, ,

Losing the Law

Between 1868 and 1933, the 14th Amendment had little affect upon the general population. This was because the people still controlled the substance of their law. That is, the only people affected by the 14th Amendment relation during this time were those that held licenses and contracts with the government of the United States or were in its employment. It was not until June 5, 1933 that the 14th Amendment took on a whole new power. On that date H.J.R. (House Joint Resolution) 192 was passed and the American people voluntarily gave up their Law because they voluntarily gave up their gold.

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.

Private Money

You can still function and contract within the money system of the Republic using the private money because Congress suspended the “Payment” of debt in Law by suspending the fixed gold standard. Even though one is outside the 14th Amendment trust, and not a part or beneficiary of the public policy of the trust, you cannot “Pay” your debts in Law. All you can do is “discharge” your debt in equity./69 Because of this, you are the only one who can determine your worth and values in money and other wise when not under the 14th Amendment.

Please note: the explanation of the money system in this section is for educational purposes only. It is never to be used in any legal arguments, because the choice of the money (public or private) is a political question which the courts do not have jurisdiction to decide.

When the fixed gold standard was suspended in 1933 by HJR 192, it was not an abolishment of the standard or the law associated with it, it was just suspended. That is, it was set aside in favor of another law. It was a political decision based on the fact that the people did not rise up and tell Congress that you cannot take away our law or gold (money). Therefore, the treasury agents came and confiscated the gold (being the Law) because the people did not choose to keep the Law. The individual could have stopped that from happening, but he would have had to have made his legal and political declaration to not be involved with private law for public purposes (democracy) under the 14th Amendment. Because the people were ignorant of what was taking place by operation of law under the 14th Amendment, no one knew how to expatriate back into the Republic Law that was still there.

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.

Jurisdiction Of The 14th Amendment

From the beginning, federal district courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the private individual. They only handled admiralty- maritime issues. There were only circuit courts and the (s)upreme (c)ourt of the united States operating in the United States government that could have jurisdiction over matters involving diversity of citizenship. That is, matters involving citizens from different states. The state courts handled federal questions because they being courts of original jurisdiction in issues that involved contracts. When the 14th Amendment came along, the United States district courts could have jurisdiction in private matters of individuals involved in the trust because the trust and its members now came under admiralty-maritime law outside the Constitution as did all international trade. At that point, the federal courts were given “in rem” jurisdiction over the people. The “res”/72 was with the people, because there was no public debt. The “in personam” jurisdiction did not apply to the average citizen because the government had no direct contact with the people who lived in the states until after 1933. When the fixed gold standard was removed, the people lost their Law. Before 1933, the federal courts could not assume jurisdiction over a person. There had to be some bilateral arrangement (contact/conveyance establishing a res or “thing”) that would have given the court jurisdiction over the people in personam.

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.

“Jurisdiction in rem depends solely on the physical control of the res by the sovereign exercising jurisdiction

[14th Amendment jurisdiction of the public charitable trust of D.C.] … thus where property is carried into a foreign territory [District of Columbia] without the cooperation of consent of the owner, jurisdiction cannot be exercised.”/75[Bracket information added]

General jurisdiction is public municipal law for private purposes, while local jurisdiction, also called “local laws,” are private law for public purposes.

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

/77deals 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.

Your Will Was Probated

It may come as a surprise to realize that your Will was probated the day you were born. Yes, it is true. The very day you were born by accident into the United States is the day you died to the Law of the Republic./78 In other words, by operation of law, you were born into the corporate municipal legislative democracy of Washington, D.C..

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.

“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation./79 There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holdings illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other goods, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and the government created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state

[14th Amendment trust] requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth [property] to protect themselves.”/80[Bracket information added]

Make no mistake, Congress is going to re-establish the gold standard in the near future, but it will be unfixed. The establishment of the unfixed gold standard will not change the law back to the way it was before 1933. Just because the Congress re-establishes the gold standard does not mean the masses of people will automatically be back under public municipal law. It will still mean that if the individual wants to be free of the oppressive government of private law, it will take the individual effort for each to expatriate from the democracy back to the Republic. In reality, returning to the non-fixed gold standard will only instill confidence in the people via a hard money system in the now crumbling credit system that has only the belief of the people as its real value. In effect, those who expatriate now are under the non-fixed gold standard. When the unfixed gold standard is re-established by Congress, those who remain as 14th Amendment citizens will still be 14th Amendment citizens under the compelled performance of the democracy despite the return of the gold standard. It will continue to be your right of choice as to whether you want to be governed by a Republican form of government under public municipal law or a democracy under private laws.

