controlling all three branches of our government. Most of our law comes directly through the Hague or the U.N. Almost all U.N. treaties have been codified into the U.S. codes.

That's where all our educational programs originate. The U.N. controls our education system. The Federal Register Act was created by Pres. Roosevelt in 1935. Title 3 sec. 301 et seq. by Executive Order.

He gave himself the power to create federal agencies and appoint a head of the agency. He then re-delegated his authority to make law (statutory regulations) to those agency heads. One big problem there, the president has no constitutional authority to make law. Under the Constitution re-delegation of delegated authority is a felony breach.

The president then gave the agencies the authority to tax. We now have government by appointment running this country. This is the shadow government sometimes spoken about, but never referred to as government by appointment.This type of government represents taxation without representation.

Perhaps this is why some people believe the Constitution was suspended. It wasn't suspended, it was buried in bureaucratic red tape.

Now, it is an historical fact that with the Declaration of Independence, to provide a united effort during and after the War for Independence, the Colonies as independent nations joined together under the Articles of Confederation, and as Independent Sovereign States drew up constitutions which formed governments to serve the people of each former colony. The Articles of Confederation, after a period of 8 years, were determined to have several flaws.

The Congress of delegates called a Convention in 1787 to correct the flaws. The Convention, instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation as directed, in secret sessions took it upon themselves to write an entirely new Constitution, which when ratified by the State Conventions of the Freemen of the Individual States, created the Federal government to serve them in those areas where the States operating individually could not effectively serve.

In this new Constitution the people and the States delegated to the Federal government certain responsibilities, reserving all rights not so enumerated to the States and to the People in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

As a consequence, the responsibility of the State became one of protecting the people from the tyranny of federal government, to insure that the federal government did not reach beyond the bounds of the Constitution. This worked fairly effectively, until 1933 when

assumed office.

The Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Associations of Attorney Generals, Secretaries of State and State Auditors, State Purchasing Offices, Lieutenant Governors, and State Legislators, and the Governors of the 50 states comprise the membership of the Council of State Governments. The Council of State Governments is located at 676 N. ST. Clair,

The Council of State Governments has now been absorbed into the National Conference on Uniform State Laws run by the Bar Association.

The movement for uniform state laws dates back more than a century. The Alabama State Bar called for uniformity as early as 1881, but it was nearly a decade later, at the 12th annual meeting of the ABA in 1889, that the legal community made its formal motion to work for uniformity in the then 44 state union. New York was the first state to move, appointing three commissioners in 1890. Other states soon heeded the call:

,

,

,

,

,

, and

attended the first Conference in Saratoga Springs, New York, in 1892. The commissioners wasted no time. They urged adoption of three acts and proposed raising the marrying age to 18 for males and 16 for females. They also adopted a table of weights and measures, noting that with the exception of wheat, legal weights of a bushel varied in all the states. By the turn of the century, 33 states and two territories had appointed commissioners on uniform laws. In 1910, only

1890- New York state legislature passes first state act authorizing governor to appoint three commissioners. The American Bar Association (ABA)recommends that other states follow New York 's lead.

1891- Connecticut 's Lyman D. Brewster named to chair newly-created ABA committee on uniform law.

Pennsylvania

,

,

,

and

appoint commissioners.

1892- First conference held in

attend formal meeting.

1893- Committees appointed on such subjects as wills, marriage and divorce, commercial law, descent and distribution.

1895- Conference requests committee on commercial law be formed. Drafts, Negotiable Instrument Law, precursor to Article 3 of Uniform Commercial Code.

1896- Negotiable Instrument Law approved by Conference. First time that a uniform act is adopted in every state and the

1897- For the first time, Commissioners urged to work toward enactment of uniform legislation in their states.

1898/1899- Sessions devoted to the consideration of proposed divorce legislation.

1899- At the end of the 1890s, 33 of the existing 45 states and two territories had appointed uniform law commissioners and eight uniform acts had been drafted, each enacted in at least one state. All these acts were subsequently superseded or declared obsolete.

1900- Uniform Divorce Procedure Act adopted. Louis B. Brandeis begins five years of service as member of Massachusetts commission.

1901- Woodrow Wilson begins

tenure (until 1908) as commissioner from New Jersey.

1903- ABA makes first appropriation in support of work of Conference. James Barr Ames of Harvard Law School commissioned to draft the Uniform Partnership Act.

1905- Samuel W. Pennypacker, Pennsylvania Governor, invites other governors to send delegation to a national divorce conference--meets twice in 1906; three acts endorsed.

1906- First roll call by states as Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act is approved. Legal scholar Roscoe Pound serves for one year as a commissioner from Nebraska.

1907- Uniform Desertion Act and Non-Support Act and Uniform Marriage Act authorized. Act Regulating Annulment of Marriage of Divorce adopted. Also, Act Providing for the Return of Marriage Statistics, Act Providing for the Return of Divorce Statistics.

1908- Work begins on Uniform Corporation Act.

1910- Twenty uniform acts approved in decade of the teens. The Uniform Partnership Act, begun in 1906, was completed by William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

1911- Uniform Marriage and

Marriage License Act and Uniform Child Labor Act approved.

1912- Uniform Marriage Evasion Act adopted. Woodrow Wilson, commissioner from New Jersey from 1901 to 1908 elected U.S. President in a landslide.

1914- Uniform Partnership Act completed. Will be adopted by all the states. Also Foreign Acknowledgement Act, Cold Storage Act, Workmens's Compensation Act.

1915- Name changed to National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Constitution and by-laws completely revised. Each act now must be considered section by section during at least two annual meetings.

1916- Uniform Limited Partnership Act as well as Extradition of Persons of Unsound Minds Act approved, also Land Registration Act.

1917- Uniform Flag Act approved.

1918- Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act approved.

1920- Certain Acts withdrawn; others declared obsolete. After pruning, 26 acts remain as recommended for passage in state legislatures.

1930- During the 30s, Conference adopts 31 acts.

1935- Conference entered into agreement with American Law Institute for cooperative drafting of acts in area of common interest.

1936- After revisions, withdrawals and acts declared obsolete, 53 uniform acts remained as recommended for approval.

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW"in the federal government.

"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL, or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW, or a part of LAW OF TORTS."

(See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304

U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties.

The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws "to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives", including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as "One Form of Action."[See: Constitution and By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, see also Colorado Methods of Practice, West Publishing, Vol. 4, pages 2-3, Authors Comments.]

1939- ABA gets more involved in approval of uniform law products. Thirty-nine acts are presented to the Board of Governors of the ABA for consideration and approval. During the same year, all acts on aeronautics and motor vehicles are eliminated as well as the Land Registration Act, Child Labor Act of 1930, Uniform Divorce Jurisdiction Act, Firearms Act, Marriage Act and more. Six acts are reclassified as Model acts.

1940- At start of decade, after deletions, etc., 53 acts out of 93 which had been approved since the group's founding remain on the books. Drafting committee for the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) approved.

1941- Speaking of the Commercial Code project, the Conference president states: "....this is the most important and the most far reaching project on which the conference has ever embarked."It would take the major part of the next 10 tear period to complete.

1942- UCC effort begins in earnest with completion of work on the revised Uniform Sales Act.

1943- Members of the conference participate in drafting committee in Washington, D.C. to work on legislation which the government might desire in connection with the war effort. No new acts.

1944- Conference receives $150,000 grant from the Falk Foundation of Pittsburgh to support work on the UCC.

1945- No annual meeting for the first time due to difficulties of civilian transport during the war.

