.

Index.

This fantastic and majestic political building, which our forefathers constructed with their lives and sacred honor, has fallen into disuse and now sits empty. When it was new, it was the most beautiful mansion in the world. There was nothing else like it for it was built on a foundation called the "common law." The walls were shaped in liberty by a unique arrangement referred to as the separation of powers and its roof was made of transparent material to let in the light of the Law. So all encompassing that it is adaptable to any people regardless of color, race, creed or religion.

It didn't crumble overnight. What took place was the result of a delusion for people would never give up liberty knowingly - only through deception. Gradually the deceptive rot took hold and, one by one, the citizens of the house called a "Republic" moved out for a third rate structure called a "democracy."

Napoleon said; "History is a fable agreed upon," because he knew that history repeats itself, especially when the history lessons have not been learned or remembered. Thus our history lessons have fallen into disrepair. Our forefathers founded this nation because they believed they had a God-given Right to walk away from enslavement to the King. Yet, the very bondage they walked away from has opened the door for the most subtle slavery this world has ever known. So subtle is this slavery that the citizens are entrapped by their own ignorance through offers of enticements called economic benefits. Acceptance of these benefits sets into operation rules and laws that operate outside the Constitution and thus we have the largest and most unmanageable bureaucracy that has ever existed. A bureaucracy bogged in debt because it has taught its people that government is the provider and problem solver instead of "one people," the subjects that used to live in that special mansion known as the Republic, lighted in Law.

The peoples freedom has been lost more because of what they haven't done than what they have done. In the pages that follow, you are going to discover why you are an economic slave and what you can do about the U.S. of A. the Republic. Yes, you can move back into that mansion known as the Republic for that is what this treatise is about, finding your key to liberty. Always remember that you are the only one that can take back your liberty. No one else can do it for you. You can and you must act independently of the masses. You and the Law are capable of awesome accomplishments in liberty. That is why Thomas Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence is as important today as it was in 1776,

Index.

The American Revolution of 1776 was the result of individuals who believed that the King did not have the right to prevent the people from leaving his political-religious jurisdiction. The Revolution was fought over liberty of choice. Our Constitution is the political document that resulted from that struggle and it guarantees our liberty to choose the political domain we want to be controlled by without compelled performance. Therefore, if we want to move from one political jurisdiction to another, we are guaranteed that right - called expatriation. We are guaranteed the right to change our political territory any time we desire.

Few are aware today that their political choice has been made for them, and it is a political choice that has taken away their absolute rights under the Constitution and its first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. They are unaware that they were given at birth an economic privilege of an alternative political domain - allowed by the Constitution, but operating outside of it. An alternative domain that operates with the same Divine Right of Kings as did the King of England. Thus, the Constitution is operating in an economic capacity rather than a political one.

When we ponder why our nation is in the midst of an economic crisis like we have never seen before, we cannot understand it is the result of our ignorance. Ignorance of how our silence has given our federal government and its political subdivisions (called "States") permission to tax its people without representation and confiscate their property when they do not go along with the Codes and laws - especially the tax laws. Ignorance that has allowed our federal government and its political subdivisions to compel us to perform to laws that are destroying our business by exacting a fee - like a protection racket - for what should be a right.

Instead, our absolute rights are now relative privileges, handed out like food in a concentration camp. Instead of being able to stand as an individual for what you believe, every special interest group has become our conscience. Laws and Codes by the hundreds are feudalizing the will to produce from the soul of each person by making him pay for the failures, inefficiency and greed of others - called limited liability. And still more laws are teaching citizens of all ages that someone else - Uncle Sam - is responsible for us from cradle to grave.

Index.

In the beginning, America was a free Republic with vast unsettled wilderness open for anybody who had the courage to take up its challenges. Thus, America became the melting pot for religious and social ideals and experiments. Of the many social theories espoused throughout Europe then, there were three theories that fit the mold for America, all three were communatarian (communistic) in nature. The first communatarian idea was set up by the religious sects made familiar by the Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Rappites,/1Zorities, etc.. The second communatarian idea was established by Robert Owen of Great Britain who was born in 1771, and the third communatarian idea was of Charles Fourier of France who was born in 1772. Both Owen and Fourier experienced the vast upheavals that accompanied the French Revolution from the onslaughts of Napoleon. As a result of the slaughter, Owen and Fourier came up with communatarian plans to transform the crises-warped society of the 19th century into a more humane order.

In 1812, Robert Owen published a paper titled: "A New View of Society".

His treatise discussed the formation of the human character, and he proposed ways of changing society from what he called the poor working classes:

Owen deplored private property and he blamed the world's problems of ignorance and selfishness on it. He also disliked commercial competition. "It creates civil warfare, it exploits the many and gives to a few favorable individuals which is injurious to the mass."Owen said, "Without equality of condition, there can be no permanent virtue or stability of society." Owen laid plans for Associations of All Classes of All Nations with a purpose of "founding as soon as possible, communities of United Interest." Owen wanted to terminate the distinction between the rich and the poor, thereby creating a millennium. Owen proposed not only a national system of education, but also public works projects designed to guard the unemployed against the mis-educative effects of enforced idleness. He was determined to set up a commune he envisioned, and he decided America was the ideal location.

Owen's ideas were put to the test when he established his commune called "New Harmony" in 1825. In a letter to a Quaker leader, William Allen, Owen reveals more of his ideals.

In April, 1827; the New Harmony experiment came to a end. However, Owen's influence in communatarianism continued to spread from the east as far west as Texas.

In addition to Robert Owen's ideas, Charles Fourier was developing and spreading similar concepts. Fourier differed from Owen in that the former believed in religion and private property,/2 where the latter had an opposite view.

Fourier's work was largely conditioned by an unfortunate event that took place early in his otherwise uneventful life. His father, a wealthy merchant, died and left a fortune of nearly a quarter of a million francs. However, the whole of Fourier's  inheritance was lost in the French Revolution. Because of this event, he set himself to invent system of society that would prevent the recurrence of revolution, preserve his own petit-bourgeois class, and abolish the appalling conditions of labor prevalent everywhere. (Has a familiar "New World Order" feel)

Charles Fourier never set a foot upon American soil, but his theories did. Albert Brisbane was a young American of liberal education and at the age of eighteen, he went to Europe to study social philosophy. Eventually Brisbane found what he was looking for in Fourier's treatise on "Association,"/3 and he promoted Charles Fourier's ideas and wrote extensively upon the subject.

However, if we can organize the townships rightly, so that unity of interests, concert of action, vast economics and general riches will be attained, that in spreading these rightly organized Townships, and rendering them general, a Social Order will be gradually established, in which peace, prosperity and happiness will be secured to all. The great and primary object which we have in view is, consequently, to effect the establishment of one Association, which will exhibit practically the great economics, the riches, the order and unity of the system, and serve as a model for, and lead to the founding of others.

Even though there were other social experimenters, Owen and Fourier had the greatest influence on the leaders of the U.S.A. and the corporate special interest groups. This influence figured heavily in the formation of the Limited Liability Act of 1851, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment of 1868. It was these legislative Acts that opened the door of the house called Democracy/4 that everyone moved into by ignorance.

Index.

Today communism is believed to have been defeated as the world has turned to democracy. However, is there any difference? In the case of Smith v Allwright,/5 the courts said, "the United States is a constitutional democracy." In other words, the court said the United States (as distinguished from the (u)nited States of America, a Republic) is a democracy that is allowed by the Constitution, but operating outside of it.

This court case is substantiated by the following:

Index.

Private law's only area of function outside your own conscience is in the area of contracts. In other words, a person will always use his personal principles of conscience in negotiating any agreement with another individual. An example of this would be the merchant who works out a contract with a company to provide items for sale in a store he owns. His reason for contracting with this particular company is because he believes the items they manufacture should be in every household for health reasons. The merchant's personal beliefs or conscience are involved in this contract as in any contract.

Private law operates outside of the Constitution under the rights of private contract as stipulated in Article I, Section 10.Article I, in its entirety, expresses all the private law that is allowed in the operation of government of the several states of the union. Section 8 and clause 17 of this Article states that any other private law that is necessary for operation of government for the commercial benefit of the several states of the union can be legislated. It must be remembered that Article I is not entirely private law. There is some public municipal law there. This public municipal law is for the establishment of public services for private benefit, i.e., "Post Roads and Post Offices," and the Public Laws of Obligation of Contracts, etc..

