Subject: The Law
From: <Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:06:56 -0700

The Law, The Money and Your
Choice -- OR -- The Constitutionally Legal Internal Revenue
System and how you volunteered

(Note from LB: This Treatise is written so to make it understandable as
possible for the average person. Law is not an easy thing to read. It is
something that anyone will have to read several times ... each time we
read it something new jumps off the pages. I have noticed on your website
you have the Bill of Rights. The original Bill of Rights has only ten, and
this what we use to return back to the Republic. If people want to save
their property it has to be defended in a state court where you live. Yes,
the government will definitely try to get it in the federal court, but you
have to get it removed from the federal court and back to the state court,
but your status must be right. Enjoy.)

July 23, 2003

By Lee Brobst

RD1, Box 213F

Hesston, PA 16647

814-658-3117

[email-masked]

Compiled, Arranged and Edited by A.F. Beddoe

Ever since the founding of America, as a constitutional republic,
patriotic citizens of all walks of life have been increasingly concerned
about the erosion of our constitutional guarantees and why this erosion
has and still is happening. However, the continued pooling of ignorance of
patriot commentators arguing over proper form, while overlooking vital
constitutional substantive common law facts, has led to a thousand and one
procedures and ways being promulgated through the internet and seminars,
as solutions to the rampant and tyrannical legislative and judicial
activism known as “public policy.” Now, for the first time, from Lee
Brobst’s lifetime of experience and legal research, here revealed, is the
actual substantive cause that moved the American citizen away from literal
constitutional common law guarantees into the relative constitutional
franchises and privileges established by Congress’ “spirit” and “true
meaning” interpretation of the constitution. This document addresses what
the real substance of the law is and how its loss and conversion into many
forms has effectively created an unincorporated interstate banking
association. This association, which the American people have unknowingly
volunteered for, has changed the absolute substantive constitutional
rights under the common law into relative privileges and forms. These
privileges and forms, called civil rights and procedures of codes and
statutes reflect only the legislatures’ interpretation as to the true
meaning and spirit of the constitution. Read, be aware and be wise! –
Editor A.F. Beddoe

The “United States of America,” more typically referred to as the
“Union of states” began their existence under a charter known as the
Articles of Confederation, which came before the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation created states under the common law, but
created an ineffective federal government. Under the Articles of
Confederation1 Congress could not punish any infraction of the law of
nations.

The Law of Nations (also called International Law) is the law that
determines the rights and regulates the commercial intercourse of
nations.

The Articles of Confederation did not address or incorporate this “law
of nations,” vital for merchants to settle contract disputes outside the
Union of states.

Even though the Articles of Confederation were unsatisfactory for
forming a strong and proper Union of states (United States of America),
our founding fathers would never have been able to have a constitution
without them.

Incorporating the law of nations was, therefore, a vital
stepping-stone2 to creating an effective Constitution.

When the master charter, “The Constitution for the United States,” was
drawn up, the Articles of Confederation were incorporated3 into the
Constitution, by reference, under Article VI clause 1.

The “Union of states” began their new and strong union under the master
charter, known as our Constitution. The Constitution incorporates4 the
states into this Union through the provision of its Article IV Section 3
clause 1, and therefore, by reference, the Union of states is also
incorporated under the Articles of Confederation.

At the same time the Constitution announces, in Article IV Section 3
clause 2, the powers of Congress over their other property unincorporated5
(not incorporated) jurisdiction, it also announces the jurisdiction of the
Union of states under Article IV Section 3 clause 1.

Thus, we have the first designation of two kinds of territorial
jurisdictions.

The first has to do with the incorporated Union of states, addressed in
Article IV Section 3 clause 1, also known as “the territory,”6 that
functions within the strict letter of the Constitution.

The second jurisdiction, referred to as other property, in Article IV
Section 3 clause 2 is known as “a territory,” 7 remains unincorporated, or
not included, in the Union of states. Therefore, “a territory” or other
property is subject only to the “spirit” of the first ten amendments to
the Bill of Rights as interpreted by Congress as they administer unto that
other property outside the strict letter of guarantees of the Constitution
and Bill of Rights. The Constitutional guarantees are reserved for the
Union of states and the people under the Bill of Rights. In other words,
there are two jurisdictions available to exist in.