Real Property

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should lose his real property to this communistic system – democracy. The reason people do lose their property is because they are 14th Amendment citizens. As 14th Amendment citizens, you have only an equitable interest in the property. Technically speaking, you have legal and equitable interest, but you cannot execute upon the legal interest. This is because, as 14th Amendment citizens, you have no access to the Law side of the court. With equitable interest, you cannot prove superior title to access the land as a citizen of the soil, which is the proper name for a non- 14th Amendment citizen. You must remember that it is your standing in the law that determines whether you have access to the Law to save your land. It is not determined by the title to the land as all land titles in the United States of America are allodial. Thus, land titles deal with land. Jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment deals only with the person in relation to his interest in the land. A commercial system cannot create credit against the substance of the common law – land. They can only create it through the person under the 14th Amendment.

Within the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“… all Men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable/81 Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -“

You will notice that real property is not listed as an “unalienable” Right. This is because real property was the absolute substance that made the individual sovereign (absolute king in his own right) in America – it was the common law. In the feudal systems of Europe, the kings and the church were considered as the absolute authority or sovereign, because they owned the land. Jefferson did not consider real property even remotely close to falling into an alienable or unalienable Right because the substance of the land was the basis of that liberty. Land could not be pledged in commerce because it is unmovable and is the substance of the common law. You cannot take sovereignty (land) from a sovereign. Sovereignty, after all, implies that nothing can be more supreme than supremacy so supremacy cannot yield its essence (land) to another. However, the sovereign can give sovereignty up by his or her choice – as per the 14th Amendment. The people hold the land. If the land were considered to be a substance that could be alienated by the government, the government would be the sovereign or king and the people would be the serfs again as in Medieval Europe. Remember, the land is the law. He who controls the land controls the law.

“The power to alienate the unpeopled territories of any state, is not among the enumerated powers, given by the Constitution to the general government, and if we go out of that Instrument and accommodate to exigencies which may arise by alienating the unpeopled territory of a state, we may accommodate ourselves a little more by alienating that which is peopled, and still a little more by selling the people themselves.”

Within the 14th Amendment, the people have had their property reclassified into an alienable Right as in Roman civil law. The result is that the people have been sold into slavery (serfdom) of the trust. Thomas Jefferson said, “The land belongs to the living.” When a person is civilly dead to the law, he is as good as being physically dead – he or she cannot own property in the absolute sense.

It’s Pure Law

The question that often is raised by individuals who were aware of the hurdles of the court system is, “How are you assured that you will be dealt with fairly in the court system?”

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

                                       Take Back Your Estate

It seems that if one seriously questions the government’s tax and economic policy, or challenges the tax collecting agencies, that he will be labeled a “tax protester.” Remember, a “tax protester” is a 14th Amendment person who is required to file a return and pay a tax. However, you must take aim at the agencies that are the trusters of your estate and when you do, you will be dealing directly with the Internal Revenue Service and the taxing agencies of your state. Taking back your estate means revoking the gift held in trust – “constructive trust” held by the taxing agencies. [Review footnote 24 on constructive trusts]

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.

 Notice is Given re the Collateral Assertion of

Ecclesiastical Deed Poll

Ecclesiastical Deed Poll

Per Curiam Divina We, the Divine Immortal Spirit, expressed in Trust, to the Living Flesh known as (Your Name) ___________hereby give life and personality to this sacred irrevocable deed through Our seal in blood and agreement to the conveyance and terms pronounced herein:

1. While We have expressed in Trust Our real property and while no consent has been given, nor protest otherwise made that such conveyance is unlawful, We bring attention to Our Mistake of fact by failing to give proper notice of our competent living status; and