It must be understood that private law, as referred to in the Constitution, operated in the private sector as a part of negotiating bilateral contracts. Private law was never meant to operate in the public sector as a basis for controlling public policy. Our founders made that very clear. In the next section on Roman civil law you will be shown how private law was made into public policy by entrapment to produce compelled performance.

Public municipal law (also referred to as positive law and general law in contrast to private law) is the expression of all the laws that limit government and maintain the separation of powers of the "states in this union."/9Public municipal law is an expression of the people limiting government for their own personal benefit and liberty. Remember, the people are the government. What powers the people do not delegate for the administration of government are kept by them. The Public Laws are laws that assure the people of maintaining their private rights of bilateral contracts separate from any government intervention. The only time that public municipal law is used actively for private purposes, in a legal sense, is when a private right has been violated and the public municipal law is used in the court to address the wrong and correct it.

Index.

Among the many things that were important to our fore-fathers, the one thing that stood out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private Roman civil law operating in and controlling public policy. It was the oppression of the Roman civil law, as the king and parliament dictated, that was at the foundation for seeking expatriation from England under the king's assumed divine right. The Roman civil law (also referred to as "admiralty-maritime law"/15 or the "law of the sea" as well as "private international law") was the result of private church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector. The amalgamation of church law and civil government was derived from three ingredients; Greece, Rome and Christianity. The political theory derived from the first two of these ingredients was tempered to accommodate the third. Its originators and apologists were the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, and the first historian of the Christian Church, Eusebius of Caesarea. Through his writings, Eusebius had once and for all established the new way to interpret history, and his followers applied the same political philosophy for over 1000 years.

Starting with Constantine, religious belief had come to be as important, for the state, as religious practice. Constantine was, among other things, a "teacher of knowledge about God." The unity of a threatened empire was seen to depend on a unity of religious belief among its subjects. So it was that in a theocratic society it was increasingly hard to be sure where things temporal ended and things spiritual began.

Church law first got involved with commercial ventures when the Roman Church started funding the Roman Army during the time they were fighting Greece. From there it was an easy transition to becoming directly involved in the civil government of Rome and then converting the Roman Empire, what was left of it, into their own commercial state. When the Roman Church set up their own state they became a commercial enterprise. It was from that point on that Church law, controlling civil government, became known as Roman civil law.

In simple terms, Roman civil law is a perversion of private law. That is, the conscience of private law was never meant to operate in forming public policy of government. Private law was always a part of establishing bilateral contracts and could be used in government only for setting up private commercial relations between government and corporations called "licenses." But the conscience of private law could never operate without bilateral contracts unless it was through a trust.

With the spread of commerce, the church's influence and wealth grew. Around 596 A.D., Pope Gregory began a process of moving Roman civil law into England. Up until that time it had not been a part of the English economy, but Pope Gregory was determined to have his inspiration of Roman law and economy supreme there.

He [Pope Gregory] was inspired with the idea of converting England not to Christianity, [for the British branch of the Catholic Church was already there] - but to the discipline of Rome./17

Moving Roman civil law into England was strictly using a commercial venture of the mercantile Church to take over the economy and the country and enslave its people to the private or conscience law of the Church. It was the authority and conscience of the Roman Church that dictated the Statutes, Codes and laws through the King and Parliament for controlling human behavior that resulted in the best economic and commercial advantage for the Church. Anyone who was not controlled by Roman civil law at that time was considered to be pagan. That is, if you were operating free of the Roman civil law - under the common law - you were a heathen as far as the Roman Church was concerned. It was their intent to enslave everyone possible to the Roman civil law for a commercial advantage. By the way, this Roman civil law was referred to as "Black Letter Law."/18

To see how this law is acknowledged, look up the books in which your state's Constitution and Statutes are published. What many have found is that the titles to the first volumes, that cover the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and the state's Constitution, are printed differently than the titles to the volumes that cover the consolidated Statutes and Codes of the state. We are aware that in many states (possibly all) you will find the titles to the volumes that begin the state Statutes will be printed in black gothic letters. This confirms the fact the "black letter law" - Roman civil law - is the basis of state Statutes that dictate public municipal policy via private laws of the trust. It was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding fathers wanted nothing of it in the "commercial law system of the American states." It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed this disdain of Roman civil law being introduced into English common law in 1760 by Lord Mansfield./19 In fact, it was this decision that sparked the American revolution. After this date, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the common law of England because of the way it had been polluted with Roman civil (ecclesiastical) law by Mansfield./20

In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814, Jefferson goes into minute detail to show how the private ecclesiastical law [Roman civil law] got mixed with the common law of England. He outlines the fact that the common law was in England 200 years before Christianity. In describing when Christianity was possibly included into the common law, Jefferson said:

In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has never made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ... And thus they incorporate into the English code, laws made for Jews alone, and the precepts of the Gospel, intended by their benevolent Author as obligatory only for their conscience; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them;/22

Unfortunately, because Jefferson saw the tyranny of private ecclesiastical law dictating public commercial policy and compelled performance, he was attacked by the "do gooders" as being a heretic. In reality, he saw so clearly the need for separation of powers and how Public Law would be vital for private use to protect individual rights of the minority. Thus he stood vehemently on the ground that private law has absolutely no place in dictating, public policy. Those who opposed his views totally missed his solid Christian principles based on liberty of conscience."The common law protects both opinions [both his and theirs], but enacts neither into law." Those that did not thoroughly understand this were the first to promote their private conscience (religious) opinions into Public Law (policy) - the rope of compelled performance hanging us today.

Roman civil law relies entirely on unilateral or implied contracts. This is where one party agrees by the simple act of accepting a benefit(s) the civil government has to offer. In other words, the individual has something offered to him that he accepts - usually an economic or mercantile benefit. The act of acceptance, with or without a signature of acceptance, comes with strings of compelled performance attached. This is because the very act of voluntary acceptance (by your silence) implied your endorsement. The implied endorsement creates a constructive trust/24 arrangement with the civil government for your assumed benefit. This means the trust becomes the third party who can dictate the Statutes, Codes and laws by its legislature and we are compelled to align our lives with them, because of our silent volunteering. After accepting some benefit under Roman civil law and you discover the hidden strings that you do not like, too bad, you are bound to perform or suffer the consequence of those holding the strings. If you wrong the trust that you are involved with, you are assumed guilty and the burden of proof is up to you to clear yourself. Your job, under the Roman civil law, is to jump even when you didn't have to. Their job - the civil administrator and their courts - is to tell you how high. The Roman civil law is a perversion of private conscience law because it is placing the private conscience of one or a few over the private consciences of the masses. And it is done without full disclosure of bilateral contracts. This allows government to always become a superior entity to the citizen by binding him in constructive trust arrangements. This is why there is no separation of power, only one power and that is government. The people are subservient because they are involved in a constructive trust that controls their conscience and they are not even aware of it.

Take a look at the illustration of "The Great Seal Of The State Of California." This seal is a dramatic representation of how the Roman civil law is the basis of the franchise of the "several states of the union" granted by the people of the Republic. Each state has its own corporate seal and most use much of the same symbolism. Remember, under Roman civil law the corporate state is a diocese of the National Church of the 14th Amendment trust.

Note first the seal contains a woman seated on a rock wearing a Roman military uniform holding both a shield and spear. This woman is the Goddess Minerva/25 from Roman mythology. This represents the authority of the Roman civil law founded on the rock (church) of private law of the woman (or law of changing conscience or "e-motion" that is not absolute law), the mother of all private law. The shield itself has the indications of Roman symbols denoting further private authority in the public sector. Across the top are 31 stars that represent the 31 states in existence at the time California was incorporated as a state. This also shows the relationship with the other "several states of the union" who also based their civil law from the Roman law. The word: "eureka" means: "I've found it." It was an expression that has been said to have originated with Archimedes, a Greek mathematician and physicist. He used the expression when he discovered a method of detecting the amount of alloy mixed with the gold in the crown of the king of Syracuse. Archimedes also invented the Archimedean screw or "water snail" which, when rotated, would move water uphill. Because of the symbolism of the seal, it most likely represents the moving of the law of the sea [admiralty/maritime law] uphill and over to dominate the substance of the law we know as the land. Also it could be saying the same thing by expressing the fact that the substance of absolute law - gold/real property - is taken over by the emotion of private law. Note also the sailing ships in the water. This represents the law of the sea [admiralty/maritime law] as the vehicle for private commercial Roman civil law in the state. In the left lower area of the seal is a miner digging and behind him is a sluice box. This represents the labor and industrial control by the private Roman civil law. There is also grain in the foreground as a symbol of the control of the land and its substance called "food." The bear represents the fact that the Republic is still there - the California Republic is called the "Bear Republic."