Living fully in one means that the people have full responsibility for
their own actions protected by the Bill of Rights in its absolute and
literal form. Here the federal government has no direct contact with the
people whatsoever.

Living fully within the “other” means that the people have only the
rights dictated as Congress’ wishes in overseeing their civil rights,
which are only relative to or in the “spirit” of the Bill of Rights. Here
is where the federal government has full and direct contact with the
people, as they see fit, for the benefit of public policy regulations
(known as codes & statutes) of this jurisdiction.

From the founding of the United States of America, and before the
passing of House Joint Resolution 1928 on June 5, 1933 eliminating
gold-backed money, the American money system had a “Standard” of value
based on the Coinage Act of 1792 authorized and incorporated under the
common law principles of the Constitution. This is because the basic
common law principle on which our Constitution was founded demanded that
all debt must be paid as found in Article I Section 10. In fact, Article I
Section 10 is the only place in the Constitution where demand for
“Payment” is made. Therefore, before June 5, 1933 public policy demanded
“Payment of Debts” and all payments were based on the public money
“national Standard,” herein after called “Standard.” This means that
public policy then was also based on the “Standard” -- that “Standard”
contained the literal letter of the law of the Constitution. 9

You see, for something to be “paid” means that a promise has been
fulfilled -- a contract completed. Before modern supermarkets and
department stores, the primary way of obtaining a needed item or material
was by barter. If one needed a sack of salt, they went to the person who
had the salt and would trade something they possessed of equal value for
the salt.

Because gold and silver have, from the beginning of time, been very
highly prized as a medium of exchange, our founding fathers knew it was
the only medium that could maintain and assure the “Payment of debts” in
all trade or commerce10 under the constitution. Thus, our Constitution
states under Article I Section 10, “No State shall … make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” So, if one was to use
gold or silver coin as a medium of exchange, then one could use the gold
or silver coin to trade for the salt in the example above.

This barter / trade was based on a verbal meeting of the minds
(agreement) between the person that had the salt for barter (sale) and the
person who had gold / silver, or some other item of value, to trade or
exchange for salt. When the exchange of equal value for value took place
the agreement (contract) was paid (fulfilled, complete). That is, the
contract was made and paid (fulfilled) at the same moment between two
parties. There was no debt after the barter (sale / contract) was
completed between two parties. There was nothing left owing by either
party after the transaction. Substance had been bartered for equal
substance -- value for value. There was no third party intervener11 as
there is today. This is because there was no way for the federal
government to have jurisdiction over a primary state citizen unless that
citizen was to enter into a bilateral contract with the federal
government. And even then, there was literal 10th Amendment12 protection
for the citizen in the bilateral contract, because public policy, dictated
by the substance of the common law, was still demanding the payment of
debt. Then, the governmental power could come under Article I in rem and
not the public policy of diversity13 operating quasi in rem that we see
today under HJR 192, 12 U.S.C. Section 95a, 15 U.S.C. Chapter 41 Section
1602 and Article IV Section 3 clause 2.

At the founding of the Constitution, all disputes between persons in
commerce usually had to do with unfulfilled or unpaid agreements or
contracts, therefore the law of contracts in the Constitution was founded
on the common law necessity of all contracts being fulfilled or paid when
made. Without a medium of exchange containing a predictable and measured
substance, no agreement or contract could be properly or completely paid.
If unpaid, the law of contracts was unfulfilled, incomplete or lacking,
because there was no contract without payment. The substance (gold or
silver coin) of the common law, that dictated that all contracts must be
paid in order to exist was not exchanged, therefore, a contract did not
exist. Contracts are considered to exist only when they are paid.14 It was
because of these vital principles that contracts can only be made / paid
via a medium of exchange that contains the “Standard” substance (or law
substance), that our founding fathers wrote Article 1 Section 10 to
guarantee a consistent, unchanging weight and fineness to our “gold and
silver coin” money as well as the law that follows it.