1946- Falk Foundation increases its support of the UCC with an additional $100,000.

1947- Uniform Law Conference (ULC) and American Law Institute join in partnership to put all the components together for the UCC. Uniform Divorce Recognition Act approved.

1950- Approval of the Uniform Marriage License Application Act, Uniform Adoption Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The latter has been one of the most successful ULC products.

1951- On May 18, during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C. , the UCC was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC's signature product.

One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions), The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it.

Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction.

America is a

"bankrupt nation"

and it is owned completely by its creditors. ( FRS )

The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments.

Do you have a Birth Certificate? If you do then they own you as well. They have the legal document of you're birth/ownership.

You might say it ain't so, but they have the original, and you have a certified "COPY" not the original, the owner of the original is the true owner by law and that's the creaditor. (FRS)

Sorry, but IT IS TRUE

1952- Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure approved---first venture of the Conference into this area of the law.

1953- Pennsylvania the first state to enact the UCC. Uniform Rules of Evidence adopted.

1954- Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act approved.

1956- Gift to Minors Act approved. Will be adopted in every state. For the first time, ULC enters the field of international law.

1957- Massachusetts becomes second state to enact the UCC, after revisions by the Editorial Board.

1958- Uniform Securities Act approved.

1960- Uniform Paternity Act passed. by 1960, UCC enacted in

,

,

and

.

1961- Permanent Editorial Board on the UCC formed---8 more states pass UCC. Constitution amended to provide that all members of Conference must be members of the bar.

1962- Four more states adopt UCC, including New York . Probate Code project approved.

1963- Third comprehensive law project approved, on retail installment sales, consumer credit, small loans and usury. Eleven more UCC states. William H. Renquist begins term as commissioner from Arizona ; serves until 1968.

1964- Special Committee of Uniform Divorce and Marriage laws recommends that a study of divorce law be authorized and that funds be sought. One more UCC state.

1965- Divorce and Marriage Law committee instructed to commence drafting if funds can be obtained for the project. Thirteen more UCC states.

1966- Five more UCC states.

1968- Much of annual meeting devoted to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Uniform Probate Code ---two projects nearing completion. By 1968, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the UCC---only exception being Louisiana . A big year. Other developments in 1968:

the Consumer Credit Code is approved as well as revisions to the Anatomical Gift Act, Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and revisions to URESA.

1969- Probate Code approved. Preliminary analysis of the uniform marriage and divorce legislation distributed.

1970- Controlled Substances Act and Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act approved.

1971- Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Act approved.

1972- Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Disposition of Community Property Rights At Death Act and UMVARA, the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act approved.

1973- Uniform Parentage Act supersedes Paternity Act. Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act approved.

1974- Conference approves Rules of Criminal Procedure and Eminent Domain Code. Louisiana, the only state not to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code due to difficulties in reconciling its provisions with those of the Civil Code, adopts Articles 1,3,4,5,7, and 8.

1975- Uniform Land Transactions Act approved.

1976- Major revision of the Uniform Partnership Act approved; also Uniform Simplification of Land Transfers and Uniform Class Action Acts.

1978- Uniform Brain Death and Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act approved.

1979- Uniform Trade Secrets and Durable Power of Attorney acts among those approved.

1980- Determination of Death Act supersedes 1978 Brain Death Act. Uniform Planned Community Act, Model Real Estate Time-Share Act and Model Periodic Payment of Judgments Act also adopted.

1981- Two important updated acts approved: new Model State Administration Procedure and Unclaimed Property Acts. Also two new acts: the Model Real Estate Cooperative Act and the Uniform Conservation Easement Act.

1982- Uniform Condominium and Planned Community Acts and Model Real Estate Cooperative Act combined into the Uniform Common Interest Ownership act.

The enumerated, specified, and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include

 Admiralty Jurisdiction,

which was once again brought inland. This was the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and

ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between Actions At Law and Suits in Equity, this CHANGE WOULD ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY." (See: Federal Rules of Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17. Also see Federalist Papers, No. 83, Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress, Oct. 14th, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms, July 16, 1775, Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776, Bennet vs. Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)

1983- Uniform Marital Property Act and Uniform Premarital agreement Act approved. Uniform Transfers to Minors Act replaces the uniformly enacted Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.

1984- Uniform Statutory Will Act approved; new Uniform fraudulent Transfer Act supersedes Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1918.

1985- Uniform Health-Care Information Act, Uniform Land Security Interest act, Uniform Personal Property Leasing Act and Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act approved.

1986- New drafting effort to revise Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC and draft new provisions begins.

1987- Approval of the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act approved as well as new Uniform Custodial Trust Act, Uniform Construction Lien Act and Uniform Franchise and Business Opportunities Act. Also revision of Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1988- Final approval of amendments to the Uniform Securities Act and amendments to Article 6 of the UCC dealing with bulk sales. Conference also approves Uniform Statutory Form Power of Attorney Act and Uniform Punitive and Unknown Fathers Act and takes on the controversial issue of surrogate mother contracts with Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act.

1989- Article 4A of the UCC, dealing with electronic funds transfers, approved. Also approved: amendments to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, authorizing withdrawal of life support by a surrogate decision maker; the Uniform Pretrial Detention Act, confining violent criminals before trial; the Uniform Non-probate Transfers on Death Act and amendments to Article VI of the Uniform Probate Code.

1990- Major revision of 1970 Uniform Controlled Substances Act-- the law in 46 jurisdictions-- approved. Substantial revision of UCC Article 3 also approved, as well as an updated Article II of the Uniform Probate Code, to keep pace with current thinking on marital property.

This private corruption of the law has occurred despite the Constitutional responsibility conferred on Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution which states that it is Congress that "makes all Laws."

What does that have to do with anything? Uniform Laws seemto be a good Idea.Well now, that is a good question. Let us continue.....

An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans

THE COURTS RECOGNIZE ONLY TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY: DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS is very important to understand.

Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else government might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court. It is an equity court, administrating commercial law having a debtor-creditor law as the controlling law.

Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as defined by the Constitution of the United States or any other legal documents before 1938.

All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in ERIE V. THOMPKINS.

I'll give you background which led to this decision. There is a terrible FRAUD being perpetrated on all Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud.

This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. It doesn't just happen once in a while. This fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.

U.S. INC. GOES TO

1930's

In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception.

It goes like this: From 1928 -1932 there were five years of

conventions. The nations of the world met in

for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the

,

, France,

,

,

, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don't publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in

. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the

.

's job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate

government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the

vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when

came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as 'The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling the gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 "Trading With The Enemy Act."

It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 - 1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices.

tried to stack the Supreme court with a bunch of his pals.

tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices. The corporate

had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.

There was resistance to

's court stacking efforts. Some of the justices tried to warn us that

was tampering with the law and with the courts.

was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land. See also The UCC Connection

THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES GOES BANKRUPT

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate

had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the headquarters of the corporation called "The United States").

Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the

, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the

). The corporate state governments didn't have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION.(Note: the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation"to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States has been taken.

It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her "Creators",the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: "

","

War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people in her new world order.

THE U.S. INC. DECLARES BANKRUPTCY

The corporate

then, is the head corporate member, who met at

to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether

declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at

. The several states of

were not represented. Consequently, whatever

agreed to at

was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only needed a representative at

by way of the

in

The delegates of the corporate

attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto, BANKRUPTCYwas declared for all!

From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states could then rely on the Federal decision and use this decision within the states as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE EMERGES AS LAW OF THE LAND
Ah, Ha, are you beginning to get the picture?