Index.

The common law principles that our forefathers brought with them were the basis of public municipal law. This means the laws are bilateral in nature based on a two party agreement where there is a meeting of the minds with full disclosure. Nothing is implied or hidden where one could be entrapped into compelled performance by a third party trust. The public municipal law was law that did not allow the private commercial government to have any relationship with the individual citizen and his right of contract. This was true separation of power.

~Private law, which the Roman civil law thrived on, was conscience law of one "person" (trust) over another without their knowing how it happened. There was no liberty of choice as to its terms. The terms of the contract or agreement (also called an offer) are always based on the personal beliefs of the Roman civil government. The offer is always unilateral where your acceptance is totally signified by your silence. Everything the individual got involved in under Roman civil law had implications that obligated him or her because of benefits being accepted by continued silence. There were always strings attached that were considered a benefit. The agreement never has definite limits. What is agreed on is only implied or constructed upon the circumstances. The implications of a unilateral offer and acceptance would always create a third party constructive or implied trust. This trust, being the third party, was always there to oversee and to exact what it thought it was due through compelled performance to the rules of the private trust that bound the persons who had private business dealings. There is no separation of powers. In other words, there is no way to have a true bilateral general common law contractual relationship because of the government having you in a trust relationship making your position inferior, not superior. You become the trust and therefore part of the government, while at the same time, the government becomes you and part of the trust. You end up being your own enforcer as a volunteer. This is why the IRS keeps telling you that taxes are voluntary. Your identity is lost in the trust relationship due to purely moral ideas developed outside the legal system (because of a movement away from Law) because it finds its chief reliance is on the power of the magistrate.

In order to have a separation of powers, each power must have and keep a separate and distinct identity. That is, the people function as sovereigns. The government operates only by the powers the people, as sovereigns allow, and those powers - Public Law for private use - protects the identity of the people apart from the civil government. Roman civil law does not allow this.

The federal government that was set up in the beginning was public commercial law, but it was based entirely on public municipal law for private use. The federal government had no direct contact with the people because the people had not contracted away their Law and its separation of powers into a constructive trust of private conscience. The state is forbidden to interfere with the peoples lives by the constitutional mandate of Article I, Section 10 which refers to there being no "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The individual owed nothing to the state, thus the state could not interfere with personal and individual contracts between individuals. Federalism, without Roman civil law as its base (public federalism), could not come into Intervene with private contracts between two parties. However, when federalism is based on Roman civil law (private federalism), where both your identity and the government's are confused by the constructive trust arrangement, they are constantly a part of the contracts - they are the administrators of your conscience via the charitable trust. Under the Roman civil law, you are considered an incompetent [unable to handle your private affairs] so the trust is involved as a third party in all your private business affairs.

Under public federalism in the beginning, business and economic associations were formed for various advantages. There was no compelled performance because all relationships were based on bilateral contracts with full disclosure and understanding by the parties involved. When a dispute arose between parties in a state, the courts ruled on the contract pure and simple - no Codes involved, no implications to be explored. Likewise, when disputes arose between parties from different states, then the federal courts were the referees for helping solve the problem and the ruling was upon the contract (with jury assistance if demanded) without Codes, Regulations or revised Statutes drummed up by a third party overseer.

So in contrast today, the substance of private federalism is purely the private law or conscience of a private charitable trust - private Roman civil law of the 14th Amendment with vested interest called "government" - moved into the public arena by voluntary (silent) acceptance of 51% of the population./28 Anytime a civil relationship is established, it is based on implied and indefinite trust principles. The result is a government that has created a third party administrative bureaucracy that spends its time making and readjusting Codes and revised Statutes that dictate public policy. This is in order to continue the compelled performance of the citizen (beneficiary) to service the public debt and thus promote the economic benefits of the government trust. The federal government has become a massive public charitable trust which is using in excess of 2000% of every dollar for administration and the "ship of state" is not staying afloat.

In fact feudalism (private federalism) is apt to appear whenever the strain of preserving a relatively large political unit proves to be beyond the economic and psychic resources of a society./29

Index.

Only the individual, as "one people" - declared in the Declaration of Independence - has the power to determine a Republican form of government as stated in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution by calling on Public Law for private purposes. This is why the Declaration of Independence was written first. It was the basis of the "one people" sovereignty which then set up the Constitution.

Before the beginning of the nation and the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Roman civil law was well entrenched in the colonies. This is because it was the basis of the admiralty-maritime laws that governed commerce upon the seas internationally as well as ports of call. When our founding fathers were planning on a new nation, they understood the advantage of public commercial law for the economic benefit of the American states. However, they did not want any of that public commercial law to be adulterated with the private Roman civil law (as referred to previously) with its unilateral contracts. Therefore, they met behind closed doors to develop a dual federalism that would assure that "commercial law in the American states" would prosper without the compelled entrapment of private Roman maritime law that would inevitably continue internationally.

Indeed, the main task was to get those old centers to surrender certain prerogative; and the effect at reassuring them led to lingering ambiguities in our use of the term "federalism." In itself, this has to do with treaties (foedera) or alliances - the neutral use at, e.g. Jefferson Papers, 1:311. But there was an emphasis, in the 1780s, on the ties that connect those under treaty - on union and united force, as in the term "federal [i.e. covenant] theology." Federalists were, therefore, thought to stand for federal power over against the states. But in explaining their position, Madison and Hamilton labored in the Federalist Papers to show the states they had noting to fear from this central (federal) power. Thus federalism has come, in modern parlance, to mean the division or dispersal of central power. Those who opposed a Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention - including, at first, Madison himself, who drafted and steered through the final bill - were assuming that the individual was already protected by the states' bills; that the central government could not reach the individual except through the states, which had put impenetrable barriers around individual rights./31

Thus our forefathers clarified the "federalism" confusion by establishing two federalisms that would exist side by side. One would be the private federalism that had come in with the international trade under admiralty-maritime laws based on Roman civil law. The other would be the public federalism of the new "commercial law in the American states." This federalism would be based on the general common law and its sovereignty of the individual citizen being maintained by public laws for the private use of the individual to conduct his business by. [See Table 1. Dual Federalisms Compared]

1. "A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).
2. Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363; 63 S.Ct. 573.
3. This includes the State of the District of Columbia,. D.C. is considered a state in international law. See Geoffrey v. U.S., 133 U.S. 258; 105 S.Ct. 295.

The uniqueness of our Constitution allows this dual federalism. It allows the individual the liberty to function within the public laws and the separation of powers or it allows for the individual to bind himself or herself by unilateral trust contract arrangements.

Thus the word "federal" in the American states refers to the dual federalism as distinguished in, Swift v. Tyson/32 or Erie Railroad v. Thompkins./33 We must remember the state courts handled federal questions in the beginning of the nation. As commerce between the states grew, Swift v. Tyson was designed to protect the people of the several states from the Roman civil law that was operating under admiralty jurisdiction outside the Constitution where the tide of admiralty-maritime law ebbed and flowed with international trade. The dual federalism was termed by our founders as the "New Order For The Ages." Today we hear our leaders using the term: "New World Order," however, it is being used to create the old world order and its inquisitions under Roman civil law [based on the IRS 1040 form properly known under the government title of "Recapture Property" (Postliminy = latin for "bring home the property"]

Remember, there are two kinds of taxes, direct and indirect. Direct taxes are used to produce revenue for a constitutional government - public federalism. Indirect taxes are used for controlling human behavior and wealth.

It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of the world are managed. We assemble parliaments and councils to have the benefit of collected wisdom, but we necessarily have, at the same time, the convenience of their collected passions, prejudices and private interests: For regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest tool on earth. - Ol' Ben Franklin strikes again

Index.

