Common Law

Our American Common Law
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
Portions of this publication are copyrighted by Delta Spectrum Research. Permission is hereby granted to any individual or entity to copy this booklet as long as it is presented in its entirety and no pages, quotations, or text are omitted, and that this copyright notice appears in its original form on all copies. Copyright (C) 1992-2010 Delta Spectrum Research

Our goal is to bring this important message to as many Americans as possible.

Want to learn more about The Law? Join our discussion list.

Our American Common Law
by Howard Fisher and Dale Pond
Common Law is a real thing. It is a real system of laws derived from centuries of work, study and sacrifice of millions of people. It is not trivial and inconsequential as some would have you think. It is the Common Law that is most represented within Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Our Bill of Rights. These documents were designed to limit and eliminate the vicious Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Law which was what we revolted against as Our Revolution against the totalitarianism of England. Did you know the Anglo-American system (Our system) of jurisprudence is the only one which developed out of what is called the Common Law, that is, the general law of private property known in the British Isles? It is true - Common Law was designed through the centuries to secure the rights of individuals (you and me) to property and to make it difficult for property to be taken away from us by a government or governmental structure (bureaucracy) without due process of law. The Common Law was expounded over the years in hundreds of thousands of case decisions as a result of trials in which the Common Law jury acted as the Judges, and in which they exercised the authority to hear and decide

questions of both Law and fact. Common Law deals with legal relationships, powers and liabilities, and types of actions rather than theoretical definitions of abstract legal concepts. The Common Law was recognized by Our Founding Fathers and is the basis of all law in America today. The Common Law recognizes the Power of Government lies in the common people and not in an elite group of power brokers. It is the terrible Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Laws (laws of contract) that steals this power from the people and centralizes it into the hands of a few power oriented men. The Common Law deals in real property whereas the Equity Laws deal in written abstractions of performance (agreements or contracts). In other words, Masters own their own property, work and destiny. We are all Masters when we truly own our own property. Slaves do not own property, they usually rent property of another and are compelled to perform upon or with that rented (tenured) property according to some agreement or contract. It is from such controversies involving property that all of our Rights have come. Property is known as Substance at the Common Law, and includes hard Money in the form of gold and silver coin as required by Our federal Constitution and every other State Constitution as they were all drafted to be in perfect harmony one with another. Controversies involving these matters carry with them a Law jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which all of our Rights are found. The Judge in a Court of Common Law is an impartial referee of the dispute, and he is bound to protect the Rights of the parties to the dispute, or he will have lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had, or claimed to have had. It is the Jury who decides whether or not the Facts of the case are valid and they also decide the Law - does it apply? Is it correct for this case?, etc. Only judges acting under equity law can decide law... You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT. To see the civilian flag click here. Gold and silver Coin are the only Things recognized at Law (within our Constitution) to be real and lawful money. Money is Substance in possession and not a Chose (thing) in action. When a debt is paid, at Law, the debt is extinguished; debt no longer exists; the debt is paid. Debt can only be paid with gold and silver Coin, or certificates redeemable on demand, at par, in gold and silver Coins. This is the legal meaning of the expression "tender in payment of debt", as found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States. Federal Reserve Notes are not money - they are bills/notes and/or certificates of indebtedness as each and every one of them are owed back to the Federal Reserve Bank who lent them to Us - plus interest. Thomas Jefferson placed great emphasis on the concept of Rights. He said we did not bring the English Common Law, as such, to this continent; we brought the Rights of Man as evidenced through and by the tried and true ancient system of Common Law. The Common Law of the States of the United States is the Common Law of England adopted by the original Constitution of the United States, so far as not modified by any alterations made by the Constitution of the State at the time of admission to the Union, and so far as not in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America.

And the Common Law of the States may not be modified, limited nor abrogated either by an act of the legislature (Congress or State Legislature) or by a ruling of some judge or by any county board of commissioners or any other servant to the people. Federal and state bureaucracies are constantly writing and presenting code, rules or statutes in an attempt to circumvent the original Common Law foundation of Our Constitution. A major part of the problem that we are in is a result of these unlawful attempts by legislatures, judges and bureaucracies to modify or abrogate Common Law and thus Our Constitution. While, in England, this Law was derived from feudal tenures in real property as held by a pyramid of proprietors (land owners) holding their rights given them from the King (or Crown) on down the line. The American Revolution destroyed any and all allegiance to the British Crown, including the rights of property in land, and all feudal tenures and dues were overthrown. All Rights of property in land in the United States became ALLODIAL TITLES in Allodial Freehold, existing under no lord or overlord whatsoever, including the authority of the Colony or State. The ties that bound property use or ownership to a higher or superior power were entirely and completed severed, destroyed and made as though they never existed. This is the reason why our founding fathers considered that they had made every man a "King" on his own property. They got rid of the controls from the King and 'castle keep' owners (feudalism) within property ownership. In England, William Pitt summarized the concept of private property under Common Law, as follows: 'The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. " As a result of all of this, the Common Law of the States is founded and grounded upon substantive titles in real property. No mere legislative enactment by Congress or State Legislature nor judicial ruling by Federal or State Courts can operate to deprive the People of their Rights at Law. This includes their Rights inherent in their Allodial Land Titles and to be Merchants and/or Traders at Law on the cash basis, and their Rights to access to Courts of Law and to a jurisdiction where their Rights are protected. In the same vein no county or city ordinance, code, rule, policy, regulation or 'law' can override these same absolute guarantees. The same applies to corporate or private policies of business conduct which are often used to override Common Law or Constitutional guarantees. In other words, business or corporate policy cannot supersede Constitution Rights even though nearly every corporation in America ignores Our Constitution in pursuit of ever more bogus Federal Reserve Notes. As contrasted with the Common Law of England, the system of law as practiced on the Continent of Europe (European Common Market) is called Civil Law, or Roman Civil Law, which is derived from the Law of the Ecclesiastical Chancellors. This is partly the ancient Law of Rhodes, the law of merchant traders upon commercial documents. The Civil Law is prosecuted by the Chancellor (the King's agent); he is not an impartial referee of the dispute. This Civil Law of Roman origin has never been part of the Laws of England and has been declared not of the Laws of the Realm by the Parliament and by many experts of England in jurisprudence, such as Coke, Blackstone and Sir John Fortescue.