By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be upheld and administered. That's why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedent, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in

vs. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th Edition:

"The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966"

The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1938 and 1940, I don't recall, but by the early 40's and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and getting it ready to go on the market. The UCC is the Law Merchant's code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts, and the whole mess under the UCC. That's where the "Uniform"word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the

.

It doesn't mean you didn't have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960's, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the Law of the Land. The states fully understood they had to administrate Bankruptcy.

adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks after President John F. Kennedy was killed.

YOUR LAWYER'S SECRET OATH???

What was the effect and the significance of

vs. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers, who are members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer's guild of

, created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain.

Since the

vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same. It has been reported, that every lawyer in existence, and every lawyer coming up has to take a "secret"oath to support bankruptcy. As Officers of the Court they have sworn to uphold the law as it exists, and as they have been taught. In so doing, not only do the lawyers promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges promise never to reveal who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings (if, indeed, many of them are even aware or know). In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principle of the proceedings. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, then there is no way the defendant is able to know the TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION.You are never told the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT.The court is forbidden to tell you that information.

That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will tell you "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."

HIRE A LAWYER?

The problem here is, if you hire a lawyer who is pledged not to reveal the true nature and the cause, how will you ever find out the nature and the cause? YOU WON'T! If the true nature and the cause of the action against you is revealed, it will expose the real creditor from whom this action and cause came. In other words, they will have to name the TRUE creditor. The true creditor will have to state the nature and the cause. The true creditor will have to say "It's a bankruptcy proceeding."The true creditor will have to say, "I'm the creditor and he's the debtor."

That declaration would open the door for you to question "Who the hell are you? How did you get attached to my back and by what vehicle did I promise to become a debtor to you?"In this country, the courts on every level, from the justice of the peace level all the way up...... even into the International law arena, (called the World Court), are administrating the bankruptcy and are pledged not to reveal who the true creditors really are and how you personally became pledged as a party or participant to the corporate United States debt. What would really kill these people off, would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer into the courtroom and present himself as the attorney for THE TRUE CREDITOR, THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. THEN, HAVE THE ATTORNEY PUT INTO THE RECORD THE TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY.

The International Bankers told these various countries that they were now in a state of bankruptcy. The countries had been taken over by the creditor/bankers. And there was no choice, but for all these participating countries to declare bankruptcy. If they didn't agree to declare bankruptcy, the bankers threatened to collapse the economies and thereby put the countries back into the depression like the one from which they were just emerging. The bankers made an offer they couldn't refuse. To review and elaborate: In 1930 there was a world wide depression.

The Bankers said, "Look. You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way.""You just accept the bankruptcy and we'll let you out of the depression. If you don't, you're on your own."So all the countries involved agreed, because they realized that the International bankers had them by the throat. The countries therefore agreed that over a period of several years that they would pass statutes and legislation for the implementation of the bankruptcy in favor of the international bankers.

Now, it would probably be correct to say that the key bankers were the Rothschild's and their agents by way of Rockefeller, by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. Who the bankers were is immaterial. The fact remains that there was an International bankruptcy, and an International conspiracy to cover it up. There was a banking creditor who made the offer; the countries accepted the offer in order to enable the representative countries to continue without revolution and to allow the politicians to remain comfortably in place. Under a delusion of solvency the countries were allowed to continue to operate as though they were solvent; while in fact, the representative countries were bankrupt.

THE SNARE

The bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan. How did they possibly pull this scheme off in the area of real estate? The bankers did it with real estate, the same way they did it in the area of Federal Income Taxes. These Foreign bankers simply and deceptively devised ways and means to con you into declaring yourself as a "CITIZEN"or a "RESIDENT"of the corporate U.S. Remember the corporate

is Bankrupt per agreement and public policy. After you have been tricked into claiming you are one of their corporate

Citizens, you are given a social security number which ties you to certain meager "benefits"and "privileges."Then, the bankers con your employer to function as an unpaid tax collector to con you into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040 voluntary agreements.

These slick paper agreements establish your "voluntary"indebtedness to the banker creditor. If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme because you don't like it, the real creditor never has to make an appearance in court to list the true nature and cause of the action which is being brought against you. You end up dealing with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is administrating the bankruptcy to which the government agreed to per the

meetings.

The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the courtroom stand, so you can ask him how he got attached to your back. The system is set up in such a way that the true creditor is protected and never has to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or produce documents. Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law that gives him the right to pledge you (your body and labor) into indebtedness (bondage/servitude).

Why? Because the

agreement in 1930 was done by treaty. The bankruptcy was not done by legislation. The agreement came first; signed in secrecy, THEN Congress began to pass legislation to fulfill the bankruptcy obligation required by the treaty. Legislation being passed by Congress was henceforth and is thereby bankruptcy legislation. When cases came before the courts, the courts could make decisions based on the new controlling law of bankruptcy. It had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Now, any case brought in is under the new bankruptcy law and is not considered as a true constitutional case. It is now a bankrupty case as distinct from, but cleverly disguised as a constitutional case.

THE FRAUD

The members of the Supreme Court, of course, realized what was happening to them and the system of law. The court was being asked to perform in a creditor, debtor bankrupt proceeding to the benefit of the banker creditors. The members of the Supreme Court said, "NO. We will not give you a bankrupt proceeding decision that you can then enforce against everybody; a decision not only effecting corporate

but also having effect within the corporate state governments."

This, by the way, is fraud. It wouldn't be fraud if the government of corporate

and the government of the several corporate states declared bankruptcy then let the people know about the bankruptcy. (Notice: when I say corporate "government"I don't mean you and me. You and I are not the corporate government. The corporate government is the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is a neutral government zone known as the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is where the corporate state is. It is corporate headquarters. Just like corporate

However, it is fraud when those two corporate entities declare bankruptcy but do not disclose to you, me, and every other American, that they have so declared bankruptcy.

Further they have not and do not disclose that their intention is to get you and every other American in this country to pledge to pay off their corporate debt to their corporate creditors. The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of Americans, The People.

U.S. INC. IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM PRIVATE AMERICANS

"We the People"who created and signed the contract/compact/agreement/charter of, by, and for the Constitutional Corporation (U.S.) using the trade name of the "United States of America,"is a corporate entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the unenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not create the corporation of the

. The United States Inc. did not create the private natural American people.

and Americans were in existence prior to the creation of the United States Corporation. The United States Corporation has located its

headquarters in

Today, we are again enslaved. Private natural American people have been tricked, deceived, and set-up to carry the U.S. Inc. perpetual corporate debt under bankruptcy laws. Every time Americans appear in court, the corporate

bankruptcy is being administrated against them without their knowledge and lawful consent. That is FRAUD.

All corporate bankruptcy administration is done by "Public Policy"of by and for the Mother Corporation (U.S. Inc.).

THE MOTHER CORPORATION'S "PUBLIC POLICY"

The corporate bankruptcy is carried out under the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government in corporate

The states use state public policy to carry out Federal public policy of Washington D.C. Public policy and only public policy is being administered against you in the corporate courts today. The public policy that is dictated by all the courts, from the smallest to the most powerful courts in the world, is public policy. This is why I said, in another tape that the Russian people would be enslaved into indebtedness. What will happen is that it will become public policy in

to have the people go into joint corporate debt. The Russians will be forced to promise to pay those debts. They will be forced to pay off on those corporate debts. Corporate public policy is the crux of the whole bankruptcy implementation. Corporate public policy is forever a Corporate public policy and the laws that have passed since 1938 are all corporate public policy laws dealing only with corporate public policy. Understand that

corporate public policy is not an American public policy. The public policy is OF, ( belonging to) the

corporation. This

corporate bankruptcy public policy is not OF (belonging to)

, the Republic.