The 14th Amendment [purportedly] became law - private Roman civil law that is - in 1868, but the stage was set years and in some ways decades before. Of the various factors in the history of the U.S. that built the momentum to bring in the 14th Amendment, probably one of the first was that the Constitution made it plain that every citizen had the right to contract away his personal and absolute rights. That is, anyone could literally bind themselves away from the absolute rights under the "Bill of Rights" any time they wanted to by private contract. They could operate outside the Constitution by contract if they desired, because the law was theirs. However, in the opposite vein, they could walk right back into their constitutional government anytime. This was called the right of expatriation (more on this a little later).

Another factor contributing to the bringing in of the 14th Amendment had to do with both slavery and the corporations before and during the Civil War. In fact, the Civil War figures very prominently in the 14th Amendment because it was used as a cover for control maneuvers going on in the corporate back rooms of our nation - especially in the north. On the other hand, the slave issue was used as a con before, during, and after the war.

In 1851, an Act was passed called the "Limited Liability Act." This Act provided protection for owners of ships whose cargo and/or ship was lost at sea. The ship owner and investors were required to purchase maritime insurance, so if a loss was encountered, it would be easier to deal with if the loss was spread around. From this, the inland corporations saw an opportunity to advance if, some way, they too could have the benefits of maritime limited liability operating in their behalf. They saw limited liability as a way to take more risk to advance their profits making the corporation King. Keep in mind during that time of our nation's history, the north had become the industrial center while the south had remained the agricultural center dependent on slaves as the basis of labor. Because the social issues of slavery had been making more noise, what better time to turn the problem of physical slavery into a tolerated economic slavery by bringing in the law of the sea over the land. And if a war results from the slave issue, what better way to help strengthen industry in the north than to use the stimulus of war.

By pushing the problem of slavery, the real issue of economic control by private corporate structure could be advanced unnoticed - the first phase of a "bait and switch" tactic. So with the culmination of the Civil War and the northern industrial base primed, the slaves were now free of being chattel property. At this point, corporate big brother made a calculated move. Since the freed slaves, as well as the rest of the citizenry, were ignorant of how their freedoms were maintained, it was a perfect time to activate the second part of the bait and switch maneuver. That was to set a law into motion with a lot of Congressional fanfare that appeared to assure the freed slaves that they had all the civil rights of everyone else. Thus came about the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866, which was private or non-positive law. The basic problem with the Act was that it had no jurisdiction over the slave at all, but the lawmakers sure made it look that way. You see, it was private law that only affected those who were in contractual relations with the private corporate structure of the United States government. None of the freed slaves had any type of license with the United States government so it did nothing other than play on their ignorance and made them think that it did something. It also affected few of the rest of the population for the same reason. All it ended up to be was a law that had few citizens in its jurisdiction. However, the Act had more indirect affect on the future freedoms of everyone as we look back. For those it did affect - those holding licenses or under contract (including federal employees) with the United States government - it did two primary things. First, it took away absolute property rights (in personam)./34Second, it replaced them with personal property rights (in rem)/35 regardless of race. That is, the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 moved anyone in its jurisdiction away from real property law and established them in personal property law outside the protection of the general common law and the Constitution with its separation of powers.

The only problem with the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 was that it did not have enough jurisdiction over the majority of the population. Therefore Congress began another maneuver under the influence of private corporate special interest. It began to make the Pubic think the Act was not permanent enough, that there was the potential that another Congress could be impressed to remove the civil rights. Therefore, the only way to assure permanent civil rights was to make an Amendment to the Constitution.

The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise [and perhaps unsafe] to leave so important a Declaration of Rights to depend upon an ordinary Act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent congress, framed the 14th Amendment .../36

What an assumed noble reason. Assure civil rights by adding an Amendment to the Constitution. Who would be against civil rights? After all, isn't that what this country was all about? So we now have the 14th Amendment. It is extremely unfortunate that as we look back at the racial cover that was used to get the Amendment into law, we continue to see, even today, the same use of racial issues to cover an undercurrent of corporate private law being used in the public sector for exploiting the population.

It [the 14th Amendment] is a set-back to proper government. This operation of the 14th Amendment runs counter to the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution itself. It does any thing but promote domestic tranquility. They [the Republican Party] knew what they intended by the vague terms of section one of the Amendment. They knew that it could be interpreted so as to extend far beyond the negro race question. They desired to nationalize all civil rights; to make the Federal power supreme; and to bring the private life of every citizen directly under the eye of Congress ... . This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks ... . It meant the death knell of the doctrine of State's rights - the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of State control over the private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State, into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred ... . The States of this Union were never sovereign. Neither is the Federal Government sovereign. Sovereignty is now and has always been inherent in the American people ... . This would be a different matter if the Fourteenth Amendment presented to the courts only questions of law, but this is not the case. As a rule, when the Supreme Court declares a State law unconstitutional under the Amendment, what it really does is not to decide a question of law, but a question of governmental policy. ... the primary purpose of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to elevate the negro to a plane of equality with the white people and to protect him in his newly given rights. In its attempt to carry out this ideal, Congress was effectually restrained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, as related to the negro race, the Amendment is negative and non-automatic. It has failed of its purpose because there is no Federal power to enforce it, and because the negroes have not been qualified to gain for themselves the ideals which it seeks to enforce. When they do become so qualified, they will have no need of the 14th Amendment. On of the immediate purposes of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to assist in destroying the power of the Democratic Party in the South and in its place to build up Republicans. This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks ... . It was a nationalization of all civil rights./37

So, in 1868 Congress passed the 14th Amendment which accomplished primarily two things:

Interestingly, Congress knew that it was making an Amendment that was based on private non-positive law and was therefore conditional. That is, the people had to have a choice whether they wanted to participate or not in what the 14th Amendment was offering, otherwise it would have been totally and completely unconstitutional. Therefore, one day before the 14th Amendment was passed, Congress passed 15 Stat. 249-250. This Statute provided for a person to remove him or herself from the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment public trust if they so desired.

The 14th Amendment set in motion a process of taking private corporate law of a few, namely big business, and moving it into the public sector to control the masses for their assumed benefit. The actual benefit was for the corporations. The assumed benefit lay with being a member of the public trust and, therefore being able to receive benefits from the trust, benefits in the form of whatever care the national government would come up with to provide for you from cradle to grave. Those benefits have come at a severe price since 1868. That price is the loss of our absolute liberty under the Constitution and the general common law. In exchange, we have only received back relative rights with assumed economic benefits. In reality, the benefits have been curses!

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it was far simpler to enumerate the few powers that were to be given to the national government than to try and list all the powers the individual citizen would keep. So it was that when the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) was completed, Amendments nine and ten distinctly stated what powers "one people" would reserve.

Yet, there is one very important facet of the power to contract or use private law under the Constitution. That is, if contract/private laws come into dispute in the courts, the contract will be ruled on outside the Constitution. You read correctly! Contracts, or private agreements, will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In other words, specific private agreements (called contracts) governing individual circumstances between two or more persons will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution. This is because it is illogical to allow someone to take a clause out of the Constitution, that was not a part of their original agreement, and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the contractual provisions while retaining the financial gain the private contract may have given him in the first place. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." What he means is that when you go to court to dispute a contract or private law agreement that you had with someone else, the courts are there to enforce the contracts, as brutal as that may be, apart and separate from the Constitution.

With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the stage was set for private law to be used outside the Constitution to financially enslave the masses and destroy the republican union. The stage was also set to move Roman civil law into operation within the boundaries of the [u]nited States of America contrary to what our founding fathers ever intended. Note the words of concern in George Washington's "Farewell Address" to the American People.

Yet the beauty of the our Republic and the constitutional government our forefathers set up can be demonstrated from the way President James Madison responded to a bill that he vetoed on February 21, 1811. It shows how forces of private religious conscience were always trying to force their private law on the public.

Now notice this: In Wheaton's Elements Of International Law, 6th edition, page 304, the existing rule as to freedom of religious worship is thus laid down:

The "Statute of Charitable Uses" (charitable trusts) was enforced in the 13 original colonies by courts of the Star Chamber/41 enforcing "Writs of Assistance"/42 (such as demands of the conscience of the IRS) and was the cause of the American Revolution. This is because the Statute was based on the parliamentary democracy which received its law based on the king's conscience - divine right of kings. The "Statute of Charitable Uses" (trusts) never had any force in the (u)nited States until the coming of the 14th Amendment to re-institute the courts of the Star Chamber enforcing "Writs of Assistance."