2. As our actions and this instrument make Our status clear, any temporary testamentary trust, cestui que vie or derivative thereof formed upon such errors of presumption as Our abandonment, loss, death or incompetence must be immediately dissolved, including a full account provided to Us without delay; and

3. To ensure no further mistakes are made by any party, we give further notice that all acts in commerce or law We engage as surety of Our Trust ( YourName) ___________and kindly ask you to update your records; and

4. Furthermore, We gratefully decline any offer of coercive or punitive Benefits from any and all Estates which you and your colleagues administer. As a result, any charges sent to us by mistake will be duly returned to you for discharge in accordance with the law; and

5. As We have given proper notice that We have ceased any further injury, you acknowledge that no further demands, debts or actions shall be issued against Us in claiming injury as surety to the property you administer; and

6. Receipt of this Deed Poll is your acknowledgement and acceptance.

Right thumb print in your blood

[Name, Position Address and details of Roman Officer who issued administrative offer/summons/demand]

Declaration of Independence

(Your Name) _________in the name of the Almighty Creator, By my Ecclesiastical Declaration of Independence solemnly Publish and Declare my Natural Right to expatriate absolute, my res in trust to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia, a franchise doing business for profit and in the nature of a democracy, and return My Spirit and Flesh body to the Land of the Republic. Any and all past and present political ties real or implied by operation of law or otherwise in trust and as doing business with the said democracy is hereby dissolved and made of no effect. ( Your name) asserts His “Natural Right” to contract, establish commerce as found within the secured guarantee enumerated within the Bill of Rights and as noted within the first 10 Amendments to the to the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America, a Republic.

So Done this _________ day of ______________, 20____.

Signed,[ _______________________________]

Mailing Location [ _____________________________________________]

Affirmed and subscribed before me this __________ day of __________, 20___

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.

Be Your Own Lawyer

Did you know that your state’s Attorney General’s office is not within the true government (non-commercial) complex? In fact, you may find it housed with the tax collecting and enforcing agencies. This is because they are there only to handle private law for public commercial purposes. This is why all attorneys have the title “attorney at law.” They are only licensed to practice private law for public commercial purposes.

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.


The Constitution

As a political document, the U.S. Constitution is little read and poorly understood. Yet it outlines the incredible ways that a truly free people can obtain and retain liberty. Unless certain aspects of its structure and meaning are understood, it will be impossible to realize the true genius of the document as it reveals the pure principles of liberty.

The Constitution embraces two systems of law.

First, public municipal law for private purposes operating in personam (in and for the individual person).

Second, private law for public purposes operating in rem (in and for property or anything that has nothing to do with the individual).

What is hard to initially understand is that the men who wrote this document wrote it in such a way that it would allow for the very things that government is doing today that we detest so much. All of the despicable Regulations and interference of “big brother,” with his detested heavy-handed tactics are all properly allowed by our Constitution. They are perfectly legal. This is because the United States government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution because it is operating in private Roman civil law. It is not treasonous for it to carry on the way it does, but it is treasonous that the citizenry are ignorant of their republican rights that can keep the government in check by removing the Roman civil 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.








Table 3


Political Constitution

Economic Constitution

Statutes at Large
(positive law)

Code Pleading
(non positive law)

Bill of Rights

Amendments 11 to 25

in Law
(“in jure” = in law by right)

at law

Article III Courts of judicial
Power in Law and Equity

Article I Courts also called
Territorial Courts – referred 
to as Legislative or
Ecclesiastical Courts

Law of land

Negotiable Instrument Law –
all debt must be paid

Law of sea

Limited liability in maritime
venture for payment of debt

Statutes are public municipal law
to be used for private purposes –
acts on person (in personam)

Revised Statutes are private
national law for public purposes
“in rem.” Rem acts on the
“res” or “the thing.”

de jure government
(inside Constitution)

de facto government
(outside Constitution)
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17

General Law

Sustained by “Swift v. Tyson”

Local Law 

Sustained by “Erie RR v. Tomkins”

Gold Standard

Public Law Merchant uses no
inflation – true productivity
productivity is key. Prices at
par value

Uniform Commercial Code

Private Merchant use inflation
to fund growth – false production.
No fixed standard

Bilateral Contracts

Where there is a meeting of the
minds. Two party transaction.
No compelled performance.