Have you ever heard the _expression, “the law of the land?”15 This
_expression was first used in the Magna Charta and meant the common law of
England, in opposition to the civil or Roman law. And according to Black’s
Law Dictionary, “The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life,
liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of general rules
which govern society.” In America the basis of all law that governs our
society is our national Constitution with its common law principles -- at
least that was what our founding fathers intended.

But what has changed since then? Well, the substance of “the law of the
land” has been removed. Yes, on June 5, 1933 congress enacted House Joint
Resolution 192 that removed the hard mineral substance known as gold, also
referred to as “portable land,” from giving consistent, predictable and
exact value to our money. Silver was demonetized as “payment” of debt in
1862 when Congress changed the silver standard from one dollar in silver
to the silver dollar. Since then silver is considered a commodity and was
finally withdrawn from circulation in 1964. Silver certificates were
withdrawn in 1972.

The hard precious metal substances known as gold and silver, used in
coins, comes from the earth. It is literally portable or movable substance
from or of the land (law). Land and law go hand in hand, because in times
past only those that owned the land had access to the portable law
substance (gold and silver) that was found in the land. Likewise, those
that owned or controlled the land made, produced or brought forth the law
“Standard” of gold and silver.

Despite HJR 192, Congress cannot override the state governments
incorporated powers under Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.
Despite current public policy, Congress cannot override an American’s
right to maintain a private policy under the common law principles as they
are expressed in the first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution. However, because the gold is the “Standard” substance of the
law, and law follows the “Standard” substance of money, when Congress,
acting under public policy, suspended the “Standard” gold substance in
“Payment” of debt, a shift away from the common law transpired by what is
called “operation of law.”16 The shift occurred because everyone was given
a quasi-corporate privilege under HJR 192 of NOT paying their debts even
though it is demanded under the common law of each state in the Union
according to Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.

A corporate privilege or franchise has two distinct aspects to it.
First, there is perpetual succession (which can exist independent and
beyond the demise of any current directors) and second, there is limited
liability for the payment of debt. This means, that similar to
corporations, HJR 192 offered individual Americans an artificial
connection to and relationship with the federal government outside the
literal common law of the constitution for the purpose of “social
security.”17 However, unlike corporations, this artificial connection and
relationship was not under any corporate charter, federal or state, as
addressed specifically under Article I Section 8 clauses 1 & 3 being
one of the government’s general powers. Rather, this relationship is
controlled under Article IV Section 3 clause 2, because there is no
physical federal or state charter issued to regulate this relationship.
This connection or confederacy developed under HJR 192 is an affiliation
known better as an association. Associations,18 according to Black’s Law
Dictionary (revised 4th), are “[a]n unincorporated society; a body of
persons united and acting together without a charter, but upon the methods
and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common
enterprise. …, but will not include the state.” And the “common
enterprise” of this unincorporated society, is to offer all Americans a
so-called “privilege,” in the form of what is better known as a “quasi
contract,”19 to participate in commerce without “Payment of debts” for
“social security” purposes. Moreover, this unincorporated society is
outside the literal common law principle that demands the “Payment of
debts” as stated in Article I Section 10, but it is allowed, upheld and
protected by Article I Section 10 that upholds “Obligation of Contracts,”
Yes, the people’s right to participate in this federated unincorporated
society by operation of law is contractually protected by the
Constitution. That is to say, each person has the right to domicile
themselves in a state of the Union under Article IV Section 3 clause 1,
thus to contract under Article I Section 10 despite the fact that you
cannot “Pay” your debts. In other words, Congress cannot compel you to
participate in a federal interstate unincorporated banking association
under Article IV Section 3 clause 2 and HJR 192 for the NON payment of
debts. The choice of law is up to each person still.

Corporations are artificial creations of the state or federal
government under physical charter (franchise) issued via state or federal
civil law for commercial regulation under Article I Section 8 clauses 1
& 3. They are not under the literal common law because of the charter
(franchise). Any legal action against the corporation is legally called an
“in rem” action, because it is against the thing or property (also called
res) of the corporation under charter. The courts have automatic subject
matter jurisdiction, because the physical charter is the subject
matter.