The

vs. Thompkins 1938 case was a decision based upon public policy. All decisions at any level since 1938, have been public policy decisions. All statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures that have been passed, whether civil or criminal, whether it is Federal or State, have all been passed to implement the public policy of bankruptcy. Since 1933, when FDR came into office, he brought in public policy. He established that it was the public policy of the overnment to call in all the gold. It was the public policy of the government to declare a banking holiday. It was the public policy of the Government in

, (the Federal Government) to give out government assistance. Public policy operates the same within the states. All Federal court decisions can only be handed down if the states support Federal public policy. The state legal system must be compatible with the Federal legal system.

THE MONKEY-WRENCH

This is why, when people like us go to court without being represented by a lawyer, we throw a monkey-wrench into their corporate administrative proceedings. Why? Because all public policy corporate lawyers are pledged to up-hold public policy, which is the corporate

administration of their corporate bankruptcy. That's why you'll find stamped on many if not all our briefs, "THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED IN ANY OTHER CASE AND IS NOT TO BE REPORTED IN ANY COURTS."The reason for this notation is that when we go in to defend ourselves or file a claim we are not supporting the corporate bankruptcy administration and procedure. The arguments we put forth predate 1938.

We come in with Constitutional law etc. All these early cases support our rights not to be in bankruptcy. However, the corporate court, lawyers, and judges have promised to give no judicial recognition of any case before 1938.

THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS'
CORPORATE

STYLE

Before 1938, the law was not a public policy law. All these old cases were not public law deciding cases. Today, the cases are all decided under corporate public policy. The public policy exists in order to administer the bankruptcy for the benefit of the banker creditors and to protect the banker creditor.

Corporate public policy can allow the creditor to say to the corporate legislatures, "I want a law passed requiring my debtors to wear seat belts. Why? Because I want to be able to milk my debtors for the longest period possible."

It doesn't behoove the creditor to allow all of his labor producing debtors die at an average age 30 years. What would happen to the bankers' lending, interest, penalties, increase, repayment etc., on the entire funding and lending process if the average American life span was only 30 years? Why, the bankers would have to have 2 1/2 times the current consumer population to equal their current take. The bankers would need (instead of 250 million Americans) 600 million or even more. Maybe the bankers would need 2 Billion Americans because the individual can't contract for debt until he/she is 18 or 21 years of age. Therefore, if the average life span is only a 30 year period, the creditor could collect on the debt for only 12 years.

Now, if the bankers can just get people to live an average of 70 years) you are talking a whopping 50 years of indebtedness for which they contract and for which they are forced to pay back with usury/interest. With this situation, the banker creditor can now float loans worth 50 years of potential indebtedness and its payoff with interest in the name of the people, as opposed to 9 to 12 years.

The creditors and their property and their people are well taken care of. The creditor doesn't want the population to decrease per se, unless, it is convenient for the debtor to run up debts in another's name and then liquidate that debtor or that group of debtor people. For example let's consider the AIDS problem today among the black people. What better group to inject AIDS into than the black people?

Read the Strecker Memorandum on AIDS and the World Health Organization connection. This documents their tainted vaccination program in

and elsewhere. Why not kill them off? Don't you understand that the blacks as a whole have absorbed all the debt that they can? The blacks have reached the maximum of the debt that they can carry. In fact, they have gone over their limit to pay back. They are now heavily into welfare, public housing, medicaid, medicare, food stamps etc.. Now, the situation is that instead of paying off the creditor, they have become a drain on the creditor. The creditor must now pay them to live and take care of them. What creditor in his right mind wants to spend money on a bunch of people from whom he can't collect any revenue?

The corporate public policy of the corporate

and the states and the county and of the cities are that YOU must take care of these people. You must provide them with welfare etc. Why? Because when you, as a member of the corporate body politic allow laws to be passed which says the minorities must be taken care of, then the corporate legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these people taken care of. Therefore, when given the chance, the legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these blacks and poor whites to be taken care of and given a chance, therefore, we must raise taxes to fund all these benefits, privileges and opportunities.

This is what these people need to make them socially, politically, and economically equal with everyone else. The legislatures have passed all kinds of statutes providing for huge indebtedness and they float the indebtedness off your backs because you have never gone into court to challenge them by telling them it is not your public policy to assume the debts of other people. On the contrary, all the court decisions coming put, indicate it is the corporate public policy and it is your willingness to support the corporate public policy to pay off these debts.

Remember, "public"means of and for the corporate Government. It does not mean of and for private people. "Public"means corporate government. It is corporate government policy. When they talk about public debt,they are talking about corporate government debtand your presumed pledge against this corporate created debt.

THE REAL ESTATE SNARE

How do they work this scheme in the area of real estate? These banker creeps have made an agreement that it is corporate public policy, that all land (property) be pledged to the creditor to satisfy the debt of the bankruptcy, which the creditor claims under bankruptcy. They get away with this the same way they get away with any other case that is brought before the court, whether it is a traffic ticket, IRS, or whatever.

Here is how it works. You have signed instruments giving information and jurisdiction to the bankers through their agents. The instruments (forms) you signed include, but are not limited to the following: social security registration, use of the social security number, IRS forms, driver license, traffic citation, jury duty, voter registration, using their address, zip code, U.S. postal service, a deed, a mortgage application, etc. etc. The bankers then use that instrument (document) under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as a contract/agreement. These documents are considered promissory contract where you promise to perform. This scheme involves you, without you ever becoming directly in contact or in contract with the true creditor. What's more, you are never informed as to whom that true creditor is and it is never divulged to you the true nature and the true cause of the paperwork that you are filling out.

If you will examine your real estate deed, you will find that you promised to pay taxes to the corporate government. On property you originally acquired through a mortgage, you will notice that the bank never promised to pay taxes. You did. The corporate government at all levels never promised to pay taxes to the creditor. You did.

In tax and collection problems relating to real estate being enforced against you, you will notice that there is no mention in the mortgage or the deed stating the true nature and cause of the action. Since you have made the promise to perform, you get a bill every year for property taxes. You don't realize that the only way they can bill you for taxes is through your own stupidity of agreeing to pay the tax. You volunteered. They took advantage of you, conning you to promise to pay properly taxes. When they send you their bill, they are coming against you for the collection of the promise you made to the creditor.

Now the creditor on the paperwork appears that it is the local bank. The bank has loaned you credit. The bank hasn't loaned you anything. It is not their credit to loan. This is why the bank can't loan credit. There is a credit involved, but not the bank's credit. It is the credit of the International Bankers. The International bankers are making you the loan based upon their operation of bankruptcy claim which they presume to have against you personally as well as your property. Now, let's say you get a tax bill and you decide "I'm not going to pay it."You will find that the courts and the lawyers and the county agencies are set up to protect the true creditor simply by not identifying the creditor. By not being identified as the true creditor, the international banker can make you a credit loan that has no value in reality.

In the case of real property, he claims to loan you the use of your own property for which you pay a tax as rent. He is allowed to do this because you are presumed by statutory law and the banker to be in bankruptcy. This fraud is not revealed because he does not have to make an appearance in court to present and defend his claim. His name is not mentioned in the case.