"The Common Law is absolutely distinguished from the Roman or Civil Law systems. " People v Ballard 155 NYS 2d 59 The Roman Civil Law has always been outside of Common Law, operating on SUMMARY PROCESS, in gross violation of our RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS. As English society developed over the years, situations were met in the Common Law for which the Courts could provide no relief by any precedent. The controversies did not involve property, or substance. The parties thus had no other recourse than to go to the King. And when they did, he delegated his first minister to solve these problems. The minister was called a Chancellor (the same title as used on the Continent) and the relief granted was called Equity. This "Equity" meant what would be fair if the Common Law principle were extended and applied to the case at hand, as the Chancellor, in his sole discretionary judgment, chose to do. This is the so- called "law" we see being applied by "Judge" Wapner in the well known fake TV court program. He alone decides the law and facts of each case. There thus developed in England and America two distinct systems of law and courts, each having a peculiar and particular application and jurisdiction. Equity is a jurisdiction in which the individual does not have any Rights, and one to which the individual can be subjected only if he volunteers or gives his informed consent. In the Common Law we have recognized inherent rights whereas in the Equity Law we have no rights whatsoever except those which may be bestowed upon us by the graces of the chancellor -(judge) wholly at his sole discretion. In Equity there are no jury trials. The powers of the Common Law jury to hear and decide questions of both Law and Fact are exercised exclusively by the Chancellor. However, there may be "advisory juries" to advise the Chancellor of certain facts, but they are not permitted to hear any arguments regarding the Law. (Does this sound familiar today?) The controversies are decided by the Chancellor, who, besides being the Chief Prosecutor, (or Inquisitor, if you will), can go to any source he chooses, even to his own "conscience", to prove or justify his decision. In Equity, the parties do not have any Rights; the Constitution is stated by the Chancellor to be "frivolous"; and any so-called "rights" in his Court are actually "privileges" granted by the Chancellor, which he can also take away. Today this all powerful person is not called a Chancellor. She/He is called a Judge and she/he operates in all levels of "courts" throughout Our Land. During the past century, the Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several States, as well as the Judges have presumed to exercise the authority to "merge" the procedures of Law and Equity. This is authority they do not have, yet this, too, is part of the problem we face today all over Our Land. When we realize that a Court of Common Law proceeds "according to the course of the Common Law ", and that the parties have a Right to trial by a Common Law jury, where the jury exercises the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and Fact, we can then know that if we are in a Court where the procedures have been "merged" with Equity, then we can know that we are not in a Court of Common Law ! Such a court does not recognize and refuses, to We The People, our Constitutional Rights to self and property.

For instance, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article V, Section 6, states, in part, as follows: "The District Court shall be a court of law and equity, which shall be distinct and separate jurisdictions, . . . ." Obviously, the two court systems have not been lawfully merged, and We The People do not have to accept the idea that they have been merged simply because a 'judge" or bureaucrat says a code, rule, statute or regulation makes it so. Remember that these lesser rules and regulations MUST be in harmony with the State and federal Constitutions in order to be valid and lawful. Otherwise they are null and void. We must realize that the principles of Common Law and of Equity are those as distinguished and defined in England, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any modifications in definition or practice of either Law or Equity in England since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America have no significance, bearing or authority in the United States, since we are no longer under the jurisdiction of either Parliament or the Judges of England. Yet there are those in this country who claim that Equity jurisdiction (otherwise known as Chancery jurisdiction) in this country is the same in nature and extent as Equity jurisdiction in England! Where the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa, or of any State, mentions "law", it means "Common Law"; it does not mean any other "kind" of law! ! In addition to the above mentioned jurisdictions of Law (meaning Common Law ) and Equity, which are the only Judicial jurisdictions authorized either by the Constitution of the United States of America, or by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, or of any State, as drafted in conformance thereto, and being second thereto, there is also a private, political jurisdiction which is operative only on those who volunteer into it's private domain, outside of the Constitution. It is known as Law Merchant (lex mercatoria) the private rule of the bankers and merchants. It is this system of 'legal' snares that has all of We The People by the throat...." Law Merchant is neither Law nor Equity, but is only raw, private, political power, alien and illegal to our Constitution whatsoever, and operates outside of the Constitution . The Law Merchant is an independent, parallel system of law, like Equity or Admiralty. The Law Merchant is not even a modification of the Common Law; it occupies a field over which the Common Law does not and never did extend. Common Law deals with the Money of Substance belonging to the People (Gold and Silver Coins); while the Law Merchant deals with the law of Bills, Notes and Checks, (in other words, with negotiable instruments and commercial paper). The Law Merchant is closely allied to the Equity system of agreements and contracts which it uses extensively because the Constitutions of Our States recognizes Equity law. Equity Law is the 'back door' used by Law Merchants (bankers, etc.) to gain access to what used to be Allodial Title or absolute ownership previously enjoyed by all Americans. Our Declaration of Independence charges that America had been progressively subjected to "a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" (meaning the unwritten English Constitution), This foreign jurisdiction was a jurisdiction of lawless ad hoc equity derived out of the Roman Civil Law under the stark cover of such obscenities as the Writs of Assistance (which our Courts of today also claim to have the authority to issue) which allowed summary plundering of the colonists' wealth and substance TO