On the other hand, under HJR 192,20 there is no physical charter issued
by the government out of a state or federal secretaries’ of state office
that defines the federated association’s duties, responsibilities, its
officers, etc. This results in a federated association that is a quasi21
in rem unincorporated debtor’s society. The law treats this association as
an outlaw entity, to the letter of the common law for the Payment of Debt.
The courts then proceed, to uphold contract law under diversity, to
establish the association’s guide lines by invoking their equity powers
based on the “spirit” of the constitution. They will form a charitable
trust to commercially regulate the association, because it is presumed
that is what the group intended as there is no charter of incorporation.
Under the letter of the constitutional law there is no commercial
regulation, but HJR 192 along with 15 USC brought in a third party22 for
commercial regulation for the social security public policy. Remember,
“equity compels performance.” The law views unincorporated associations as
a danger to the substance of the common law, because of their debt /
credit system. This is because there is no counter balance to the demands
the association puts on the substance of the earth, thus the reason for
all the federal and state regulatory agencies.23

In other words, there is a presumption by implication in the civil law
that a charter (a metaphysical / abstract / unreal type) exists, because
persons are availing themselves (volunteering) of the privileges
pertaining to HJR 192. Therefore, these persons come under a ‘quasi in
rem’24 jurisdiction of the civil law in order to regulate, control
(including compel) those that are outside the literal common law
principles. Yes, as long as the individual remains silent, it is presumed
that they have volunteered for the non-payment of debt privilege under HJR
192, 12 U.S.C. Section 95a and 15 U.S.C. Chapter 41 Section 1602(c)(d)(e).
As such they are considered as a debtor/creditor in a social security
association (unchartered, unincorporated commune) whereby each person
insures everybody else in the association by agreeing never to demand
payment for debt. Under this volunteer arrangement, these persons become
primarily a U.S. citizen, secondarily a state citizen, “subject to” clause
1 of the 14th Amendment,25 while the literal 10th Amendment rights are
forfeited. Moreover, because this unincorporated social security (debtor)
association has participants from each state, it forms an unincorporated
federation (better known as federalism) of state associations under
interstate commerce as addressed in Article IV Section 3 clause 2 and
reinforced by Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. This is how the
Federal Government (and state governments) under “federalism” can compel
you to perform to the civil (Roman) law known as statutes (state or
federal).

Here is the answer to why the IRS continues to say that income taxes
are voluntary and yet Americans don’t know how they volunteered. HJR 192
literally placed before the American citizen a choice of law between
operating under the literal common law principles of the constitution or
the private Roman civil law functioning under federal social security
“spirit and true meaning of the Constitution.” 26 27 That is to say, there
are two jurisdictions available for the American people to choose from.
The first jurisdiction exists within the Union of states expressed under
Article IV Section 3 clause 1 where the literal letter of the Constitution
and its first 10 Amendments function to protect Americans from the public
policy of federalism. The second jurisdiction is set up through Americans
voluntarily accepting only the “spirit” (which is referred to as the “true
meaning” as interpreted by Congress) of the Constitution via social
security privileges and immunities under the implied or quasi contract in
federalism for the non payment of debt administered by Congress as public
policy of the other property jurisdiction of Article IV Section 3 clause
2. Those who have volunteered for the privileges and immunities of the
federal social debt security of the unincorporated interstate banking
associations for the non payment of debt, have no access to protection of
the strict letter of the Constitution under the first ten amendments to
the Bill of Rights, especially the 10th Amendment. (See the attached
diagram to assist your understanding.)