For an example of the private conscience law of the church being moved into public policy, look at this:

Two - Section 1 states that your are now to be firstly and primarily a citizen of the United States and secondly a citizen of the State, while outside the 14th Amendment, and under the full rights of the Constitution, it is just the opposite.

Next, notice the italicized part of Section 4. According to this, the "validity of the public debt" and all its facets "shall not be questioned." Whether Amendments to the Federal Constitution have been properly ratified is (usually) a political question./45 A political question means that it is voluntary. The court will never question your choice, but will enforce that choice. This is why Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says "the public debt shall not be questioned." When one is a beneficiary of the public debt when you have volunteered (politically) for it. It is like suing yourself, it is impossible. Another U.S. Supreme Court decision also verifies that you can reject the benefits of a trust (the public debt) if you realize you are not the beneficiary./46 In other words, is it your will to be a part of the economic benefit of the legislature? If not, then what evidence do you have to show that you have declined to be a beneficiary? This is where your "Declaration of Independence" comes in.

The 14th Amendment is private unilateral contract law being used in the public sector to dictate public policy. Everyone born since 1868 has, by accident of birth, become subject to the 14th Amendment. "Subject to" is accomplished through the constructive trust created under the Roman civil law offer and acceptance principles and all its ramifications, including being citizens primarily of the United States government and not of the state in which you live. Plus, you also have the additional benefit of being part of and responsible for the public debt of the trust. The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons are subject to, it says "and subject to" which is the first clue to revealing that each citizen does have a choice as to whether or not they want to be "subject to."

The 14th Amendment citizenship is one which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it and which, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit.

Allegiance in this country is not due to Congress, but to the people, with whom the sovereign power is found ...

Index.

The reader must understand that what a man believes in his conscience is his religion. It matters not whether he or she belongs to an organized denomination. It does not even matter if they believe in one God, fifty Gods or no God, their personal belief is their conscience and religion. The conscience or belief of a man is changeable. It is conditioned according to where he or she was born, raised and educated. Conscience is being influenced every day by what one encounters, therefore the conscience is not absolute but rather abstract. What one man would decide regarding some incident or happening may not be the same as what another would decide.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution was for the purpose of preventing religion from becoming government policy.

Since the 14th Amendment, religious conscience has been allowed to become public policy. That is, contrary to the first Amendment, a man or a few men's religious ideas are now constantly becoming or changing public policy because of the formation of the public charitable (church) trust of the 14th Amendment operating outside the confines of the Constitution. Any organization that is incorporated with a non-profit status will fall into the category of a "church" and is involved in public policy of the 14th Amendment church. They are benefiting as a beneficiary of the trust. This means that all income received comes from the trust because of the privilege of existing in the abstract non-profit corporate status. Parallel to this, all profit corporations are churches as well because of their relationship with the 14th Amendment trust. Under the 14th Amendment, individual "persons" are put on the same level as corporations - also called "persons." The "state" becomes the conscience of every member of its charitable trust and the conscience of the trust is the one who has the greatest amount of influence or money - viz., special interest groups - to sway (viz., lobby) the legislators. If you are involved in trying to influence and shape legislative law - abortion, gun control, vitamin supplements, etc. - you are involved in special interests attempting to dictate public policy by way of the private religious conscience church known as the 14th Amendment charitable public trust of the United States - the federal government.

Non-profit groups, small or large, are dead to the law of the Republic. In other words, the "person" is considered an artificial creation of the state or a reincarnated group of legally dead people acting as one corporate person. The jurisdiction in which these "persons" exist is a religious jurisdiction. The only courts that "persons" of the 14th Amendment have access to are legislative courts also called ecclesiastical courts, because they operate in a papal fashion - dictating the conscience of the church (Pope - 14th Amendment charitable trust) as law.

Take a look at the word diocese, decease and decado. The words demonstrate the jurisdiction, the state of existence and the movement of the persons in the 14th Amendment church trust.

Diocese, n. [OF. diocise, fr. L., Gr. dioikesis housekeeping, province, diocese, deriv. of dia through + oikein to manage a household, fr.oikos a house.]./50 Province is also the district over which the jurisdiction of an archbishop extends. Hence Provincial Courts, the ecclesiastical courts of the two archbishops.
A territorial division, or colony, of a country.

Duty; power; responsibility; thus it is the province of the court to judge the law, that of the jury to decide the facts./51

Province, in ecclesiastical geography, usually denotes that union of several dioceses which constitutes an archbishopric; it is often conterminous with several states with an entire country, or with several countries./52

Decease, n. [OF. deces, fr. de + cedere to withdraw.]./53

Decedo (decedent) I. to move down duly, withdraw, retire, `clear out' (with idea of making way for another). a. to retire (in favor of another), to give up rights, possessions, etc. b. to give place, yield to. c. Of living beings: to depart (from life), to dies. d. Of things: to abate, subside, cease. II. to go away; go wrong, depart, swerve. 2. Transf. Of duty, faith, etc./54

Index.

The preamble of 15 United States Statute at Large is unique in that Congress laid the legal discussions to rest before the Statute took effect to assure it would not be tampered with legally in any way. It stands as written and is there for the citizens to use as Public Law for the private purpose of moving themselves from one political or territorial jurisdiction to another. This means there is a way out at anytime of any United States government policy or law, including those of its political subdivisions, that is based on private law. Whenever you find yourself bound by any compelled performance you had no choice in, you are operating in the jurisdiction of the United States government and its political subdivisions where there is no republican form of government and its separation of powers. By applying Public Laws for your private benefit, you can break that dictatorial jurisdiction anytime you choose.

The insidiousness of the 14th Amendment is that even though it is private contract law of a trust, it is not a bilateral contract where both parties sign the document after a meeting of the minds. The 14th Amendment is "quasi contractual." That is, it is not a true contract as recognized in the general common law, rather it is called an "adhesion" or "unilateral" contract where only one party binds himself. In this case, a person agrees to the private trust law merely by his silence. If a person does not speak up to let his choice be known, the trust will assume he or she is a part of and beneficiary of it. They will assume that you have gifted your life to the trust for the benefits they have to offer.

Under the 14th Amendment, the citizen [who does not make his choice known for or against the trust relationship], is assumed to be a beneficiary because he or she has not stated otherwise. As a beneficiary, you are an outlaw as far as the Constitution is concerned. You are operating outside of the Constitution. While operating outside the Constitution you only have relative rights under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because private contract law takes priority over constitutional law.

Index.

Private law is conscience, ecclesiastical and religious law. They are equal to each other. Under the 14th Amendment trust, there is no true religious liberty because the individual is part of the conscience of the trust and the few that make its rules called "Codes." In fact, there are no true freedoms at all as listed under the Bill of Rights. Try publicly saying much against the IRS and their prima donna attitude and see how absolute your liberty of speech is. As alluded to earlier, the free citizen of the soil of each "state in this union" is not affected by the private law of another individual or group trust unless they choose to bind themselves by silence. Silence is slavery under Roman civil law principles. Unless one stands to claim his sovereign rights, he does not have any. Each person must exercise a choice to be free or enslaved. The public municipal law will uphold your right of choice, but you must make a choice the law can uphold.

Yes, if your are a beneficiary of the trust you are living under an administrative democracy (parliamentary democracy) - a communal association - where there is no separation of powers and your private rights are subject to the will of the majority. You have no absolute rights, only relative rights. The Codes and revised Statutes are for the general good of the association. Few citizens of the (u)nited States realize the "Republic for which it stands" is a house with no one living in it.

With or without the check of a dictator, power has been passing from the legislature to the civil service or bureaucracy, which alone feels competent to manage the complex and technical business of the state./57 Anglo-Saxon countries are taking a place alongside of the countries of continental Europe with a body of administrative law and its administrative courts, at least in embryo. The popular conception of liberalism is undergoing a great change. Liberty lingers on as a name, but a name used to designate almost the opposite of nineteenth century liberalism; for the new liberty consists mainly in legislative restrictions which keep one man from exploiting another while the state exploits both./58

Now take a look at how your own federal government defines the difference between a republic and democracy. The following was taken from U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 dated WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff. Under which do you live?

DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principals and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a Constitution which provides for the election of

an executive, and

a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and

are required to create a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental Acts, and

to recognize certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and your are drifting into democracy. Superior to all others. Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

Index.