THE ADVANTAGE OF the East India Company which controlled the Parliament. (As today, it allows the summary plundering of the American citizens' wealth and substance TO THE ADVANTAGE OF the banks and other financial (lending, insurance, etc.) institutions which control the Congress and State legislatures). It has been recognized and stated for over one hundred years that "we have the best Congress that money can buy." These Writs, even as only one wrong perpetrated by the commercial interests in the Parliament, were given authority by an Equitable jurisdiction called a debt action in assumpsit. This action, which gave satisfaction pursuant to the customs of the Law Merchant, (having been voluntarily entered into), had been an old debt action triable in a Court of Common Law (merely as a courtesy of the Common Law Courts, and not inherently a part of Common Law) (and triable by a Common Law Jury, as a protection to the Defendant), until lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, in 1760, arbitrarily and on his own authority, denied trial by jury in debt actions in assumpsit AND REMOVED THAT ACTION FROM THE Courts of Common Law into the Courts of Equity, where a trial by jury could not be had, and where there was merely a summary proceeding with no semblance of a "due process of Law". In other words, a merchant can, with a flick of his Pen, deprive anyone of their property without due process of Law (Common Law). Sound familiar? This case is known as: Moses y MacFerian 2 Burroughs 1005 and is the case that sparked the American Revolution and caused Thomas Jefferson to say that English law since that date (1760) should not ever be used over here as Equity/Merchant laws had become an instrument through which merchants could, from then on, assume power over anyone else's property solely at their discretion and whim. It was this Equitable debt action in assumpsit which the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was specifically meant to outlaw, by specifically providing that "In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." The significance of this is pointed up by the fact that any controversy involving Money (Gold and Silver Coins) in an amount greater than twenty dollars, or any property such as real estate can only be tried in a Court of Common Law with the right of trial by jury who decides Law as well as the Facts of the case! This means that any Mortgage Foreclosure action can be tried only in a Court of Common Law, and that the State Legislature has no Constitutional authority to provide, by statute (statutes are not real Law but are in reality 'color' of Law only and therefore are only binding on a voluntary or mutually agreed upon basis), that mortgage foreclosure actions shall be Equity actions! This means that Sheriff's Sales as a result of these Equitable Mortgage Foreclosure actions are null and void! ! And that the Sheriffs have participated in criminal confiscation of real property in violation of the Constitution and of their oaths of office! ! So, it can be seen that summary and arbitrary confiscation of income and property is nothing new in American tradition and history out of an illicit (meaning unlawful and unconstitutional) Equitable

jurisdiction. It is precisely this Equitable jurisdiction wherein the Chancellor enforces the combination of unconstitutional Executive and Legislative Equity which is the jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution referred to in the Declaration of Independence. This is precisely what our American Revolution was all about and what our Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. It is also a measure of the extent that the Bankers (both foreign and domestic) and other merchants, and their stooges, the lawyers and Judges, as well as the politicians of both major political parties, have betrayed the Public Trust and have attempted to place us in a Dictatorship of Unelected Rulers (being the "judges" and bureaucrats) ! ! Thus it can be seen that there is a direct similarity of our political/legal situation today with what it was in the years immediately preceding the Revolution of 1776. Only today we have a written Constitution that spells out our Rights and our freedoms, giving us precedents, whereas two hundred years ago they did not. The Common Law Jury members (acting as judges of the Law) were sworn to "Do equal law, and execution of Right, to all the King's subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person" and that they will deny no man Common Right; but they were NOT sworn to obey or execute any statute of the King, or of the King and Parliament. Indeed, they are virtually sworn NOT to obey or execute any statutes that are against "Common Right", or contrary to the Common Law, or "Law of the Land"; but to certify the King thereof "... that is, to notify the King that his statutes are against the Common Law;.... and then proceed to execute the Common Law, notwithstanding such legislation to the contrary. The words of the oath on this point are these: "That we deny no man Common Rights by (virtue of) the King's letters, nor none other mans', nor for none other cause; and in case any letters come to you contrary to the Law, (that is, the Common Law) that ye do nothing by such letters, but certify the King thereof, and proceed the execute the Law (that is, the Common Law), notwithstanding the same letters" In Federalist Papers #48, Alexander Hamilton wrote in part, "No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid." "The Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as a fundamental law." The Sheriff is also a servant of the People, elected and paid by and for Them; upon taking office he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution (the People's Law) and keep the peace. In American Jurisprudence, on Sheriffs, Police and Constables, we find the following: Origin of office: The office of sheriff is an ancient one, dating back to at least the time of Alfred, King of England, and the holder thereof has always been the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace in his shire or county. He is a county officer representing the executive or administrative power of the state within his county. In this country, the office is generally an elective one, and anciently in England, sheriffs were elected by freeholders of the county, although gradually, it became the custom for the Crown to appoint the Sheriff." Abraham Lincoln stated the following on February 12, 1865: "The people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, and any statute to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a statute violating it to be valid. In such a dispute, one must prevail, and that is the Constitution . In Volume 16, American Jurisprudence, 177, we find the following: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. " The Constitution guarantees the right of a freeholder to protect his property from Criminal Trespass.

Civil law or equity law is the law of the ruler;
Common Law is the law of the people.
It is the sworn duty of the Sheriff to obey and uphold the Constitution and to protect the property and Rights of the freeborn, Sovereign American individuals of the County. County Sheriffs must be advised of the instances where unlawful acts of officials or agencies of government are committed. It is the duty of the Sheriff to protect the local citizens from such unlawful acts, even when they are committed "under color of law". There is no lawful authority for Judges and the Courts to direct the law enforcement activities of a County Sheriff. The Sheriff is accountable and responsible only to the citizens who are inhabitants of his County. He is under Oath of Office, and need not receive unlawful Orders from Judges or the Courts. He is responsible to protect citizens, even from unlawful acts of officials of government. He should not allow his office to be used as an unlawful "lackey" of the Courts or Federal agents or agencies. We Are Our Government Since the formation of our Republic, the local County (or Parish) has always been the seat of government for the body politic (the People). A County (or Parish) government is the highest authority of government in our Republic as it is closest to the body politic (the People) who are, in fact, THE GOVERNMENT.