Before HJR 192 existed, the Federal Government could not have any
implied contact with Americans. They could only have an actual contact
through a two party (bilateral) contract. Americans were presumed to be
under Article IV Section 3 clause 128 as primary state citizens. After HJR
192, the voluntary unincorporated federal social debt security
association, known as federalism, was formed under Article IV Section 3
clause 229 supported by 15 U.S.C. Chapter 41 Section 1602 (c)(d)(e) and 12
U.S.C. Section 95a becoming the new “public policy.” That is, implied
contracts30 (see also quasi contract at footnote 19) under federalism have
become business as usual -- i.e., public policy. By you volunteering to go
along with HJR 192, there is a presumption you are primarily a U.S.
citizen under Section 1 clause 1 & 2 of the 14th Amendment with
“privileges or immunities.” Going along with HJR 192 means, you do not
have the literal letter of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights
working in your behalf. Because you have volunteered into the social debt
security unincorporated association of federalism, the courts,31 under
conflict of law (diversity) principles, look at your “life, liberty, and
property” as relative, not actual. Your “life, liberty, and property” are
converted to “privileges or immunities” and “civil rights.” As a debtor,
there is no absolute literal property ownership -- only a privilege of
possession.32 Instead of the literal constitutional law protecting you,
you are only afforded the “spirit” of the constitution as interpreted by
the courts (judicial activism) and statutes. In other words, the court
places the statute in front of the constitution and interprets the statute
and never interprets the Constitution.33 The statute was made by congress
with the Constitution in mind, thus the statute is the “spirit and true
meaning” of the Constitution as interpreted by Congress as it administers
its other property under Article IV Section 3 clause 2.

Yes, under HJR 192 the Americans have volunteered to give up their
land, because they have forfeited the “Substance” of the land for the
convenience of a federal commercial social debt security system, via the
jurisdiction of “a territorial” (“inchoate” or incomplete) state (other
property) or governmental subdivision promoting an unincorporated
interstate banking association to defer payment of debt. This is what the
milestone decision of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)34 is all
about. Erie states, the law that applies is the law of the state. This
“law of the state” means the law of “a territorial” state or governmental
subdivision operating under Article IV Section 3 clause 2. Therefore, this
volunteer debt/credit system has made the literal constitutional common
law of the state into a feudal common law (private Roman civil law) under
federalism by operating under Article IV Section 3 clause 2.

Internal Revenue taxes of today are not unconstitutional or illegal as
so many “patriot” groups are declaring. They basically serve as dues for
the privilege of participating in the federated unincorporated interstate
banking association for the non-"Payment of debts.” To understand this, it
is necessary to understand what the Supreme Court said regarding the 16th
Amendment -- known as the Income Tax Amendment. By the way, this has
nothing to do with whether it was properly ratified or not.

The key Supreme Court case that reveals this truth is known as the
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, decided in 1916. This was
decided three years after the 16th Amendment was allegedly passed and two
years after the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

The Court in the Brushaber case noted:

[T]he whole purpose of the [16th] Amendment was to relieve all income
taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source
whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which
we have given and of the decision in the [Pollock v. Farmer Loan &
Trust, 156 U.S. 429 (1895)], and the ground upon which the ruling in that
case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment
was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle
upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a
tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on
the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view
the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was
derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes,
from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to
the regulation of apportionment [Italic emphasis added].

The Pollock case that the Brushaber Court referred to, was decided at
the time the United States still had the National “Standard” money in
“Payment of Debts.” That “Standard” money in “Payment of Debts” was the
very substance (gold & silver) of the Common Law that came from the
land and was owned by the people. In other words, the federal Government
was trying to put a direct tax, without required apportionment among the
states, on income derived from the substance of the Common Law of the
states, and the Supreme Court properly declared that unconstitutional. The
Court was saying that the federal Government could not turn an untaxable
constitutional right into a taxable privilege within the common law. The
federal Government could not collect a direct tax on income unless done
thru the states by apportionment, because income taxes were direct taxes
and “paid” in the “Standard” substance of the land in hard coin (gold
& silver) of the Common Law of the State to the U.S. Treasury. The
federal Government cannot collect a direct tax from individual sovereigns,
because there is no federal common law. The common law is at the Union of
states level, because common law contract rights are all launched or begin
at the state level. (See Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet (U.S.) 658 L.Ed. 1055
(1834)).

It must be kept in mind, at the time Pollock was decided in 1895 that
there was no commercial paper money under the Federal Reserve System.
There was only our National “Standard” money. Therefore, the Pollock Court
correctly stated that taxes on real estate or rents or income of real
estate were direct taxes. Also, that taxes on personal property or income
derived from personal property were also direct taxes.