Let's say you are not aware of your remedies provided for you within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC provides or allows you to dishonor the county's presentment of the tax bill. You don't pay your tax bill. You, therefore, just sit on it and don't do or say anything. A couple of years go by and all of a sudden you are being sent letters to pay up what is owed or else in a certain period of time, your property will be taken from you and put up for tax sale.

Now here is what is interesting........ If you don't pay your tax bill and they contact you asking you to pay it and you don't do it, they will declare that you are in default. It is based on that default, as provided for in the UCC, that they sell your property for the tax (rent).

However, the county never goes into court to put into the record the identification of the real creditor. And the county does not state the true nature and cause of the action against you (bankruptcy action disguised as a tax action). Why? Because, under bankruptcy implementation, they have developed a legal procedure which is based upon your promise to pay. This procedure provides that they don't have to come to the court to get a court order authorizing the sale of your property. Therefore, the real creditor never makes an appearance in court.

The reality is, you are denied any possibility of appearing in court to exercise your right to challenge the creditor. To ask if he became the creditor under "public policy."To ask if it is under "public policy",just what is the "public policy?"And how did you (as an international banker) become "creditor"to me and everyone else in this country (American people). They don't want you to ask the real creditor (the International Bankers), to produce the documents upon which your personal debt is established. If they were forced to go into court, they would have to produce the deed or mortgage showing you knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promised to pay the corporate public debt. You did not knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promise to pay any U.S. Corporate Bankruptcy obligation made in the 1930's.

This would, of course, expose their racket. The fact is, that, there was absolutely no debt connected to you until you agreed to it through their deception and fraud. The deception in a broader sense, permeates the education system and the news media, etc., to sell you on the idea that you are a statutory "

citizen"and "resident of the

YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY

Your property is pledged for the rest of your life upon your signature and your promise to perform is pledged into perpetual debt. The bankers don't even bother to go to court They leave it up to the agencies to administer the agency corporate public policy. It is the public policy of that agency to bill you on your promise to perform. If you don't pay, they follow up on the public policy on notice of default and give you one more chance to pay. Then they proceed to sell the property at a tax auction. They never go to court or appear in court to back up their claim against you. Did any of your government licensed and controlled teachers ever stress that your signature is your most valuable personal property? Did your government teachers ever tell you that any time you sign any document, you should sign it "without prejudice,"or with "All Rights Reserved"above your signature. This means you are reserving your God given unalienable rights which cannot be transferred and all other rights for which your forefathers died.

The Corporate

. Government provides, or at best pretends to provide for this reservation of rights under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 1-207 and 1-103. You need more information in this area. It is not in the best interest of the United States Corporate "PUBLIC"schools to teach you about their bankruptcy proceedings and how they have set the snare to Compel you into paying their debt. The Corporate "PUBLIC"schools are strictly designed for their Corporate citizen/subjects. That is. the Corporate

Notice all the emphases on being a "good"Citizen. Basically all their teachers and their students are trained to produce labor and material in exchange for valueless green paper called "money."It is not money, it functions "AS"money. Lawful money must be backed by something of value. Bankers take your labor, services, and material (homes, cars, farms, etc.) in exchange for their valueless corporate paper. This paper is backed only by the "full faith and Confidence of the United States Government"THE MOTHER CORPORATION.

I do not have faith or confidence in the U.S. BANKRUPT CORPORATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE PERVERTED THEIR Constitutional CHARTER, enslaving the sovereign American people into their bankruptcy obligations. Their fraudulent money laundering process promotes your payment on the corporate government's bankruptcy debt. This debt is mathematically impossible to pay Off. You and your family are in continual financial bondage to the international bankers. They love it so!

Black's Law Dictionary 1990, defines "Money Changers"as: .....business of a banker... today handled by the international departments of banks." Let me think for a moment, what did Christ do to the Money Changers." Oh, Yes, he severely interfered with their activity. Three days later he was crucified.

was killed for interfering with the money changers. Kennedy was slaughtered for interfering with the money changers.

Let's return to the subject of your property, and the tax sale for not paying property taxes. In this situation under a standard deed (not common law deed) you are actually in default. Not because you understand the default or you like being in default, you just are in default of the tax payment. So they put your property up for sale. At the tax sale, Joe Doe, average American, bids on your property and gets it. Now, there is a procedure he must go through step by step to establish. He is required to give you another chance. You have six months and a day to pay off the default. If, at this time, you pay off the amount the county says you owe, plus penalties, interest, fines, etc., then your property is taken off default status and it is yours to continue to pay taxes on the next year.

THE COVER-UP

There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn't have a lawyer to bring a case before the courts, and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. That is why you can't hire an attorney. An attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.

"TRUST ME"
"I'm Here To Help You."
"I Have The Governments Permission To Practice Law."
"I'm A Member of the Bar."

The attorney is there for one reason. That reason is to make sure the bankruptcy scam (established by the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government) is upheld. The lawyer's will cite no cases for you that will go against the bankruptcy in corporate public policy. Whatever the lawyers do for you is a bunch of Bull. The lawyers have to support the bankruptcy and public policy even at your expense. The lawyers can't go against the corporate Federal Government statutes implementing, protecting and administrating the bankruptcy.

For all cases cited, those in the US Code or the state annotated code or any other source, you may be sure that they are only those selected cases that support the public policy of bankruptcy.

The legal system has to work that way. After the last 30-40-50-60 years of cases after cases having been decided based upon upholding the bankruptcy, how could the legal system possibly allow someone to come into court and put in the record substantial information and argument to prove the fraud?

BLOOD IN THE STREETS?

Can you imagine how damaging it would be, if they allowed your case to be cited in another case, or if they allowed the public to examine a copy of your brief that exposes evidence of the fraud?

This exposure would render null and void everything for which they have worked so hard. Wouldn't this exposure make the people mad? Wouldn't this exposure mean there would be blood running in the streets? Especially the cities where the poor people have been really taken by this diabolical system.

What they are concerned about is that the case never be cited. That goes against the bankruptcy for fear of exposing the bankruptcy and the people will then pick up their guns and shoot the politicians, bankers in the cartel.

ATTENTION: LAW STUDENT!

You said you wanted to be a lawyer. Well, I hope you've read this carefully, because here is the legal system you're headed to serve, and serve you will.

You say you wanted to be a lawyer so you can find out what oath they're taking, in "secret", behind closed doors in solemn preparation for the "business of the court"as judges and lawyers.

Now you know the oath. The oath is simply to uphold the bankruptcy. If you want to be a lawyer and want to make a living as a lawyer, be careful.

They will weed you out at the beginning if you don't bring in your paperwork under the bankruptcy procedures. If you try to defend your clients and try to help your clients they will get rid of you.

They will pull your license. So you spent all that money and time going to school under the guise of helping people and you're wasting your time. Without a license you can't go into a courtroom. I would think about this if I were you.

THE LAWYERS GUILD CONNECTION

Here is what happens. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain. The American Bar Association is not connected primarily with what happens in any case on the local level.

However, when a case leaves the local level, by that is meant, the state court, city court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court; and goes to the appeal's court, it would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of the case.

It would seem that the American Bar Association must have an agreement that any action brought on appeal, must be reviewed by the American Bar Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would the American Bar Association, a branch of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothschild's Dynasty, be able to monitor and administer the corporate bankruptcy.

It would appear that the American Bar Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any case brought under common law or the constitutional law that would expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that "this case is not to be cited or published."I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the stamp message in such cases. The justice department may be able to do that in

Washington D.C.

I can't see where any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or label the case as one not to be cited for future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.