The Common Law of the States is founded and grounded upon substantive titles in real property, and no mere legislative enactment by Congress, State legislature or County Commissioners. Neither can judicial ruling by Federal, State or County Courts operate to deprive the People of their Rights at Law, including the Rights inherent in their Allodial Land Title Rights. The Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of Equity; Judicial Equity is authorized; but nowhere does the Constitution of the United States of America authorize a single bit of either Federal Executive branch of government Equity jurisdiction, or Federal Legislative branch of government Equity jurisdiction. In other words, the promulgation and enforcement of Presidential/Congressional/Judicial edicts, dictates, rules, regulations or policies whether directly or through any Federal agent or agency such as the FBI, CIA, EPA, OSHA, IRS, etc. or with the aid and assistance of State or local lackeys is unauthorized. For instance, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as drafted in conformance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and being second thereto, Article V, Section 6, authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of Equity; Judicial Equity is authorized; but nowhere does the Constitution of the State of Iowa authorize a single bit of either State Executive branch of government Equity jurisdiction or State Legislative branch of government Equity jurisdiction. The Federal Bill of Rights was drawn and adopted to guarantee an estoppel (or bar) to the abhorrent Federal Executive and Legislative Equity jurisdiction, and therefore, the State Bill of Rights is also a guaranteed estoppel against any actual or de facto abhorrent State Executive and Legislative Equity jurisdiction; this is an abhorrent and oppressive Equity, because it purports to be able to administer, adjust and deny said Common Law Rights without first pursuing the appropriate remedy at Common Law and thus denying due process. Equity administration is in fact theft of Our Rights and a vicious dictatorship by those who exercise it. In other words, Federal, Stale and County governments, both Executive branch and Legislative branch, must be at Law working within the Common Law), and may not impose any form of Equity jurisdiction upon the People, by compulsion, fraud or otherwise, without their knowledge and informed consent; otherwise any such enactments become and are nullities and do not exist at Law, because the Rights of freeborn, Sovereign American individuals would be violated if they were to be forced to obey them. If any agency of the Federal, State or County government, including the court, would act as if it were Principal, and Freeman, against it's true Principal, the People, this would be an inversion of the legal principle of Sovereignty of the People. By so acting, any agency of the government, including the court, would be a pretender to the power, and as a pretender, it's acts would be a nullity and would not exist, at Law; that is to say, that it would be null and void, and of no force and effect, at Law. That, in fact, it would not be government at all, but would be a private, criminal operation, imposing a rule of force, fraudulently pretending to be government, since, in this country, the only legitimate function of government is to protect the Rights and freedoms of the People. Such acts are not unlike the privately owned and operated Mafia who demands our money (taxes, fees, etc.) in exchange for them not committing violence against us or our property. Sound familiar?

Each freeborn, Sovereign American individual has the authority and the Right to deny and to disavow all Equity jurisdiction, and to refuse to acquiesce to the jurisdiction of Courts of Equity, or to Equity jurisdiction of any Executive or Legislative branch of government agency or agent, State or Federal or County. The Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4, guarantees a Republican Form of government to every State. The definition of a "Republic" is as follows: "Republic: A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them; " Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition . The Courts of Iowa are nullities, and do not exist, either at Law or in Equity, because unelected State Judges have no jurisdiction at Law or in Equity, over any one or any thing, being in direct violation of each freeborn, Sovereign American individual's Right to a Republican Form of Government; which in this case is his Right to have an Elected Judge. This also includes the Right to Separation of Powers, because the Governor, as Chief Executive of the State, has no Judicial Power to delegate to an appointee. The Governor is of the Executive branch and has (lawfully) no say or jurisdiction within or over the Judicial branch. The Governor of this or any other State is not a Chancellor (appointed by a King or dictator), nor are any officials appointed under him authorized to exercise any Judicial powers. There can be no delegated power in Chancery law to be executed under the alien, outlawed and illegal Roman Civil Law, unless agreed to by the freeborn, Sovereign American individual. That evil and alien jurisdiction, the de facto Equity jurisdiction of the Roman Civil Law, allows judges to enforce the unlawful summonses of IRS agents, Highway Patrol Officers, city policemen, building inspectors, OSHA agents, FDA agents, and the agents of all other equally unlawful regulatory bodies of so-called government, who attempt to impose a jurisdiction in which the Rights of freeborn, Sovereign American individuals are unrecognized and violated. That evil and vicious Roman Civil Law allows the 'judges' to have We The People arrested, jailed, and property taken away from us, or our property to be criminally trespassed upon and destroyed; all without a Common Law Trial by Jury, or just compensation, or due process of law. These violent acts by unelected dictators are committed often over simple idiocies such as "willful failure to file" a paper or failure to properly fill out a form or unknowingly not following some obscure and stupid procedure, rule or regulation. Under the Common Law (Our Constitution), no bureaucrat can dictate what happens to Our liberty or Our property. The only entity that can determine punishment (pass sentence) upon a freeborn, Sovereign American individual is a lawfully constituted Common Law Jury. Aiding and abetting the IRS (foreign agents to the States) and similar agencies in enforcing their unlawful summonses, fraudulent liens and assessments constitute an enforcement of the alien and evil Roman Civil Law and is in fact fascist totalitarianism.

Compelling a freeborn, Sovereign American individual to do anything, except upon the verdict of a Common Law Jury, constitutes an enforcement of the alien and evil Roman Civil Law and is in fact fascist totalitarianism. Thomas Jefferson has been credited with the warning how the judicial branch of government would usurp the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and turn the country into a judicial dictatorship. He was right - it has happened.

They Stole Our Gold (Money)!
"All of the confusions and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit [paper money] and circulation." John Adams (1781) So began admonishments to us from 200 years ago by one who knew what awaited his countrymen (us). What has happened to Our money is criminal. In fact, it is beyond criminal and nearly beyond credibility. Just after World War II America had nearly one billion ounces of gold coin in circulation and untold millions of ounces of silver coins. These metals in circulation represented real undiluted debt-free capital. It was ours and we owed no one anything for it. This $400,000,000,000 pool of liquid capital belonged to private American citizens and represented the wealth of our great nation. What happened to all this wealth? Before most of us were born money was a real thing. It was gold and silver coin as specified by Our Constitution, the founding law of Our country: ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 "The Congress shall have the power ... to coin Money, regulate the value thereof" ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (paper money); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." In other words no federal or state government was permitted, by law, to mint or issue anything other than gold and silver coins as lawful money. Neither are they permitted to accept or pay debts with anything other than gold and silver coin. What? Where did all this paper come from and what is it if it isn't Money? Listen up - this gets real interesting... Well guess what happened? If you are lucky enough to have any 'money' in your pocket take it out and examine it. On the front (near the portrait) of the bill you will find the words: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Across the lop of the bill you will read the words: "Federal Reserve Note". Nowhere on this bill are the words: gold, silver or money. This is because this bill is not money as defined by Our Constitution (see above). It is not money at all. It says what it is - it is a note issued by a private, tax-exempt, for profit bank - the Federal Reserve Bank(s). Which are all owned privately by people living outside of America.