In 1916, the Brushaber Court determined that Brushaber’s income was
derived, not from the substance of the land of the Common Law, but from
the profit and gain from stocks and bonds through the use of commercial
paper issued by Union Pacific, a private corporation. That commercial
paper, in the form of stocks and bonds, was NOT “Standard” Lawful money or
legal tender of the United States in “payment” of a debt, but only a
“discharge” of an obligation via a privilege under the civil law.
Therefore, the income from this commercial “discharge” privilege was
subject to an indirect or excise tax, which was proper under the
Constitution (the same with income from stocks and bonds today).

The Pollock Court, as a test to determine whether a tax is direct or
indirect, namely:

The question whether it is a direct or an indirect tax cannot depend
upon those special events which may vary in particular cases, but the best
general rule is to look to the time of payment; and if at the time the
ultimate incidence is uncertain, then, as it appears to their lordships,
it cannot, in this view, be called direct taxation within the meaning of
the second section of the ninety-second clause of the act in question.
Attorney General v. Reed, 10 App. Cas. 141, quoted in Pollock v. Farmers’
Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 601, 632 (1895) as the test to be applied
for determining whether a tax is direct or indirect. [Bold emphasis
added]

For further understanding, we must consider once again HJR 192. Since
the inception of HJR 192, it has been against public policy to demand
“Payment of Debts -- instead, as you now know, debts are only being
“discharged”35 with the use of the commercial paper of the Federal
Reserve, i.e., Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), a.k.a. our paper money. This
discharge process means in fact and in law, that at the time of “payment …
the ultimate incidence is uncertain” and, therefore, all federal taxes
being collected are indirect or excise taxes which are within the “spirit
and true meaning” of the Constitution as interpreted by Congress for those
that have volunteered via diversity for the unincorporated interstate
banking association operating under other property of Article IV Section 3
clause 2. Moreover, whether you have volunteered unwittingly or by
conscious choice, there are steps you can begin to take for remedy. See
page 21 paragraph 2.

In addition, since HJR 192 has made gold and silver into a commodity
also, no matter how much you have of it or attempt to pay with it, you
still cannot “pay” an obligation with it, but can only “discharge” an
obligation with it just as the use of Federal Reserve Notes and other
commercial paper can do.

In reality therefore, federal taxes are simply a gift tax36 (excise) on
a privilege to pass on the gift of not paying, but rather in only
“discharging” debt for the public policy of social security via a
unincorporated interstate banking association.

Pursuant to its constitutional authority, Congress has defined “gross
income” as income “from whatever source derived.” Including “[I]ncome from
discharge of indebtedness.” 26 U.S.C. 61 (12). This Court has recognized
that “income” may be realized by a variety of indirect means. In Old
Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, (1929), the Court held
that payment of an employee’s income taxes by an employer constituted
income to the employee. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Taft
concluded that, “[t]he payment of the tax by the employe[r] was in
consideration of the services rendered by the employee and was a gain
derived by the employee from his labor.” Id., at 729. The Court made clear
that the substance, not the form, of the agreed transaction controls. “The
discharge by a third person of an obligation to him is equivalent to
receipt by the person taxed.”

When a gift is made, the gift tax liability falls on the donor under 26
U.S.C. 2502(d). When a donor makes a gift to a donee, the donor incurs a
"debt" to the United States for the amount of the gift tax. “Although
intent is relevant in determining whether a gift has been made, subjective
intent has not characteristically been a factor in determining whether an
individual has realized income.” Diedrich v. Commissioner, 457 U.S. 191
[Bold italics emphasis added]

In other words, the above quote reveals that, because the association
never demands payment, those participating never demand the law (portable
land known as gold) and the land it comes from. The participants simply
gift it on to the association and are taxed on the value that they are
privileged to pass on through this discharge.