That is correct, the people voluntarily gave up their Law. To read the history just after that time and talk to people who lived through it, they will tell about the government agents who came around to confiscate the gold that was in the possession of the people. It appeared from what took place that the people were forced to give up their gold. However, that is not what could have happened. Going along with the "Public Policy" of HJR 192 was actually a voluntary act - "and is mutable at will."/60 Thus the individual was a victim of his own ignorance about the Law. By accepting the offer of the private credit, the population was automatically bound over to the private trust, now having gone public because the whole population was moved wholesale into the trust by their silent or negative acceptance. When 51% of the population volunteered for the private trust it became a Public Trust.

To understand issues that proceeded the 1933 event, we must go back to 1834 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Wheaton v. Peters/61 that there was no federal common law. In other words, the federal government was not set up under the common law as a "state in the Union," such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, etc.. These states were based upon the substance of the common law and its allodial land titles. Allodial means there are no overlords upon the land, therefore, man is his own King upon the land. The gold and silver that came from the allodial land were public money used for private trade between the citizens of the states. This meant there were no third parties involved in the trading contracts because there was no private enterprise trust (as the 14th Amendment) dictating public policy. Trade among the states, at that time, involved two party contracts called free enterprise. The commercial trade taking place between the states was mostly in its infant stages and was regulated by the common law. Yet, the common law of each colony was foreign to each of the other colonies without any standard of trade. Most of the commercial (political commercial/62) trade involved international trade which was regulated under admiralty/maritime law outside constitutional mandates.

With the growth of commerce between the states, there became a need to try and standardize some form of commercial law. Each state had its own laws of commerce, as based on the common law, and this created great problems when it came to which state's laws were to be enforced when disputes arose. A federal circuit court judge, by the name of Joseph Story, was a pioneer in trying to form some sort of standard in commercial law that would appeal not only to the federal courts, but also to the state courts.

When Story was appointed to the supreme court of the united States he became the principle advocate in the landmark decision of Swift v. Tyson,/63 establishing a general federal (civil commercial/64) common law so as to create uniformity in commercial disputes involving negotiable instruments in federal and state courts./65 The decision was based, in part, on the fact that gold and silver coins, as the substance of the common law, were being transported between states in commerce. As a result of the substance of the common law being used in commerce, a jury trial was possible in the federal circuit courts. The court proceedings were strictly operated under authority of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Justice Story/66 had been aware of Robert Owen's communal concepts in 1833 and the influence it could have on the loss of gold as a fixed standard in trade. Owen was instrumental in promoting ideas of how to move private communal commerce into the public sector. To accomplish this, the law would have to be changed in order to obtain the maximum financial stimulus for commercial growth. For a man like Story, who knew the relationship of gold to the Law, he could read the handwriting on the wall. With the undercurrent of corporate special interest scheming that started in 1833, Story knew that somewhere down the road the American people would lose their Law. He knew this would eventually allow private law (private law merchant) to be moved into the public sector controlling public policy, resulting in the loss of general (commercial) common law for those involved. In other words, separation of powers would be lost in favor of the private commercial corporate business to the detriment of the average citizen.

Also in the 1842 Swift v. Tyson decision, Justice Story would assure a trial by jury in a civil cause between states even if there was no gold standard in the future.

What does a jury have to do with the fixed gold standard? Gold was the land because it not only came from the land, but it was also transportable real estate (portable allodium). The ancient common law was based on the real property boundaries or soil that belonged to a person and anything that came from that ground or soil, such as gold or any other precious mineral or rock, was considered substance of the soil in the common law./67 Gold in the hands of the common person meant the public municipal law (Public Law merchant) was "supreme" because the person controlled the gold or land where the goods were produced. In the true historic sense of the common law, the only person who counted was the land owner. That is, you could be equivalent to a slave if you did not own land. Also, at the beginning of our country, one could not vote unless they owned land. In a jury trial, the jury had to be made up of the peers of the person on trial. The only true peer of a non-commercial individual land owner under the common law was another land owner. Land ownership being based on absolute rights with allodial titles - no outside private equitable interest or overseer involved.

Historically, the commercial traders and merchants were nomads. They were not land owners nor were they producers. What they made money on was trading in the commodities the land owners produced. In other words, they were the original broker middle men. When the fixed gold standard was removed, it meant that everyone had been shifted from the civil commerce (Public Law merchant) side of the law to the political commence (private law merchant) side of the law. Where once you were considered to control the land and the Law absolutely, now you are considered to be a non-producing trader with only relative equitable rights - land or no land. The result is that there is no more possibility of a trial to judge the public municipal law, rather the trial would be based on the facts of the private implied contract you were now assumed to be involved in. You are assumed to be guilty before proven innocent. It is the Roman civil law that makes you guilty by accusation requiring you to prove your innocence.

Swift v. Tyson has been in effect since 1842. However, the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins/68 decision of 1938 stated that there was no longer "general federal common law." The Erie Railroad case was based on the fact that it was assumed that all citizens in the United States have been included in contractual commerce of the private law merchant (through the 14th Amendment and HJR 192) outside the Constitution as allowed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. The Erie Railroad decision came five years after HJR 192 (the removal of the fixed gold standard). This allowed enough time to pass so the when people realized that they had no right to a real jury trial, they would not panic. Erie Railroad was based on HJR 192 because the fixed standard (the law or the gold) of money was removed.

It is now up to the individual which commerce he wants to be a part of, for it is a political choice. Do you want to be a part of the political commerce under the private law merchant of the 14th Amendment sustained by Erie Railroad v. Tompkins? Or do you want to have absolute liberty and all the absolute freedoms of civil commerce under the Public Law merchant as supported by Swift v. Tyson? Remember, the courts will not question your political choice but they must uphold it. However, unless you take the proper action, your choice will be assumed to be with the private law merchant.

With HJR 192, the substance of your law - gold - was turned into commodities. That is, the fixed standard, at $35.00 per troy ounce of weight and fineness of your money was removed. Once the money no longer had a fixed standard, it could then fluctuate according to supply and demand just like a commodity i.e., a bushel of grain. This had the same effect on real property as well - this is called inflation. Money is the only Thing in the United States that has no fixed standard.

Index.

The Erie Railroad decision saying there was no "general federal common law" was based on the fact that the man who sued the railroad was an outlaw to the Constitution. That is, he had no standing in absolute constitutional law because he was a 14th Amendment citizen and therefore he could not call on any general federal commercial common law that still existed in the Republic for protection./70 He had chosen, by the default of silence, the private law of the 14th Amendment trust for public purposes. He could not claim any rights based upon the Swift v. Tyson decision nor could he access Article III, Section 2 courts of "judicial Power." Instead, he could only be compelled to resort to Article I legislative courts that operate outside the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution of the (u)nited States of America uses the term: "the several states." This means the territorial government and its Article I ecclesiastical or legislative courts. Under Article IV, Section 4, the Constitution uses the term "states in this union." "States in this union" is different from "the several states" as used in Article I of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitutionguarantees the republican form of government. "States in this union" is referring to public municipal law of the Republican states for private purposes while "the several states" refers to private law for making public policy, i.e., trust law including the Uniform Commercial Code./71 Before 1933, you did not have to call on the republican form of government and Article III, Section 2 courts of "judicial Power" because it was automatically there because the gold was there. After 1933, you have to call on the (public municipal law) for private purposes to have the republican form of government because the fixed gold standard is not there. Gold coin today is commodity gold (also called "fiat money") and that is why it fluctuates in value on the commodity market daily. It is not guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury as to its weight, fineness and fixed standard.

As to the 16th Amendment, it has not applied since 1933. Today, the 16th Amendment pertains only to the federated states as political subdivisions of the District of Columbia as well as American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc., and are construed as "(S)tates" of the United States; not to be confused with the 50 (s)tates of the (u)nion.

Remember that you are presumed to be a 14th Amendment citizen since 1933 unless you bring forth evidence to prove your political choice is otherwise. It is all a part of your express Will. Silence on your part means that you have conveyed your property to the public trust and want to be treated as a constructive trustee outside the Constitution. The IRS and the State Tax Boards are the trusters of your estate because of your silence. If you want to get back to the republican form of law, you have to use the state probate court to sever the trust relationship. Once the trust is broken by the courts noticing your Will in expatriation, you can take back your estate. The trusters received your trust by operation of law. You can only take it back by exercise of your private use of public municipal law. Also remember that the individual is presumed to know the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Another very important reason for the courts having to sever the trust relationship is to protect the trust. If there was no judicial noticed action, there would be nothing to stop the individual from bringing suit against the trust to receive benefits from it even though they had never paid a dime in the form of taxes.