A 'note' is: 'a paper acknowledging a debt or promising to pay (also called note of hand); also a certificate, as of a government or a bank, passing current as money.' The portion "passing current as money" means passing from one person to another and generally accepted as money. This implies that it is not money but is only accepted as money. It is the Constitution that defines what real money is: it is gold and silver coin. The bill in your pocket is in actuality an instrument of debt - it is owed to somebody - The Federal Reserve Banks and their foreign owners. "Money is not only a medium of exchange, but it is a standard of value. Nothing can be such standard which has not intrinsic value, or which is subject to frequent changes in value." Justice Fields (1883) Now so much for definitions. What does paper or metal money have to do with anything? Are you working harder now and enjoying it less? Are you really better off now then when you began working so many years ago? Are your children making it better or worse than you did when you started out? Why does it take two people working very hard to not make ends meet worse now than when one was working in the 50s and 60s? The answer to this question lies in the money. Our money has become nearly worthless. Remember back in the late 60s a new Volkswagen bug cost less than $2,000. Today that same car (with a different body) cost about $7,000. These are the same 'dollars' you have in your pocket. A soda pop cost a nickel back then and now how much is the very same item? Herein lies the evilness of paper money. The Federal Reserve Banks (and their stooges) can print as much of it as they want whenever they want. This flooding the market (your pocket) with more and more cash is called 'fractional reserve' banking when coupled with the local bank's privilege of signing money into existence whenever they want more to lend some to you. It is a fantasy that Our government prints (issues) money. It really works like this: The US Congress desires to spend (that' s how they stay in office) more money to buy our votes. There is a problem here as there is no money because the Congress of 1913 gave their own Constitutional right to coin real money away to a bunch of foreign bankers - the Federal Reserve Banks. The Congress must request the Federal Reserve to issue and then lend them (Us) some Federal Reserve notes. The privately owned, tax exempt Federal Reserve Bank lends these notes to the U.S. Government (you and me and our children and neighbors). The tax-exempt Fed only pays the U.S. Treasury about 3 cents per bill for these (regardless of denomination) as printing cost. But when we get these funny pieces of paper we have to pay the full face value back with our blood sweat and tears PLUS ANY INTEREST the thieves think is appropriate for them. Guess what didn't happen in this transaction? The thieving Fed never printed the interest! So we can maybe pay back 100% of what we borrowed but there are no more Fed notes to pay the interest! Every time Our government employees borrows more from the private Fed we get further and further into debt - a debt that can never be paid! "The burden of debt is as destructive to Freedom as subjugation by conquest." Benjamin Franklin In the beginning we paid this bogus and illegal debt with real money - gold - until it was all gone on March 9, 1933 when Roosevelt literally, willfully and without due process of law took the gold away from the American citizen (Us) and gave it to the bunch of thieves at the Fed in exchange for paper. Paper which could only do one thing - put us further into irretrievable debt. Why put America into deeper and deeper debt? Reread Franklin's quote in the previous paragraph.

The idiotic process continued until 1968 when they took the balance of our silver to pay for even more of these worthless notes. "If Americans ever allow banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless." Thomas Jefferson On June 5, 1933, as a result of a prearranged banking crisis, the Congress of the United States passed House Joint Resolution No. 192, suspending the Gold Standard (they did not abolish it), which means they disestablished the fixed content of the Gold Dollar and took away the Law jurisdiction of the U. S. Standard Dollar Lawful Money. In effect, the entire country, every State and every freeborn, Sovereign American individual, became insolvent and was effectively put into bankruptcy, making it impossible for each State and each individual to either pay their debts, at Law, or to be paid, at Law. This was, in actuality, a criminal act of usurpation of the sovereignty of We The People, by Congress.

Merchant Law
Instead of being able to demand payment at Law, or to make payment in Standard Gold Dollars as Lawful money, or the equivalent Treasury currency, redeemable on demand, at Par, We The People were forced on to the credit of the private banks, the Federal Reserve Banks and the commercial banks, and began to pass around their debt instruments, as though it were real money, making use of their debt-claims for the money, and thereby, by the operation of House Joint Resolution No, 192, into an alien and unlawful Federal Executive Equity Jurisdiction, known as lex mercatoria, or the Law Merchant, which is the private rule of the bankers, and from which jurisdiction our forefathers fought, and won, a revolution to be free, and from which jurisdiction our Constitution and Bill of Rights protects Us. When you can pay your debts in Standard Gold Dollars, you operate on a cash basis in a Federal Common Law jurisdiction based on Article I, Section 10, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America regarding tender in payment of debts. This is the General Federal Common Law jurisdiction deriving from the Union, which the Bill of Rights was designed to protect, particularly the Seventh Amendment which guarantees the Right of Trial by Common Law Jury in suits at Common Law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. But, when you pass around evidences of debt as if it were the money itself, you are passing around the debt-claims for the money, and you no longer have a jurisdiction at Law, where the individual has access to his Rights, but you are in an entirely different court, or jurisdiction. You are in an Equity jurisdiction, one in which the individual does not have any Rights. And this is the practical effect which Congress intended to bring about by passing House Joint Resolution No. 192. Even one hundred years ago it was stated that "we have the best Congress that money can buy". "Paper Money is Theft!" George Washington By the operation of House Joint Resolution No. 192, individuals, and States, have been compelled to "perform services", in order, not to pay (no one could "pay" anymore because there was no real money with which to "pay"), but to "discharge obligations" to pay.

What is called "fractional reserve banking", with irredeemable paper, creates multiple demands upon a common substance. That is, banks can issue or create "money" simply by making a ledger entry. These newly created dollars (ledger entries) are "backed" by the same few dollars already held on deposit. In fact a bank, can "create" 20 dollars for every one on deposit, lend them to you, collect the principle and interest and then simply write the money back into nonexistence. In other words, you are forced at the point of the Sheriff's gun to pay for something that was created out of thin air - plus interest. With multiple demands, no one can ever satisfy all his claims and no one can ever "pay" at Law in substance, that is, with Standard Gold Dollars, but instead, can only "perform services" as evidence of his willingness to "discharge the obligation to pay". Payment, as such, is thus forever postponed; one only promises the payment. Overnight, the entire country was placed in an entirely new regime of Equity, which never "pays" a thing but only compels services forever to the private banks, and the debts to private bankers constantly increases, the interest obligations, known as "debt service", constantly compounds and the performance of services in order to "discharge the obligation to pay" this interest are never- ending, being a greater and greater burden upon ourselves and our children, and our children's' children. In other words, a feudalistic real property law, in the guise of Equitable discharge of obligations to tender in Equity and not "pay" at Law, was instituted in violation of our Allodial Property Rights, and compels Sovereign American individuals into a feudalistic peonage, or involuntary servitude to the private banks (Federal Reserve Banks, National Banks, State Banks), in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Because of the jurisdiction of the Law Merchant, we are not under Common Law, we do not have access to our Right to a Common Law Jury, and as a result our property can be, and every day is, taken without due process of Law. If we do not "perform the services" our property is taken from us by Equity courts imposing the Law Merchant.