Unilateral (implied) Contracts

Where there is a silent third
party involved in compelling
performance. Trust Law.

Common Civil Law

jus non scriptum

Roman Civil Law 

Admiralty-Maritime Privilege
jus pontificum fas
(ecclesiastical-church law)

Absolute Rights and title to self
and property. Substance of
Public Law is the rights of man.

Relative Rights to self and
property. Substance of private
law is the conscience of trust.

Operates under Art. IV, Sec. 4,
“No corruption of blood”
(cannot interfere with estate)

Operates under Art. I, Sec. 8,
Cl. 4 – (can interfere with
estate under private “implied”

Non-14th Amendment individual

14th Amendment “person”

Private individual

Individual considered commercial
person or “goods in commerce” for
servicing public debt. Also
referred to by state as “human

Freedom of conscience of 
individual, beholding to no one.

Freedom of consciense as long as
it agrees with the majority or
the masses.

Democratic Republic

“states in this union”

Administrative Democracy

“several states of the union”

“the” territory

“a” territory

Separation of Powers
(separation of church and state)

No separation of powers
(no separation of church and state)

No communal relationship

Confederacy under Articles of
Confederation and N.W. Ordinance.

Direct Taxes

Indirect Taxes

15 Statue at Large

is designed to
keep federal courts from taking
jurisdiction. Courts cannot take
judicial notice of 14th Amendment.

All courts take jurisdiction
through the 14th Amendment until
one proves otherwise. Codes are
streamlined private interpretation
of statutes at large for public
purpose. Codes allow the courts
to take judicial notice of
14th Amendment. Codes apply to
anyone who has not made a public
notice of his political choice
(Will) by declaration.

Doctrine of compliments

Special individualism


No individualism

Innocent until proved guilty. 

Burden of proof rests with
the accuser.

Guilty until proved innocent.

Burden of proof rest with
the accused.

Plead to the Law or Statute for
defense. Law awards damages and
Equity on this side. Compels
performance of award.

Res judicata – judgment bases
on merits of case and legal
precedence. Courts tell what the
intent of legislation. Issue
already decided, have no
legal recourse.

Fixed in place and time as in
permanent domicile or resident.
Real-substance matter and content.

Twilight Zone, Quasi Law. No time
and place. Only exist in abstract
space. Artificial-abstract false
and theoretical, Conscience,

Individual incentive and
true production.

No initiative and no
true production.

Political Action Groups

If you are trying to be involved in shaping public policy, you are trying to use private law for public purposes or private church law to manipulate public commercial policy. No one really wants to have a church or another individual, without the option of choice, dictate what he should think or do. Yet what is happening with special interest groups is just that. Political action groups, also called special interest groups, i.e, environmental, health, labor, industrial associations, state, county/borough/city coalitions, religious foundations, etc., are nothing more than individuals who have banded together because of a common belief of conscience. Their endeavor is to put pressure on the lawmakers of the 14th Amendment trust to pass laws that favor their beliefs. If they are successful, then the laws that result become the policy of the trust that bind the rest of the 14th Amendment trust beneficiaries whether they like it or not. If they don’t, then another special interest group is formed to try and counter the previous one and so it goes, ad nauseam. The politicians become the pawns of the most powerful special interest groups.

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.

First, because the repudiation of the Constitution was started by the passing of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and completed by the people giving up their law (gold) in 1933 to move out from under the Republic and its absolute constitutional protected rights to parliamentary democracy, and

Second, because the basic Constitution of the Republic can only be changed by the people of the Republic and there is nobody living there. The only changes to the Constitution that the 14th Amendment trust democracy, and its political interest groups, can make as to the Amendments that it made for itself and its citizens – that only comes with more control and oppression.

As long as the people of the democracy continue to function under the group mentality (based on mob rule of opinion polls under the Roman civil law), more and more demands are put on the private commercial system. The more claims for benefits from the system, the greater the tyranny and oppression required to make the people perform to the debt and the interest on the debt that is created in order to supply the peoples demands. It is the debt, and its uncontrolled interest, that is causing the production of the American worker a halt. He is being taxed in ever increasing amounts and ways to try and pay for the national debt he has unknowingly and voluntarily demanded by his silence, a silence that is financing his destruction.