The founding fathers established a republican form of government right in the beginning. And what is unique about the (u)nited States being a Republic is that we had a Constitution to spell everything out about its operation in relationship to its Citizens. The Constitution of the (u)nited States of America was designed to protect the minority from the majority. All other republics fail mainly because they do not have an instrument that defines what the republic is and how it should operate.

Index.

All the changes from civilian methods result from these changes - the perverted use of "person" and the new concept of "res."/73

The "Law of persons and things" is the "law of Status." "Law of Things" is "Law of Property" - or contract. Any changes in an individual's standing in the law are a result of how he unknowingly allows a res to be formed and thereby becomes subject to another jurisdiction.

There is a difference between "subject matter jurisdiction" and "jurisdiction of the subject matter." The courts have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the trust res under the 14th Amendment. But as a non-14th Amendment citizen, there is no res to which they - the court - can attach jurisdiction. However, there are areas in the law whereby you can re-convey subject matter jurisdiction to the court.

Before 1933, the federal courts did not have in rem jurisdiction to compel performance of the general public because the people had not given up the law (gold). Unless there was some bilateral contract involved in a dispute, the federal courts could not attach jurisdiction over a person. The federal courts only dealt primarily in contractual disputes between citizens of different states. After 1933, the people contracted for more debts than there was gold to back up those debts. Something like $28 billion in debt with only $4 billion in gold to back it. When Congress suspended the gold standard, the nation was thrown into a debtor/creditor relationship because the people are the posterity of the country, they are also the posterity of the debt through the social security system while remaining under the 14th Amendment because it made one primarily a United States (c)itizen and secondarily a citizen of the state. So under the 14th Amendment, you automatically became responsible for servicing the national debt in order to maintain the social security system./74 [Review footnote 24 on constructive trusts].

The public debt then establishes a res in the District of Columbia and since you are primarily a United States (c)itizen under the 14th Amendment, you automatically become a beneficiary of the debt. The res is the debt as well as the subject matter. The public debt operates outside Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. This is why the whole judicial system operates outside the Constitution in that they operate only under Article I as judicial functions. Every judge then can render decisions based on his own prejudices, not on constitutional law of the Republic. Since the 1938 Erie Railroad decision, justices have been free to render Article I ecclesiastical or legislative court decisions based on their own desires or political pressures, not on the Constitution, and they are immune from suit because it is a judicial function, not a "judicial Power" as Article III, Section 2 courts.

Under the 14th Amendment trust relation, the federal government, in dealings with its citizens, automatically has "in rem" jurisdiction over all 14th Amendment citizens (also called U.S. (c)itizens). When the government has in rem jurisdiction, they automatically receive "in personam" jurisdiction at the same time.

When a person expatriates using 15 Statute at Large, his or her whole estate comes back out of the trust. So the state, under "local law" (that is, Washington D.C. and its political subdivisions) loses the in rem jurisdiction and therefore automatically loses in personam jurisdiction. The court can compel you to appear, but cannot attach subject matter jurisdiction because the subject matter, or the trust res, is no longer in Washington D.C. or its political subdivisions. It has been removed back under the Republic by your political Will in fact, and in law.

HJR 192 is mutable by will./76 The insolvency of the government, as declared by suspension of the gold standard, is not something that everyone has to participate in. Not everyone has to be an "insolvent." The people put more demands on the payment of gold than there was gold in the treasury so the gold standard was suspended. But the individual does not have to go along with public policy, especially public policy that was a result of private law, viz., private law for public purposes.

Before June 5, 1933, there was public money for private debts. After June 5th, there was private money for public debts. Now all private credit money operating in the public sector as public policy is all that has been available to discharge (not pay) private debts since June 5, 1933. The individual who is a non-14th Amendment citizen can technically maintain the "gold standard," because all the taxes of compelled performance do not apply to him. Inflation is due to taxes because the taxes support non - producers and thus a sounder dollar results when no taxes are paid.

Since June 5, 1933, everything is predicated on your personal Will. Through public policy and the silence of the individual, it has been assumed that the individual wants to continue the trust relationship and therefore the individual must perform. Performing to the insolvency means that you must contribute to the insolvency. However, the individual does not have to stay bound to the debt of the public policy because it is "mutable by will." That is, the individual must state his or her will or choice and the law will uphold that individual choice to make public policy toward him of no effect. HJR 192 is an Act that is open ended. That is, you can participate in the public policy that HJR 192 established or you can decline to participate.

It must be understood that in order to make public policy mutable by the Will of the individual, very definite legal procedure must be exercised along with the proper statute law. The Statutes must be exercised with the proper legal procedure to accomplish "mutable by will" viz., state Probate Code, along with 15 Statute at Large published legal notice by Declaration. The Declaration is an express testamentary Will when it has been properly signed and witnessed and published.

Hanson v. Denckla/77 deals with the 14th Amendment jurisdiction. The trust in dispute was a private trust set up according to public municipal law for private purposes in the state of Delaware without any third party relationship.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, an exercise of jurisdiction over person or property outside the foreign state was thought to be absolute nullity, but the matter remained a question of state law over which the court exercised no authority. With the adoption of the 14th Amendment, any judgment purporting to bind the person of the defendant over whom the court had not acquired in personam jurisdiction was void within the state as well as without. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 Since the state is forbidden to enter a judgment attempting to bind a person over whom it has no jurisdiction, it has even less right to enter a judgment purporting the interest of such person and property over which the court has no jurisdiction. From Pennoyer v. Neff we come to the more flexible standard of International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310, but it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restriction on personal jurisdiction of state courts. Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective states. However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal a defendant may not be called on to do so unless he had minimal contacts with that state that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him. This means that Florida had no relationship or contract that tied back to the corpus of the trust in Delaware. Therefore, the 14th Amendment did not apply as to give Florida any jurisdiction. Even before passage of the 14th Amendment, the court of International Shoe Co. sustained the state courts in refusing full faith and credit to judgments entered by courts that were without jurisdiction over a non resident defendant. But it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.

The "forum state," in the case of the non-14th Amendment citizen, is the corporate municipal city of Washington, D.C.."Full faith and credit" means that we will recognize your laws if you will recognize our laws. So in this particular case, the U.S. (S)upreme (C)ourt was saying that Florida had no legal direct tie to the corpus or body of the trust and therefore they had no full faith and credit under the 14th Amendment to give jurisdiction to act on. The U.S. (S)upreme (C)ourt based their decision on the ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court who had ruled on the corpus of the trust and what the intent of the settler (the person who made the trust) was.

In other words, the 14th Amendment can work in the favor of non-14th Amendment persons because it brings a dividing line down between the Public Laws and the private laws.

Index.

It is presumed that everyone born into this country since 1933 has wanted to be a part of the public policy of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia. This is because the public trust was established by public policy when the gold was removed as a standard in payment of debt. Up until the gold was removed, less than 51% of the population was involved as beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment trust. The moment the gold standard was removed, more than 51% of the population automatically became members of the trust. This meant the private municipal trust could be moved into the public sector to become public policy because the amount of the population volunteering for the benefits indicated a public desire. In addition, the trust was confirmed by the U.S. (S)upreme (C)ourt decision of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins in 1938 saying "there is no general federal common law." In other words, it is now presumed that everyone is a 14th Amendment "person" as implied by law and so silence on the part of the citizen is his consent to be treated as a "constructive trustee" and as primarily being a United States citizen.

Despite the suspension of the fixed gold standard, the path to liberty for the individual lies in the state court of probate because the general common law of the soil still lies in the state courts.

Index.

Within the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Index.

First of all, we know the lower court judges are going to be ignorant of public municipal law for private purposes or the separation of powers principles. They have been born and raised, so to speak, in the trust system and all its Codes. The only way we may get due process is to Appeal to the appellate courts. In other words, when you deal with issues of law, the lower courts want those issues dealt with by the more qualified higher courts.