Compelled performance is in fact slavery.
The Sheriff, in unknowing and unthinking acceptance of this situation, has become the "bag man" for a bunch of private criminals, and thereby is committing crimes himself, and is therefore a criminal. It is a crime to violate Constitutional Rights and his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of his own State, it being drafted in conformance thereto, and being secondary thereto. The Banks, including the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks, are incorporated by the State and operate under Banking Statutes (you will notice I do not use the word Laws), These statutes allow, or at least do not prohibit, the creation of "demand deposits" or "checkbook money", which is not really money, but is actually credit, or debt, created on the spot out of thin air on two levels. One by the Federal Reserve Banks (they write checks on themselves, thereby creating Federal Reserve Credit "out of thin air", in order to "purchase investments", such as U. S. Government Securities. These then become part of the National Debt, and provide the banking system with new Reserves). On the strength of these newly purchased Securities, they are able to obtain from the Treasury, newly printed Federal Reserve Notes, to cover the new checks when they are cashed. They only have to tender about three cents for each new Federal Reserve Note regardless of denomination. They are practically given the new paper Notes and they still hold the Bonds, which are part of the National Debt, and collect interest on them. The second level is by the local commercial bank which creates bank credit, denominated

"demand deposits", every time they make a loan. The Federal Reserve Bank (is a private AngloGerman-American owned corporation. It is for-profit, and is tax-exempt!) creates public credit (National Debt), while the commercial banks create private credit (private debt) when they make a loan. The Federal Reserve Note, at least the one issued in accordance with Title 12, United States Code, Section 411, which requires that they "shall be obligations of the United States and shall be redeemable on demand . . .", has a double jurisdiction. It is what you may call a legal tender for an equitable interest. That means it passes at Law as money, being a legal tender, but the only interest it passes along is a mere demand or promise. Hence, though it is "legal" or at Law, it never pays the gold because of House Joint Resolution No. 192, which illegally and criminally prohibited payment of the U. S. Standard Dollar Lawful Money, at par, and thus at Law. It should be noted that Congress did not (could not) take away our Rights to use bank notes at Law, or demand deposits at Law; they just took away our money. We have a Right, to take a twenty dollar bill, which means a bill for twenty dollars, into a bank and demand a twenty dollar gold piece. Congress did not take that Right away; since we have unalienable Rights which cannot be taken from us or be forced to give them up; Congress just took away the gold. This was and is a criminal usurpation of the Sovereignty of We The People on the part of Congress; and the State of Iowa, and each other State, by allowing it to happen at that time, and by continuing to allow it to happen to this date, has become party to this crime against We The People. Instead of going into bankruptcy, everyone, including the States, was provided with the opportunity to use the new Federal Reserve Notes, called (incorrectly) "lawful money" grounded in perpetual debt of the "eligible paper" which formed the assets of the Federal Reserve and the National Banks, These are also known as "units of monetized debt". Everyone thus became the creditor/debtor of everyone else, since no one has paid or been paid for anything since that infamous day of June 5, 1933 when Roosevelt willfully and knowingly stole Our gold and gave it to a bunch of foreign bankers. (Lawfully, debts can only be paid with money - money as defined by the Law of the Land - The Constitution being gold and silver coin. Anything else is not lawful money and cannot therefore lawfully "pay a debt".) Thus, overnight, We The People became liable for specific performance on the basis of a debt action of assumpsit under the private Law Merchant, operating outside of the Constitution and imposing an Equitable jurisdiction. A jurisdiction in which no one has any rights, where one can be compelled summarily to deliver his property without trial by Common Law jury. And the debts to the private bankers keep mounting ever higher.

A freeborn, Sovereign American individual cannot be forced into perpetual debtorship and involuntary servitude, that is, feudalistic performance on behalf of, and for the benefit of, any person, real or juristic, against his Thirteenth Article of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Nor can He be compelled, by Law, to accept, or to give informed consent to accept, an Equitable jurisdiction foreign to his Bill of Rights. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of The United States of America, states in part:

"The Judicial Power shall extend .. . . . to all Cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; ... . ." At the very beginning of government under the Constitution , Congress conferred on the federal district courts exclusive cognizance "of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, . . . . . . ; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a Common Law remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it;. . ." (1 STAT 77, Section 9 (1789)) As this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature and not in the state legislatures.
Congress enacted the Limited Liability Act on March 3, 1851. It is codified at Title 46, United States Code, Sections 181-189, as amended in 1875, 1877, 1935, 1936 and the Act of 1884. It intended to cover the entire subject of limitations, and to invest the U. S. District Courts with exclusive original cognizance of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, exclusive of the States. This means that the States do not have any jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime matters, at all. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction comprises two types of cases: (1) those involving acts committed on the high seas or other navigable waters, and (2) those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping employed on the seas or navigable waters. In other words, the second type of case must have a direct connection with maritime commerce. Suits in admiralty traditionally took the form of a proceeding in rem against the vessel, and, with exceptions to be noted, such proceedings in rem are confined exclusively to federal admiralty courts, because the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789 has been interpreted as referring to the traditional admiralty action, the in rem action, which was unknown to the Common Law. State courts are forbidden by the Constitution to have Admiralty jurisdiction. While State courts are permitted to handle and try Admiralty cases if the suitor desires, it must be an Admiralty matter to begin with and it must involve property, otherwise there would not be a Common Law remedy. In other words, the Common Law courts would not be competent to handle it. More than this, it would need to be tried in a Common Law court, following Common Law procedures (not Equity procedures) with a Trial by a Common Law jury. Therefore, any attempt by a State court to impose a judgment in rem is in violation of the Constitution and is null and void. When a sheriff attempts to enforce a judgment in rem he is attempting to impose the alien and unlawful Roman Civil Law, in violation of his oath of office, and he is thereby committing a criminal act. The Sovereign American people are beginning to catch on to and realize the nature of the Dictatorship of Unelected Rulers that has been set up in this country, and They are no longer quietly accepting such vile treatments.