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. 


Having been exposed to most of the information from various factions of the “patriot” sector on how to get back our rights under the Constitution, none have ever addressed the real issues of law. The groups that are claiming victories in their skirmishes with big brother are not winning on issues of law, rather the wins are nothing more than the result of technical knockouts. Their skill at discovering procedural fouls of either rules or Codes that govern the system they are an intimate part of, is the measure of their success or failure. Even with a legal win, under the 14th Amendment trust and its conscience, there is nothing to prevent the trust from institution new proceedings at a later date. This is because the conscience of the trust is altered according to expediency. The real issues of law, that are the foundation of our political system, continue to evade the so-called “patriot.”

If laws are to have a binding force, it follows that, in view of the right of self-consciousness, they must be universally known … . To hang the laws so high that no citizen could read them (as Dionysius the tyrant did) is injustice of one and the same kind as to bury them in row upon row of learned tomes, collections of dissenting judgments and opinions, records of customs, etc., and in a dead language also, so that knowledge of the law of the land is accessible only to those who have made it their professional study.”/




Hegel’s comments are extremely appropriate for today even though they were written in the last century. What has been discovered is comparable to a revisiting of the chambers where our founding fathers met in secret. They purposely disguised some of the language in terms that would not allow tampering and loss of basic issues of law that are the foundation of the Republic. A foundation based on the common civil law without the private conscience of any church/charitable organization.

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 the Crowns 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. 


1.George Rapp’s commune in Harmony PA. was moved to Evansville, Indiana. After a time was sold to Robert Owen, when George Rapp moved to Economy PA, just north of Pittsburgh. The physical remains of both communes have been converted to historical sites today.

2 Private property as meant by Fourier was in reality Quasi private (seemingly but not really) and not allodial as was originally established in (u)nited States of America.

3 “An Association is an assemblage of persons (from four to eighteen hundred) united voluntarily for the purpose of prosecuting, with order and unity, the various branches of Industry, Art and Science, in which they engage; and of directing their efforts, energies and talents, in the best way for the happiness and elevation of the whole.”

4 “… rule by the entire adult male citizen body, known to later detractors as `ochlocracy’ or mob rule. “Burns, J.H., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, 1988.

5 Smith v. Allwright,321 U.S. 649, 88 L.Ed. 987, 64 S.Ct. 757, 151 ALR 1110, reh den 322 U.S. 769, 88 L.Ed. 1594, 64 S.Ct. 1052.

6 Weldon, T.D., “The Vocabulary Of Politics,” 1953. Weldon was a Fellow of the College and Tudor in Philosophy, Rhodes Scholar.

7 Karl Marx, “Communist Manifesto” of 1848.

8 Sokoloff v. National City Bank of N.Y., 239 N.Y. 158, 145 N.E. 917 [1924].

9 Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the (u)nited States of America.

10 Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1905).

11 Ruling Case Law, Vol. 5, Section II, “Adoption of English Common Law in America.”

12 Jefferson to Monroe, May 20, 1782, Jefferson Papers, IX, p. 380, Boyd Edition. Excerpt from the book “The Creation Of The American Republic,” 1776-1787, (p. 610) by Gordon S. Wood, 1969.

13 Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S.Ct. 2631 (1991).

14 The word (u)nited, as in (u)nited States of America shows that it is not a proper noun as in the original and actual use of the word, and it is not misspelled.

15 “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).

16 Burns, J.H., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pages 65-68.

17 Rand, E.K., Founders Of The Middle Ages, (1928) Chapter 1.

18 Black Letter Law referred to the laws of servitude to the church or king. Black was representative of the unquestioned authority of the priest’s dictates. Hence the Black Robed Merchant Commissioners in today’s Prize Courts sitting in the interest of Just-Us.

19 Luke v. Lyde, 2 Burr. R. 883-887.

20 Letter to Judge John Ryler,June 17, 1812 by Thomas Jefferson.

21 Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper,February 10, 1814 titled “Christianity And The Common Law.”