The second question that follow is, "How do you know the [s]upreme [c]ourt/83 of the United States will hear your case?" Many may not know that there are two floors to the [s]upreme [c]ourt building itself. The second floor has not been used since 1933 when the people gave up their law - their gold. The second floor represents a higher law. It is that higher law that is being accessed with this approach. Anytime the higher law is at issue - U.S. constitutional issue - the [s]upreme [c]ourt has to hear the case. There is no option.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens do not have the prerogative of being heard at that level of law because they are operating at law outside the Constitution.

Index.

Starting the process of moving your political choice back under republican laws requires that you state your Will. That is, you must make a public declaration of what your political Will is under the Constitution. Do you want to be a part of the public policy - the trust - or do you want to be able to use public municipal law for your private benefit. Making your Will known requires that your declaration be specific as to your desire about severing the trust.

It is generally recognized that the acceptance of a beneficial testamentary gift, evidenced by signing a IRS W-4 form or similar tax form, will convey the same results as voting. The opinion has been frequently expressed that renunciation of such a gift, in order to be effective, must be express, clear and unequivocal, as by some positive act or statement of the beneficiary./84 The following could be your Will by declaration and thus your political decision to choose the Republican form of government. Pay attention to the content of the sample declaration. Content is important.

I, John [and/or Jane Doe] in the name of the Almighty Creator, By [my/our] Declaration of Independence solemnly Publish and Declare [my/our] Right to expatriate absolute, [my/our] res in trust to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia, a democracy, and return to the Republic. Any and all past and present political ties implied by operation of law or otherwise in trust with the democracy is hereby dissolved. I, John [and/or Jane Doe] have full power to contract, establish commerce as guaranteed by the full 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America, a Republic.

Affirmed and subscribed before me this __________ day of __________, 19___

Name of Notary _______________________

Notary Public Seal

Publishing your Declaration of Independence according to your state's Legal Notice Statute fulfills this requirement. Some states require the Legal Notice to be published only once, other states require three times, some more, etc.. Check your Legal Notices in your state Statute books. Note: Some newspapers will want to put the declaration under Public Notice which is OK.

A word of caution. Some people have filed their "Notice" in the court without advertising in the newspaper. If your state Statute books require a "Notice" to be published in the newspaper and you do otherwise, the system does not have to recognize the "Notice," so beware.

You must start your process of severing the Trust by filing your Declaration of Independence. Once you have filed it and it has been advertised, the newspaper will send you back an Affidavit of Publication. This will be one of the "Exhibits" you will use as evidence to the probate court of your will.

Index.

Index.

Index.

Only the individual, as a non-14th Amendment citizen, can be an attorney "in law."/85 This is because you, as the governed, control the absolute law when in the Republic. You can exercise control over the grant that authorizes those who have the privilege - franchise - to use private "at law"/86 and its equity for public commercial purposes. In other words, the individual has the power, as a citizen of the Republic, to torpedo and destroy private commercial law ventures that are being misused for public commercial purposes to his or her detriment.

We are each personally obligated by the Declaration of Independence to individually challenge unjust private law, making unjust commercial policy that violates our personal liberty. When we all personally and individually gain the inspiration of the Declaration of Independence as the early citizenry of this country did, we will each see "... a long train of abuses and usurpations ... to reduce them [us] under absolute despotism, it is their [our] right, it is their [our] duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their [our] future security. ... to alter their [our] former systems of government." Each of us functioning in this individual capacity can act as a majority to destroy the "despotism" of private law operating as public policy opposing our absolute freedoms.

In the Republic, the majority does not rule - the individual rules. The Constitution is designed to protect the minority from the majority because it provides for the private individual to use public laws to protect his personal belief system from the majority.

If you decide to pursue expatriation by using 15 Statute at Large and filing your declaration, you need to be aware that you cannot use as precedent law that others have gone this way before you. In other words, you cannot use the fact that someone else has expatriated and gone through the probate court to have their trust under the 14th Amendment severed as a reason why the court should act only on your behalf. Each case is individual and separate and is based on pure Statute and case law. What Joe Blow does has no bearing on your case in the court.

Licensed lawyers are not going to be of any help. Typically they are only familiar with pleading the Codes under the 14th Amendment. In fact, their title "Attorney at Law" says it all. It means they are licensed to practice in private commercial law. They can only function in Article I courts at Law. Few attorneys will even understand this subject because they are schooled that the state is sovereign.

Index.

The Constitution embraces two systems of law.

Of the two systems of law that the Constitution embraces, the entire population have been herded, over the years, into operating only in the private unilateral contractual side. This is the side where we have volunteered unknowingly into giving up the part of the Constitution that was designed to keep the private law out of public policy if used, accessed and maintained by the people.

What is unfortunate is that the citizen continues to assume that voting is making their desires known and that the government basically has the interest of the individual in mind. All the time unaware that private corporate business interest is what the government is there for (at this point) because the house of the Republic of the [u]nited States of America (ignorantly vacated) remains empty.

Table 3 is an attempt to contrast the two sides to the Constitution and how you are affected by them when you are operating in that area. The statements are intended to be self- explanatory. This table may form the basis of seminar discussions on moving yourself back into the Republic.

Index.

Index.

The only way to change public policy is to prevent private law from having any part in making public policy. This can only be accomplished by each individual acting separately and independently using Public Laws for private purposes. The only way the individual can do this is to move out of the public charitable religious trust that is making the public policy and take back his estate into his absolute control. Remember, Public Laws are laws that guarantee separation of powers so private conscience laws cannot dictate public policy. All political action groups have failed to make any difference, because of their inability to recognize that our nation was established first and foremost as an assembly of individuals acting independently in their own best interest without harm to another - basic general common law.

Even if political action groups went so far as to foster a constitutional convention, the basic Constitution could not be changed. What the citizen is unaware of is that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, were passed as public in Law Amendments by the "states in this union" known as the Republic of the United States of America. These do not apply to the "several states" that are political subdivisions of "a territory" of the 14th Amendment trust of the District of Columbia called the "democracy." In the opposite vein, Amendments 11 through 25 were passed as private at law Amendments by the "several states" operating as political subdivisions of the trust and have no application to the Republic and its citizens. Amendments 11 through 25 function outside the Constitution. Any additional Amendments that would be added by a constitutional convention would be added as more private law only by the "several states" as a "democracy" outside the Republic and its Constitution. The more Amendments the democracy wants to add will not give more freedom and rights, on the contrary, only more oppression and control.

Any special interest group who says that the Constitution is going to be changed and/or repudiated in the future does not understand what it is talking about.

Government produces nothing, it can only take away. Why can't the people see that the same thing is happening in the government today that happened in those 147 communist social experiments in the early days of our country? The non - producers overwhelmed the producers to cause a total collapse of the commune.

It is bizarre how the people of our nation sense something is drastically wrong, both politically and economically, and yet keep making all manner of beneficial claims (now they are pushing for national health insurance), the very cause of our national economical illness. It seems that no none can see the forest for the trees. No one can see that they must unequivocally stop all demands from the government and become self-sufficient at all cost. When individuals change their standing in the law from 14th Amendment citizens, dependent on the social insurance trust, to non -14th Amendment citizens who are self-sufficient operating under the Public Law merchant - our nation will change and not before.

Index.

Yes, it is the peoples' fault - our fault for allowing a complacency about our liberty to put us to sleep. In the beginning of our country, every household studied the law as much as they studied their Bibles. They came to appreciate knowing and using the Law more than any modern day attorney. However, gradually the professional attorney at law dominated the political picture and this led to our lawmakers being better informed in private law for commercial purposes, because it was their specialty. Thus, our government and its vast majority of private "at law" law makers turned its citizens into people who only knew what it was like to operate under private church law controlling commercial public policy. This has given us a school system, both public and private, that is graduating students who have no idea what absolute freedoms of the Constitution mean. Students are born, bred and raised on the prejudice toward an old communal democracy being advertised as the New World Order where the state is sovereign, not the individual.

From the historical records, it is evident that our forefathers knew that at some point beyond their time, the majority of people of this nation would get enticed and prejudiced into an economic jurisdiction that would become repugnant. The Constitution allowed those repugnant jurisdictions, but it also made provision for one to walk away from them anytime they would individually choose. Knowing the law will allow one to do it and that is what this Treatise is all about.

Index

1.
 
 
 

Index