As the issues become clarified, each public official will need to make a decision: shall he be on the side of the Constitution and protect the Rights and freedoms of We The People (of which he is one), as required by his oath of office; or shall he be a party to the criminal usurpation of the Sovereignty of We The People? The Sheriff is a key person in all of this: he can either be a tool of the evil forces who have set this up and provide the oppressive force that binds the innocent victims to the chains of slavery, all in the name of "doing his duty", or he can be the instrument of liberation for We The People by preventing the imposition of the unconstitutional Equitable jurisdiction (the Roman Civil Law) upon Us, the victims and Our property and protecting Our Rights and freedoms.

Our Individual Common Law Rights
by Howard Fisher & Dale Pond Another Constitutional issue that each of us needs to understand is the issue of Individual Common Law Rights of We the People of the United States of America. This directly concerns the limits of authority of all branches of government over each of us as individuals: the Authority of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thomas Jefferson placed great emphasis on the concept of Rights. He said we did not bring the English Common Law, as such, to this continent; we brought the Rights of Man. The reason why he said that is that it is from the Common Law controversies, all of which involved property, that all of our Rights have come to be recognized in the Law. In a legal sense, Property is a bundle of Rights, a bundle of Powers, wherein one claimant to these Rights possesses these Rights to the exclusion of all other claimants to These Rights, as these Rights pertain to The possession, occupancy and use of a specific piece of property. So, at Common Law, Rights is the name of the game. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution of the United States of America because the Founding Fathers believed these Amendments should be added to avoid misconstruction of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America by Judges and to avoid an abuse of powers by Judges of The sort that had already, at that time, taken place in England and from which abuse of powers we had just fought, and won, a revolution to be free. (See the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The original Constitution has it, and in some sources which print the Constitution, this Preamble is included.) This abuse had been committed by Judges who were not tied down by any written Constitution in England, and who had started to whittle away at the Common Law Rights in England and the Colonies, by their decisions, with the cooperation of the statutes passed by the Parliament and enforced by the Crown. This is precisely the combination of Executive and Legislative Equity (otherwise known as Roman Civil Law) which our Bill of Rights prevents and protects us from. As example, the Constitution of the Iowa has its Bill of Rights, comprising Article I. The first two sections deserve special emphasis :

Section 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights -- among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and They have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. So the Constitution of the State of Iowa for example expressly includes the Right of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, although it is high on the Priority List of Common Law Rights. This is an example of a Constitution securing Rights which come from the Common Law. Back in 1921 someone wrote: It is not the Right of property which is protected, but the Right to property. Property, as such, has no rights; but the individual -- the man -- has three great Rights, equally sacred from interference: the Right to his LIFE; the Right to his LIBERTY; the Right to his PROPERTY. ... The three Rights are so bound together as to be essentially one Right, To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave. Thomas Jefferson said: "Our rulers can have no authority over [our] natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." This points up the significance of the requirement of the procedures of the Common Law that there be an injured party, that the injured party make a sworn complaint as to the injury that has been done to him by the alleged Defendant. That unless this is done, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Defendant. We have been told. from childhood, that we have unalienable Rights, and we do! Unalienable means that they cannot be taken from us, and that we cannot be forced to give them up. There are those who point out that, strictly speaking, we cannot even give them up voluntarily. However, if we submit to those who would rule over us, it is true that our Rights were not taken from us -- as Thomas Jefferson said, -- we have submitted to their rule. We have allowed ourselves to become their slaves. There is one important fact concerning slavery, of any sort, the institution of slavery depends upon the cooperation of the slaves! Without the cooperation of the slaves, there can be no slavery. In Common Law Courts our Rights are protected. The Rules and Procedures of the Common Law Courts were established to protect our Property Rights -- to make it difficult for Property to be taken from someone without Due Process of Law. The Right to require That an injured party swear under oath as to damage or injury that he claims that you caused to him; the Right to a Corpus Delicti : The body of the offense: " the essence of the crime." : Under the Common Law, the Courts do not have an automatic jurisdiction. The Common Law Rules and Procedures specify certain steps, or procedures, which must be done, and certain things which must not be done -- all as a protection to the Rights of the Accused. And, as we have pointed out previously, Rights are inherent in Property, and Property is inherent in Rights. We have the Right to have our controversy, once the Common Law Court has

acquired jurisdiction, tried before a Common Law Jury of our Peers, wherein the Jury has the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and Fact. There is no monkey business of pretending that arguments involving the Law must be held outside of the hearing of the Jury and that their supposed only function is to hear and decide questions of Fact presented in evidence and that the Judge will tell them what the Law is ! As evidence that the Founding Fathers operated under the Common Law, in addition to the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America, the following was included in the instructions to the Jury in the first case ever tried before the United States Supreme Court, as a court of original jurisdiction, which means that a Trial by Jury was held in front of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Jay presiding: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumably, that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. " STATE OF GEORGIA vs. BRAILSFORD . 3 Dall I (1794 ) Our Property Rights are inseparable from our individual Rights and our individual Rights are inseparable from our Property Rights. Both types of Rights are protected in the Procedures and Due Process of the Courts of Common Law. The Bill of Rights in both Constitutions have to do with matters that the Governments, both of the United States and of the State, have to do with matters that the government, and its agents and agencies, have no authority over at all to enact statutes, or to issue rules and regulations, binding on the individual, dealing with such Rights as are included in the Bill of Rights. It should be emphasized that the Ninth Amendment includes all of the Common Law Rights which are not listed, or enumerated, anywhere else. In other words, the Bill of Rights are prohibitions against government at any level over the individual. The Constitution authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of Equity. When the Constitution says Law, it means Common Law, because that's what the Founding Fathers meant when they said Law. In Courts of Law your Rights are protected by the Constitution and the Rules and Procedures of the Common Law, known as Due Process of Law; and the Bill of Rights was adopted to avoid misconstruction and abuse of powers, by the Judges; but in Courts of Equity, by the nature of Equity jurisdiction, you don't have any Constitutional Rights. Within the existing Equity Courts the only rights you might acquire for yourself are the terrible socalled Civil Rights or the rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. These are much lesser rights than those of the Constitution because these latter are Natural God given rights whereas the former are granted privileges from an artificial government of bureaucrats. You know you are in an Equity/Admiralty Court when an American flag is displayed that has a GOLD trim. The gold trim denotes military jurisdiction and not Common Law or Constitutional jurisdiction. Wherever this flag is flown the Constitution is NOT. To see the civilian flag click here.