THE BANKRUPTCY ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

Now, Mr/Ms. Law Student, if you're still attending classes and you have a good professor, ask him/her about just where the stamp comes from that you've seen on many cases. Just who put it on the paperwork and just who authorized the citation restriction.

Just who is tampering with the law. There is one thing certain the creditor and or his agents are watching these cases very carefully. The creditor and his agents must balance their books. When you think of the IRS, be aware that the IRS is an agent of the creditor, the corporate International Bankers.

This is just one of the Bankers' state side agencies. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is another agency they use for this country.

This is where all the accounting goes on to keep track of the debt. All the states have to send reports to Washington D.C. then Washington D.C. has to send reports to the (GAO).

Take a look at your state Comptroller's Annual Report to the Governor of your state. I found it in the library located in the city of the corporate state capital. Look under "Trust Fund"for each state sub-corporation like the state courts, IRS, Banks, Education, etc.

you will be amazed at the amount of money being pumped into the Trust Fund from the various Corporate State Departmental Revenues

(all revenue is referred to as taxes: fines, fees, licenses, etc.). There are millions and billions of your hard earned worthless federal reserve notes, "dollars",being held in "trust."This money is being siphoned off into the coffers of the International Bankers while the corporate government officials are hounding you for more and more tax dollars.

All this accounting system is NOT so the people will know what is going on. The accounting reports are for the bankers and creditors to keep tabs on just where their collections are coming from.

The bankers want to know if the bankruptcy debt payments are coming in and just how much and from what sources. This accounting is the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4. and M5. All this accounting is closely monitored. Maybe every day, but at least once a week.

These M's are the reports of the amounts of money in circulation. The amount of debt out there, and the amount of credit out there. The floating of debt in the form of bonds. There are five different categories.

This system had to come into existence in order for the creditors to be on top of the bankruptcy at all times. This system allows the creditors to figure out and know exactly what is going on in their domain.

It all makes sense. Don't the bankers hire bill collectors? Creditors hire bill collectors to snoop around do see why you're not paying.

 They want do know how much you are going to pay so they can figure out how much will be coming in. How much they will collect. They want to know who will pay and who won't.

THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS NOTHING BUT CREDIT AND DEBT.

THE WORLD CREDIT UNION

Here is what is going to very quickly happen internationally. All of the governments around the world are going to unite. They will create one big giant credit union for collecting the debt for the International Bankers. We have allowed ourselves do get into this very sad situation, but THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- "State Tamperings with Money Banks"-- Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304

64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Re:

 Taxes on Labor

1818:

U.S. v. Bevans,16 U.S.336.

Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America:

1.  The "federal zone"

and

2.  "the 50 States".  

The Key Point to remember

The I.R.C.
only has jurisdiction within the

"federal zone".  

"The exclusive
jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards
ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by
whom the cessions are made.  

It could be derived in no other manner;
because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and
exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1883:

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111

U.S. 746.

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of
Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their
highest enjoyment...It has been well said that,

THE PROPERTY WHICH
EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF
ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1894:

Caha v.  

United States

, 152 U.S. 211.  

Restricts jurisdiction
of the federal government inside the states. 

"The law of Congress in
respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of
the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia , and other
places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

XXXXXXXXXXXX


1895:

Pollack v.  Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 157

U.S. 429, 158
U.S. 601.  

Prohibits direct taxes on the income of individuals.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX


1900:

Knowlton v.  Moore, 178 U.S. 41.  

Defines the meaning of
"direct taxes".  "Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the
possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the
happening of an event as an exchange."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


1901:

Downes v.  Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244.  

Establishes that
constitutional limits on the Congress do not apply within the "federal
zone" and described where they do apply.  "CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS
AND LIMITATIONS

[Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of
lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


1906:

Hale v.  Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.  

Defined the distinction between
 

Natural Persons

and 

Corporations

as it pertains to 5th Amendment
protections within the US Constitution.

"...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this
particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the
latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an
examination at the suit of the state.  

The individual may stand upon
his constitutional rights as a citizen.  He is entitled to carry on
his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is
unlimited.  

He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far
as it may tend to criminate him.  

He owes no such duty to the state,since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life
and property.  

His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be
taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the
Constitution.  

Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.  

He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It
is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.  It
receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter.

Its powers are limited by law.  It can make no contract not authorized
by its charter.  Its rights to

[201 U.S. 43, 75]

act as a corporation
are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its
contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.  It would
be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a
corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the
exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been
employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production
of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.  

The defense
amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged
with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books.  

To state this proposition is to answer it.  While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by
an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested
with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand
when charged with an abuse of such privileges.  "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX


1911:

Flint v.  Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107. 

Defined excise taxes
as taxes laid on corporations and corporate privileges, not in natural persons. 

 "Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges..the requirement to
pay such taxes involves the exercise of

[220 U.S. 107, 152]

privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is
lacking...Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business
activities of private corporations..  the tax must be measured by somestandard..It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax alegitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable."

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

1914:

Weeks v.  U.S. ,

232 U.S. 383.  

Established that illegally
obtained evidence may not be used by the court or admitted into
evidence.  This case is very useful in refuting the use by the IRS of
income tax returns that were submitted involuntarily (note that these returns must say "submitted under compulsion in violation of 5th Amendment rights" or some such thing at the bottom.

"The effect of the 4th Amendment is to put the courts [232

U.S. 383,392]

of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of
their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the
exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the
people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all
unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law.  

Thisprotection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted
under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws.  

Thetendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to
obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced
confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused
persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the
Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the
courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the
Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.

The case in the aspect in which we are dealing with it involves the
right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the
purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused,
seized in his house in his absence and without his authority, by a
United States marshal holding no warrant for his arrest and none for
the search of his premises.  

The accused, without awaiting his trial,
made timely application to the court for an order for the return of
these letters, as well or other property.  This application was
denied, the letters retained and put in evidence, after a further
application at the beginning of the trial, both applications asserting
the rights of the accused under the 4th and 5th Amendments to theConstitution.  

If letters and private documents can thus be seized and
held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the
protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his right to be secure
against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as
those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from theConstitution.  

The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be
aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established be years
of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in
the fundamental law of the land.  

The United States marshal could only
have invaded the house of the accused when armed with a warrant issued
as required by the Constitution, upon sworn information, and
describing with reasonable particularity the thing for which the
search was to be made.  Instead, he acted without sanction of law,
doubtless prompted by the desire to bring further proof to the aid of the government, and under color of his office undertook to make a
seizure of private papers in direct violation of the constitutional
prohibition against such action.  

Under such circumstances, without
sworn information and particular description, not even an order of
court would

[232 U.S. 383, 394]

have justified such procedure; much
less was it within the authority of the

marshal to thus
invade the house and privacy of the accused.
================

In Adams v. New York

192 U.S. 585 , 48 L.  ed.  575, 24 Sup.  Ct. Rep.  372,

this court said that the 4th Amendment was intended to
secure the citizen in person and property against unlawful invasion of
the sanctity of his home by officers of the law, acting under
legislative or judicial sanction.  This protection is equally extended
to the action of the government and officers of the law acting under
it.
+++++++++++++++

Boyd Case,

116 U.S. 616 , 29 L. ed. 746, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524.

To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a
manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the
Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such
unauthorized action.

================

1916: Brushaber vs.  Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S.

 1.  Established
that the 16th Amendment had no affect on the constitution, and that income taxes could only be sustained as excise taxes and not as direct
taxes.