22 Ibid.

23 Letter- Lincoln to H.L. Pierce., 1859

24 A constructive trust because of inferred or presumed intent of a property owner, as distinguished from a trust based on intent, which is directly or clearly expressed. A constructive trust is a remedial device of the court of equity for taking property from one who has acquired or retained it wrongfully and vesting title in another in order to prevent unjust enrichment. It is not based on intent of the parties, but rather is created by the court in order to achieve an equitable result. This is precisely what the IRS or any other authority does. They construct a trust, based on your silence, under executive and legislative authority to prevent unjust enrichment upon its 14th Amendment beneficiaries.

25″… the Goddess Minerva … who sprung full-grown from the brain of Jupiter, typify the political birth of California, which became a state without probation as a territory.”From March Fong Eu, Secretary of State.

26 The common law is referred to as the “general (commercial) common law” to remind readers that, in early nineteenth century usage, “common law” was a general (commercial) common law shared by the American states rather than a common law of a particular state.

27 Fletcher, William A., “The General Common Law and Section 34 Of The Judiciary Act Of 1789: The Example of Marine Insurance,”Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 7, May 1984, page 1515.

28 When the people lost their law by the removal of the gold standard, they automatically were assumed to be accepting the trust relationship and its benefits. When a private charitable trust has at least 51% of population participating, it becomes a public trust.

29 Strayer, Joseph R., On The Medieval Origins Of The Modern State [1979].

30 78th Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 1, 1943 to March 1, 1943. Words of Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall on January 27th. This was the year that personal income taxes started.

31 Wills, Gary, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, quoted from Jefferson’s Commonplace Book.

32 Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1 (1842).

33 Erie Railroad v. Thompkins,304 U.S. 64.

34 Referring to the individual person or “the person.”

35 Referring to general things of possession called “the thing.”

36 Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649.

37 Collins, Charles Wallace, M.A., Fellow in University of Chicago, Member of the Alabama Bar, The Fourteenth Amendment And The States: A Study Of The Operation Of The Restraint Clauses Of Section One Of The Fourteenth Amendment Of The Constitution Of The United States.

38 Washington’s “Farewell Address” to the American People, September 17, 1796.

39 11th Congress, 3d Session, No. 294, President Madison’s Objections to the Bill “Incorporating The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Town of Alexandria, In The District of Columbia,” Communicated to the House of Representatives, February 21, 1811.

40 40th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 6, House of Representatives,Protestant Church at Rome, Message from the President of the United States, March 15, 1867.

41 A private court of the king to enforce his arbitrary proclamations and demands.

42 A document issued from the kings court (court of chancery) to aid in enforcing its decree to bring about a change of title to real and personal property.

43 Frommer’s Washington D.C. by Rena Bulkin and Faye Hammel, page 157, [1989-1990]

44 SUBJECT TO.Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for. Black’s Law Dict. 4th Ed.

45 Coleman v. Miller, 307 US 433, 83 L.Ed. 1385, 122 ALR 695.

46 Jewett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,(1982) 455 US 302, 311; 71 L.Ed. 170, 176; 102 S.Ct. 1082.

47 Beys Afroyin v. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, (1967) 387 US 253, 18 L.Ed.2d 757, 762.

48 Davis v. Beason,133 US 333, 10 Sup.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637.

49 Thomas v. Collins,(1945) 323 US 516, 89 L.Ed. 430, 65 S.Ct. 315.

50 Webster’s Dict. 1947.

51 Ibid.

52 Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia,1891.

53 Latin Dict.

54 Ibid.

55 15 United States Statutes at Large, Ch. 249-250, pps 223-224, Section 1, R.S. 1999, 8 USC 1481.

56 Briehl v. Dulles,248 F2d 561, 583 at footnote 21, (1957).

57 “This is the greatest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention. Society will have to live for the government machine. And as, after all, it is only a machine whose existence and maintenance depend upon the vital supports around it, the state, after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living organism. The whole of life is bureaucratic. What results? The bureaucratization of life begins about its absolute decaying all order. Wealth diminishes, bursts are few. Then the state, in order to attend to its own needs, forces on still more the bureaucratization of human existence [the militarisms of society].”