The above quote demonstrates the consequences of signing a W4. When you
sign a W4 form or have an employer withhold any thing from your wages, it
becomes taxable income to you. The moment you sign any W-4 forms in the
past or present, or have any kind of withholding with your employer, you
admit that the debt exists, then the IRS enters into the picture as a
third party. The problem is, there is nothing that says you owe the debt,
other than HJR 192, and it only states that it is against public policy to
demand payment. Because of this situation, the government presumes you
intended to give a gift, so the government sets up a charitable trust.
When someone gives a gift, the charitable thing to do, is give a gift in
return, thus the social security trust (unincorporated association) is
born. Under federal law, when you make a gift, you have to fill out the
forms (1040) and pay the taxes on that gift.37 Signing those government
forms becomes a third party recognizance38 or Charitable Subscription Debt
Acknowledgement, where there is no judgment or record (nul tiel record39)
that the debt is owed. “A charitable subscription or pledge is binding
without proof that the promise of the subscription or pledge induced
action or forbearance or was supported by consideration.” - Salsbury v.
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 221 N.W.2d 609 (1978).

In other words, a pledge is compelled performance in equity.

Because of HJR 192 discharging all debt, the minute you touch an
evidence of debt you are considered as having created taxable income. But,
it is only prima facie evidence of income. Article I Section 10, Amendment
10 and Article IV Section 3 clause 1 are there for those who do not want
or choose to be a part of the unincorporated interstate banking
association.

Again, whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified is irrelevant
and frivolous. In addition, whether amendments to the constitution are
properly ratified, is a political question (See Coleman v. Miller, 307
U.S. 433). The 16th Amendment cannot be properly ratified pursuant to the
Constitution, because the amendment represents the civil law. And since
the introduction of the Federal Reserve Act in 1914, the 16th Amendment no
longer applies. Your compelled performance now comes through the 14th
Amendment, and Article IV Section 3 clause 2.

Also, all arguments that statutory provisions are unenacted by
Congress, or unpromulgated in the Federal Register with no published
implementing regulations or authority in the CFR are meaningless. They are
meaningless since these provisions pertain to entities that have federal
franchises issued under the authority of the Government under Article I
and do not pertain to local law under the unincorporated association
(called public policy) of Article IV Section 3 clause 2. Any cases
involving the unincorporated association (social security federalism)
under Article IV Section 3 clause 2, the courts base their decisions on
public policy. Public policy is not law per se, it is whatever the social
security association (commune) under Article IV Section 3 clause 2 wants.
The judge, in such a case, wears the hat of a private Roman officer and
acts accordingly. In other words, the judge constructs a trust. First and
foremost the social security trust must be dismantled before you attack
any other segment of the tax structure. Unless this is done the fight
becomes hopeless. The judge will take judicial notice of whatever law
forum he desires in order to fit the situation (“spirit and true meaning”)
at hand, because the Constitution, with its’ separation of powers, is not
literally applicable to either the government or a citizen participating
in the unincorporated interstate banking association. The court is merely
enforcing the citizens contract rights under Article I Section 10.

So how did you volunteer or contract for the compelled performance of
the unincorporated interstate banking association? 1) If you have given a
gift to the public policy association such as a W-4 Withholding form. 2)
If you deal in the debt/credit of the banks by sending personal checks
interstate and/or using credit cards. In other words, if you avail
yourself of the benefits of the unincorporated interstate banking
association, you are guilty by association with this association.

However, the good news is that your right to contract under Article I
Section 10 is still very much alive. This means that you cannot be
compelled to volunteer or perform in equity in lieu of “Payment” at law if
you are NOT a member of the unincorporated interstate banking association
that is deferring payment of debt. “Payment” at law deals with absolute
property rights, as does Section 1 clause 3 of the 14th Amendment. If you
are a member (by volunteering knowingly or unknowingly) of the
unincorporated interstate banking association, you are subject to Section
1 clauses 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment, which treats “discharge” as
payment in equity, because there is no constitutional injunction of
“payment” at the federal level. There is only an injunction at the state
level under Article I Section 10. Thus, even though the debt is
“discharged,” clause 3 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, along with the
9th and 10th Amendments, mandates that the states, referred to in Article
IV Section 3 clause 1, treat real property as being owned absolutely for
those who have NO 14th Amendment “privileges or immunities” resulting from
the unincorporated interstate banking association. That is to say, anyone
who has not reached in to take advantage of the “privileges or immunities”
of the unincorporated association, called federalism, has no contact or
relationship with the state or federal government and, therefore, all
property ownership is absolute.