"...the proposition and the contentions under [the 16th
Amendment]...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy
another; That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the
Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into
irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct
taxes be apportioned;

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the
limitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must
have intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive
changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

Moreover in addition the Conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did
not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and
necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on
the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its
nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the
result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to
disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excisewould not apply to it.

+++++++++++++

....the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and
on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining
the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."

....the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging
the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader
significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal
property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at
least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the
Constitution -- a condition which clearly demonstrates that the
purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the
prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct
tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the
class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of
direct taxes...

Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the
decision in the Pollock Case 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.

==================

1916:

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.

Declared that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation
to the U.S. government, but simply prevented income taxes from being
taken out of the category of indirect (excise) taxes to which theyinherently belonged.  "..by the previous ruling it was settled that
the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary powerof income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being
taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently
belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject
to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the
income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a
tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.  "
===============

1918:

Peck v. Lowe,

247 U.S. 165.

Stated that the 16th Amendment does not extend the taxing power to new
or excepted subjects, but removed the need to apportion direct taxes
on income.

The plaintiff is a domestic corporation chiefly engaged in buying
goods in the several states, shipping them to foreign countries and
there selling them.  

In 1914 its net income from this business was
$30,173.66, and from other sources $12,436.24.  An income tax for that
year, computed on the aggregate of these sums, was assessed against it
and paid under compulsion.  

It is conceded that so much of the tax as
was based on the income from other sources was valid, and the controversy is over so much of it as was attributable to the income from shipping goods to foreign countries and there selling them.

The tax was levied under the Act of October 3, 1913, c.  16, 11, 38
Stat.  166, 172, which provided for annually subjecting every domestic corporation to the payment of a tax of a specified per centum of its entire net income arising or accruing from all sources during the
preceding calendar year.'  Certain fraternal and other corporations,
as also income from certain enumerated sources, were specifically
excepted, but none of the exceptions included the plaintiff or any
part of its income.  

So, tested merely by the terms of the act, the
tax collected from the plaintiff was rightly computed on its total net income.  

But as the act obviously could not impose a tax forbidden by
the Constitution, we proceed to consider whether the tax, or rather the part in question, was forbidden by the constitutional provision on
which the plaintiff relies.

The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real
bearing and may be put out of view.  As pointed out in recent
decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted
subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might
exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes

[247 U.S. 165,173]

laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.
Brushaber v.  Union Pacific R.  R.  Co.,

240 U.S. 1, 17-19, 36 Sup.

Ct. 236, Ann.  Cas.  1917B, 713, L.  R.  A.  1917D, 414; Stanton v.
Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113, 36 Sup.  Ct. 278.

================

1920:

Evens v. Gore,

253 U.S. 245.

Overturned by O'Malley v.  Woodrough

(307 U.S. 277).  

Court ruled
that income taxes on federal judges were unconstitutional.

"After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly
hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the
tax in question.  "

[A direct tax on salary income of a federal judge]

================

1920:

Eisner v. Macomber,

252

 601 , 15 Sup.  

Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat.  509, 553, c.  349,
27),

it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon
returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct
taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by
reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes
without apportioning them among the states according to population, as
required by article 1, 2, cl.  3, and section 9, cl.  4, of the
original Constitution.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the
taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was
adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S.
189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.'

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new
subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist
for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

++++++++++++

Brushaber v.  Union Pacific R.  R.  Co., 240

 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup.

 236, Ann.  Cas.  1917B, 713, L.  R.  A.  1917D, 414;

Stanton v.

Baltic Mining Co.,

 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup.Ct. 278;
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247

U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language,
requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose
construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income,
those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment
according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and
personal.  This limitation still has an appropriate and important
function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by
the courts.
--------------------------------
After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv.  L.  D.; Standard
Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the

Corporation Tax Act of 1909

(Stratton's Independence

v.  Howbert, 231

U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup.  Ct. 136, 140

[58 L.  Ed.  285];

Doyle
v.  Mitchell Bros.  Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S.  Sup.  Ct. 467,469 [62
L.  Ed.  1054]),

'Income may be defined as the gain derived from
capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case,

247 U.S.  183, 185, 38 S.  Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L.  Ed.  1054).

=================

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing
attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present
controversy.  The government, although basing its argument upon the
definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,'
which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the
significance of the next three words was either overlooked or
misconceived. 

'Derived-from- capital'; 'thegain-derived-from-capital,' etc.  Here we have the essential matter:not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value,
proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however
invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit
and disposal- that is income derived from property.  Nothing else
answers the description.
============

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the
conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder.  

===============

The Revenue Act of 1916,

in so far as
it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend,
contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl.  3, and article 1, 9,
cl.  4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid,
notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.

-------------------------

1922:

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259

U.S. 20.

Prohibited Congress from legislating or controlling benefits that
employers provide to their employees.  A major blow against socialism
in America

 "Out of a proper respect for the acts of a co-ordinate branch of the government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting, from the weight of the tax, it was intended to destroy its subject.  

But in the act before

[259 U.S. 20, 38]

us the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions.  

Grant the validity of this law, and all that
Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its
control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest,
jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which arereserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it.  

To give such magic to the word
'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the
powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the
states.  "

=============

1924: Cook v. Tait,

265 U.S. 47.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to tax the income
received by a native citizen of the United States domiciled abroad
from property situated abroad and that the constitutional prohibition
of unapportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not
apply in foreign countries.

++++++++++++++++


1930:

Lucas v. Earl,

 281 U.S. 111.

The Supreme Court ruled that wages and compensation for personal services were not to be taxed in their entirety, but instead, the gain or profit derived indirectly from them.

==============


1935:

Railroad Retirement Board v.  Alton Railroad Company,

295 U.S. 330.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress that it has no constitutional
authority whatsoever to legislate for the social welfare of the
worker.  The result was that when Social Security was instituted, it
had to be treated as strictly voluntary.  "The catalog of means and
actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business,
tending to the comfort and satisfaction of his employees, seems
endless.

Provisions for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for
food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other
matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve
the employee of mental strain and worry.

Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate
interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these
things?

Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely
to social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any
regulation of commerce as such?  We think the answer is plain.  These
matters obviously lie outside the orbit of Congressional power."
---------------------------

1938:

Hassett v. Welch,

303 U.S. 303.

Ruled that disputes over uncertainties in the tax code should be
resolved in favor of the taxpayer.  "In view of other settled rules of
statutory construction, which teach that...  if doubt exists as to the
construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in
favor of the taxpayer..."


1939:

O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277.

Overturned portions of Evens v.  Gore,

253 U.S. 245,

but not the part
about the 16th Amendment. "However, the meaning which Evans v.  Gore,
supra, imputed to the history which explains Article III, 1 was
contrary to the way in which it was read by other English-speaking
courts.[1] The decision met wide and steadily growing disfavor from
legal scholarship and professional opinion.  Evans v.  Gore, supra,
itself was rejected by most of the courts before whom the matter came
after that decision [2]"

===========

1945:

Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US

652.

Ruled that there are three distinct and separate definitions for the term "

United States

"The income tax only applies to one of the three definitions! 

"The term '

United States

May be used in any one of several senses.  

1.) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family ofnations.  

2.) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of
the United States

ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672]

tends,

3.) or it may be the
collective name of the states which are united by and under the
Constitution."

==============

1959: Flora v. United, 362 US 145.

Ruled that our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not on force or coercion.  

"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

================





1961: James v. United States, 366 US 213, p. 213, 6L Ed 2d 246.

Income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment must derive from a
"source".  Also established that embezzled money is taxable as income.