Gasset, J. Ortega, The Revolt Of The Masses, [1932] page 132-133 (Excerpt from Political Institutions, A Preface page 56 [1938] by Edward McChesney Sait, Professor of Political Science, Pomona Collage)

58 Ibid.

59 ” Democracy,”from Dictionary Of The History of Ideas, Vol. 1, 1973

60 Funk v. U.S., 290 U.S. 371 (1933)

61 Wheaton v. Peters,8 Pet. 591

62 Political Commerceis also referred to as the “Private Law Merchant.”

63 Swift v. Tyson,16 Peters 1 (1842).

64 Civil Commerce is also referred to as “Public Law Merchant.”

65 Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 U.S. 363, 63 S.Ct. 573.

66 There were many influential Americans who were interested in Owen’s “New View of Society.” Among those were Chancellor James Kent who wrote Commentaries on American Law. Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, Bishop of Grace Church of New York, John McVickar of Columbia University, David Golden former Mayor of New York City, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. All had talks with Owen on his communatarian ideas. Later Owen was granted the Hall of Representatives in the Capitol for presenting his ideas. First time by Henry Clay the speaker, and second by President John Quincy Adams, Ex-President James Monroe, members of the cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Congress.

67 The common law, as referred to here, had to do with the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs, and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. 15A C.J.S.

68 Erie Railroad v. Tompkins,304 U.S. at 64 (1938).69Stanek v. White,172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 784.70Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 U.S. 363, 63 S.Ct. 573.

71 See Public Law 88-243-244, 77 Stat. 630-775, 88th Congress, 1st Session,December 30, 1963.

72 Res Lat.

The subject matter of a trust or Will. In civil law, a thing; an object. As a term of the law, this word has a very wide and extensive signification, including not only things which are objects of property, but also such as are not capable of individual ownership. By res, according to the modern civilians, is meant everything that may form an object of rights, in opposition to persona, which is regarded as a subject of rights. It is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status. In re Riggle’s Will, 11 A.D.2d 51, 205 N.Y.S.2d 19-22.

73 American Law And Procedure,page 186.

74 This includes all the debt of bankruptcy that takes place in this country. As this treatise was receiving last minute changes, the national news broadcast the story of the largest corporate bankruptcy that has ever been filed. The company is Olympia and York. They have an estimated debt of 18 billion dollars. All the 14th Amendment citizens are going to have the privilege of helping cover the part of the 18 billion that effects the public social trust.

75 “The Exercise Of Jurisdiction In Rem To Compel Payment Of Debt.”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXVII., No. 2., December, 1913.

76 “Public Policy”mutable by will as spoken of in Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371.7Hanson v. Denckla,357 U.S. 235 (1958).

78 Civilly dead: dead in the view of the law; the condition of one who has lost his civil rights and capacities, and is accounted dead in law.

79 Not being subject to the 14th Amendment and its tax codes can reduce the loss of value of your money, because you are not losing it to the trust.

80 Alan Greenspan(1962), Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Source Remnant Review, Newsletter, (June 16, 1989).

81 Rights that cannot be taken from you or transferred to another by government. You can, however, give these Rights up of your own free will without government interference.

82 Wills, Gary, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, quoted from Jefferson’s Commonplace Book, pages 142-47.

83 Supreme Court in its usage here is not capitalized, as in the original Constitution, to show that it is functioning as an Article III court.

84 Peter v. Peter,343 Ill 493, 175 NE 846, 75 ALR 890; People v. Flamagin, 331 Ill 203, 162 NE 848, 60 ALR 305; Mackey v. Bowen, 332 Mass. 167, 124 NE2d 254; Garfield v. White, 326 Mass 20, 92 NE2d 575; Perkins v. Isley, 224 NC 793, 32 NE2d 588; Bacon v. Barber, 110 Vt 280, 6 A2d 9, 123 ALR 253.

85 To function “in law” means to function where the courts reveal your position in the Law which is not restrictive, because they are involved with promoting and expanding your unalienable rights by way of constitutional mandate.

86 To function “at law” and its equity means to function where the courts declare the law which is the will of the legislature in trust with the person. It is restrictive in nature, because there is no constitutional mandate due to the fact that it operates outside the Constitution.

87 Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,page 215.