In addition, when you are not involved with the “privileges or
immunities” (referred to in the 14th Amendment) of the unincorporated
interstate banking association, the “full faith and credit” clause of
Article IV Section 1 is in your favor. This means, any court decision of
any other state can be used as if it were a court decision of your state
with the same full legal force and effect, because you not subject to the
U.S. citizenship restrictions of the 14th Amendment, when you are not
participating in the “privileges or immunities.” If you are not subject to
“privileges or immunities” of the 14th Amendment, you have not volunteered
for “a territory” communal unincorporated interstate banking association
of federalism (termed in most state statutes as “this state”), thus there
is no residual of the debt left over, as noted in Stanek v. White, 172
Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 784, to compel performance to that association.

There is a distinction between a “debt discharged” and a “debt
paid.”

When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character
as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of
the original vitality of the debt continues to exist which may be
transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability
incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something that may be
a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise
worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by
assignment.

And how can this be? There is a very important principle, alluded to
earlier, that was stated in Digest 44. 7. 21, which was relied upon in
court, for instance, in the 1792 case of Armour v. Campbell, M. 4476 and
it states: Where he made the contract. But it is deemed to be contracted
not where it was entered into, but where payment is due [contract
performed].

So, if there was no payment, how can there be a contract to compel one
to performance? There isn’t one, because the contract is based totally on
volunteering -- as in giving a gift. Remember, the basic premise of the
Constitution is that all powers emanate from you the individual. You
cannot be compelled to perform in equity unless you volunteer to perform
in the equity of the “spirit and true meaning” of the Constitution under
the unincorporated association through the use of interstate banking and
credit cards and submitting W-4 and 1040s.

When you volunteer to use the interstate banking association in
commerce, you agree to never demand payment. The fact that you cannot pay
debt, does not compel you to be a slave to the interstate banking
association. You cannot be compelled to perform in equity in lieu of
“Payment” at law if you are NOT a member of an unincorporated banking
association. If you do not pay debt, there is only a debt / creditor
relationship and, therefore, no contract under Article IV Section 3 clause
2. Also, where there is no payment of debt there is no common law as
expressed under Article IV Section 3 clause 1 and Article 1 Section 10,
there is only equity,40 and equity compels performance under Article IV
Section 3 clause 2 while Article 1 Section 10 does not apply.

Remember, it is about contract and you do have free will to contract.
So where do you want to function? Under the “spirit” of the constitution,
as determined by Congress’ and the courts’ interpretation, so acting
because of diversity? Or do you want to be living as a true sovereign
under the literal letter of the Constitution and the first ten amendments
to the Bill of Rights?

As noted in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 the Court said: This brings
us to inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation
rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what without its
operative effect. Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the
right which the Constitution protects, we find that when private property
is ‘affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only’.
… Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a
manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at
large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the
public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in
that use and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common
good, to the extent of interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his
grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he
must submit to the control.”

By participating in the gifting of discharge of debt via the interstate
banking association, you have devoted your property, under contract, “to a
use in which the public has an interest.” In other words, your life,
liberty and property have “become clothed with a public interest,” because
of voluntary contract, therefore, you must “submit to be controlled by the
public for the common good.” That is to say, public policy and judicial
discretion in the “spirit” of the constitution only control -- no
guarantees.

How does one become sovereign? Get rid of your credit cards. Only use a
bank for depositing checks and keeping track of your money under a non
interest-bearing account. Never send or allow your personal checks to go
interstate. Use postal money orders or your banks corporate certified
checks or corporate money orders for sending interstate payments. Sever
the contract by commencing an action in the state court and disclaim
clauses 1 & 2 of Section 1 to the 14th Amendment; 15 U.S.C; Article IV
Section 3 clause 2. The state court is the only place you have the common
law option of obtaining jurisdiction41 without the use of a statute or
Roman civil law. You fight the IRS in state court using federal law. You
should never be in federal court unless in the Supreme Court. If defending
in a federal court action, you must challenge service of process and
subject matter jurisdiction. And simply remember this, HJR 192 is only
prima facie evidence of the law. To overcome it you invoke your right to
contract under Article I Section
10.