"...the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power "to lay
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

Helvering v.  Clifford, 309

331, 334;

v.  Willcuts, 296

1,9.  It has long been settled that Congress' broad statutory
definitions of taxable income were intended "to use the full measure
of taxing power."  The Sixteenth Amendment is to be taken as written
and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the
language used."  Edwards v.  

R.  

 268 US 628, 631 [From
separate opinion by Whittaker, Black, and Douglas, JJ.] (Emphasis
added)





1970: Brady v.

, 397

742 at 748.

Supreme Court ruled that: "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only
must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with
sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."





1975: Garner v.

, 424

648.

Supreme Court ruled that income taxes constitute the compelled
testimony of a witness: "The information revealed in the preparation
and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth
Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness."

"Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for
example, the appearance of a `witness' before a grand jury."



1978: Central Illinois Public Service Co.  v.  

, 435

21.

Established that wages and income are NOT equivalent as far as taxes
on income are concerned.

"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and
have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar
controversies.

Peoples Life Ins.  

 v.  

, 179 Ct.  Cl.  318, 332, 373
F.2d 924, 932 (1967);

Humble Pipe Line Co.  v.  

, 194 Ct.  Cl.  944, 950, 442
F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971);

Humble Oil & Refining

 v.  

, 194 Ct.  Cl.  920, 442
F.2d 1362 (1971);

Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v.  

, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5
1971);

Royster Co. v.

, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.

, 272 F. Supp. 188 (

1967)."





1985:

v. Doe, 465

605.

The production of evidence or subpoenaed tax documents cannot be
compelled.  "We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holding
that the contents of the subpoenaed documents were privileged under
the Fifth Amendment.  The act of producing the documents at issue in
this case is privileged and cannot be compelled without a statutory
grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  6002 and 6003."





1991: Cheek v.

, 498

192.

Held that if the defendant has a subjective good faith belief no
matter how unreasonable, that he or she was not required to file a tax
return, the government cannot establish that the defendant acted
willfully in not filing an income tax return.  In other words, that
the defendant shirked a legal duty that he knew existed.





1992:

v.  Burke, 504

 229, 119 L Ed 2d 34, 112 S
Ct.  1867.

Court held that income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment must
come from a "source".  Congress's intent through   61 of the Internal
Revenue Code [26 USCS   61(a)]--which provides that gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, subject to only the
exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code...and
61(a)'s statutory precursors..."





1995: U.S. v. Lopez, 000 U.S. U10287.

Establishes strict limits on the constitutional power and jurisdiction
of the federal government inside the 50 States.

"We start with first principles.  The Constitution creates a Federal
Government of enumerated powers.  See

 Const., Art.  I, 8.  As
James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those
which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and
indefinite."  The Federalist No.  45, pp.  292-293 (C.  Rossiter ed.
1961).  This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was
adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental
liberties."

Gregory v.  Ashcroft, 501

 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation
marks omitted).  "Just as the separation and independence of the
coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the
accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance
of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the
risk of tyranny and abuse from either front."  Ibid.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes."  

 Const., Art.  I, 8, cl.  3.  The Court,
through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress'
commerce power in Gibbons v.  

, 9 Wheat.  1, 189-190 (1824):

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is
intercourse.  It describes the commercial intercourse between nations,
and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by
prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."

The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe
the rule by which commerce is to be governed.  This power, like all
others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to
its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are
prescribed in the constitution."  

, at 196.  The

,
however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are
inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.

"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce,
which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man
in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which
does not extend to or affect other States.  Such a power would be
inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

"Comprehensive as the word `among' is, it may very properly be
restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.  .  .
.  The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that
something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence,
must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State."  

, at
194-195.

For nearly a century thereafter, the Court's Commerce Clause decisions
dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost
entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that
discriminated against interstate commerce.  See, e.g., Veazie v.
Moor, 14 How.  568, 573-575 (1853) (upholding a state-created
steamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internal
commerce); Kidd v.  Pearson, 128

 1, 17, 20-22 (1888) (upholding
a state prohibition on the manufacture of intoxicating liquor because
the commerce power "does not comprehend the purely domestic commerce
of a State which is carried on between man and man within a State or
between different parts of the same State"); see also L.  Tribe,
American Constitutional Law 306 (2d ed.  1988).  Under this line of
precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as
"production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were within the province
of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under
the Commerce Clause.  See Wickard v.  Filburn, 317

 111, 121
(1942) (describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence).

[.]

Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad
categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce
power.  Perez v.  United States, supra, at 150; see also Hodel v.
Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., supra, at 276-277.
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate
commerce.  See, e.g., Darby, 312

, at 114 ; Heart of Atlanta
Motel, supra, at 256.  "`[T]he authority of Congress to keep the
channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses
has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.'"
[quoting Caminetti v.  

, 242

 470, 491 (1917)].
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in
interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from
intrastate activities.  See, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234

342 (1914); Southern R.  

 v.  

, 222

 20 (1911)
(upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles
used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 ("[F]or example,
the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C.  32), or .  .  .  thefts
from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C.  659)").  Finally, Congress'
commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities
having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & Laughlin
Steel, 301

, at 37 , i.e., those activities that substantially
affect interstate commerce.  Wirtz, supra, at 196, n.  27.






FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CASES:

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977)

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral
duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be
intentionally misleading...  We cannot condone this shocking
conduct...If that is the case we hope our message is clear.  This sort
of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be
corrected immediately"





Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)

"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government
statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government
agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"





Bollow v.  Federal Reserve Bank of

, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th
Cir., (1981)

"All persons in the

are chargeable with knowledge of the
Statutes-at-Large..  It is well established that anyone who deals with
the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the
government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"





Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

"Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can
obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for
taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."





Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection.  They relate to taxpayers, and not to
non-taxpayers.  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are
prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of
their rights and remedies in due course of law.  With them Congress
does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the
object of the revenue laws."





Redfield v.  Fisher, 292 P.  813, 135 Or.  180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R.
721 (1931)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere
privilege of existing.  The corporation is an artificial entity which
owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the
individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for
the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

 v.  Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429

 918, 50 L.Ed.2d
283, 97 S.Ct.  310 (1976)

"income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

[1] The opinion is set forth in a footnote at page 160 et seq., of 3
Cranch.

[2] Printed in 157

at page 701.


"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and people who mean to be
their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which
knowledge gives."  James Madison



-----------------------------see if any of the below are already
incluabove-------------

"Government is like a fire, useful in the fireplace, but if it gets
out of its place, it will consume everything you own," by George
Washington.



"Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation."  Conner v

303 F
Supp.  1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and
wages', or a compensation for labor.  Compensation for labor (wages)
cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.  The word
`profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or
investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere
compensation for labor."



Oliver v Halsted, 86 SE Rep.  2nd 85e9 (1955).".  .  .reasonable
compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."

Assoc.  V Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A 2d 277, 280
(1946)



Treasury Order 150-1, Paragraph 5 States: "US Territories and Insular
Possessions.  "The commissioner shall, to the extent of authority
otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the

internal revenue law [ small i ] in the

 territories and
insular possessions and OTHER AUTHORIZED AREAS OF THE WORLD."



TO's 150-1 thru 150- 29 are the Delegation of authority orders for the
IRS from the Dept.  Of Treasury.  No section or paragraph is found in
any of these which authorize the Commissioner to administer the
internal revenue laws anywhere other than the above paragraph.

=============================================
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job.  With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job.  With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.