THE STORY OF THE BUCK ACT
Richard McDonald edited by Mitch Modeleski In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you. When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the "Social Security Number". In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security "Districts". The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal area" which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay. In 1939, the federal government instituted the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any "Federal area". Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution . So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay. 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States. 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. There is no reasonable doubt that the federal "State" is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part: Sec. 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax (a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area. Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A, Secs, 105-110]. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93S. Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal Government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E, 2d 65 (1951 App.). This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states: 2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e, citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". See Wheeling Steel Corp, v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct, 773. Under the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area". Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's yellow-fringed U.S. flag flying in schools, offices and all courtrooms. To see the civilian flag click here. You must live on land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any "Federal State" or "Federal area", nor can you be involved in any activity that would make you subject to "federal laws". You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a "resident" driver's license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a "federal" bank account, a Federal Register Account Number relating to Individual persons [SSN], (see Executive Order Number 9397, November 1943), or any other known "contract implied in fact" that would place you within any "Federal area" and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress, Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co, v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S, Ct. 10(1949); New York Central R.R. Co, v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed, 828, 45 S. Ct. 402 (1925).) There has been created a fictional Federal "State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S. Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed, 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d, 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440, (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional "State" is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like "CA", "AZ" and "TX", as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like "Calif.", "Ariz." and "Tex.", etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers who have a Social Security number to all state and federal laws "within this State", a "fictional Federal area" overlaying the land in California and in all other states in

the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a "Federal area" and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live "in this State". The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application. This definition is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York: "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State ... and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America. This definition concurs with the "Buck Act" supra which states: 110(d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States. 110(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or remises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State. So, do some research. I have given you all the proper directions in which to look for the jurisdictional nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.

What can you do?
Wake up! Get active!!!! Do something!!! Do a little research! We can all do something -no matter how seemingly insignificant. We can: pass along pamphlets like this one. We can attend weekly meetings assembled for no other purpose than to figure out what to do. We can attend city and county council meetings and see that our servants don't steal the store. We can participate in local and state elections. The federal elections are reported to be totally rigged. We can have a positive influence on local and state affairs, PTAs and school boards. It takes little more than writing a letter, sending a FAX or making a phone call to your various servants. They listen when enough of us take the time to get their attention. "Hey! Buddy! You work for We The People! not the Japanese, the bankers or Europeans. You will take care of our business and do it right!" If your local servants refuse to obey the Constitution and your neighbors get someone who will to run for their office, Then get out there and make sure they get elected. This is the only way We The People can take back our government from the special interest groups. This is happening all over the country. Counties have been taken back in Indiana, Alabama, New Mexico, Nevada and California. Why not yours? It is a simple thing to do. Do it! Millions of Americans are beginning to find out who they really are and who the government really is.

We are the government.
"In the Common Law we have recognized inherent rights whereas in the Equity Law we have no rights whatsoever excepting those which may be bestowed upon us by the graces of the Chancellor (Judge) - wholly at his sole discretion." "Compelling a freeborn, Sovereign American individual to do anything, except upon the verdict of a Common Law Jury, constitutes an enforcement of the alien and evil Roman Civil (Equity) Law and is in fact fascist totalitarianism. " "There is no lawful authority for Judges and the Courts to direct the law enforcement activities of a County Sheriff. The Sheriff is accountable and responsible only to the citizens who are inhabitants of his County, He is under Oath of Office, and need not receive unlawful Orders from Judges or the Courts. He is responsible to protect citizens, even from unlawful acts of officials of government. He should not allow his office to be used as an unlawful "lackey" of the Courts or Federal agents or agencies." "The Sheriff, in unknowing and unthinking acceptance of [the imposition of Equity or Merchant Law], has become the "bag man" for a bunch of private criminals [bankers], and thereby is committing crimes himself, and is therefore a criminal. It is a crime to violate Constitutional Rights and his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of his own State, it being drafted in conformance thereto, and being secondary thereto. "

References - More Reading Materials on Zoning & Property (Rights)
Modernization of Zoning - A Means to Reform http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n2f.html Property and Freedom - a book review http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n2/bookreviews.pdf Property and Freedom, by Richard Pipes; Hardcover, 317pp., ISBN: 0375404988; Publisher: Knopf Alfred A; April 1999

Alliance for America Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights Defenders of Property Rights Environmental Conservation Organization

Forest Service Theft of Property National Association of Reversionary Property Owners Law Research & Registry Pennsylvania Landowners Association Property Rights Siskiyou County Farm Bureau Take Back Arkansas

Common Law is the Law of the People... Our American Common Law

Common Law or [Roman] Civil Law
INTRODUCTION. OF THE CIVIL LAW AND THE COMMON LAW. There have grown up in the history of nations only two great systems of law, the civil law of ancient Rome, and the common law of England. All the most civilized nations in the world are governed by either of these two great schemes of justice. Though the civil law and the common law have much in common, yet in many important particulars they are the opposites of each other. In the course of his studies, the student of law finds so much said, in an incidental way, about the civil law, that is calculated to mislead his judgment in regard to the true character of that scheme of justice, that it is important, at the outset of his walks over the fields of the common law, to give him some account of the civil law, and point out in what it differs essentially from the common law. This is a matter of much importance to every student who aspires to a comprehensive and enlightened knowledge of jurisprudence. Rome is the grandest empire presented in the great spectacle of the history of nations. From the limits of a few square miles, on the southeast bank of the lower course of the Tiber, Rome extended her territorial dominions to the Pillars of Hercules on the west, to the Euphrates on the east, to the German ocean and the Grampian hills on the north, and to the cataracts of the Nile and the great African desert on the south. Over his vast territory Rome extended her government, her laws, and her language. To preserve these immense territories, as the natural and legitimate heritage of Rome, was the one great end of Roman policy. And any of the many peoples subject to Roman sway, who attempted to throw off the imperial authority, were treated as rebels against a lawful dominion. The law which regulated the affairs of such a vast and various empire of high civilization is a wonderful scheme of human justice, attracting, with uncommon interest, the student of jurisprudence.

The political history of Rome is divided into the period of the kings, the period of the republic, and the period of the emperors. Its legal history corresponds with these political periods. In the period of the kings, the administration of justice was in the royal hands. The law was at that epoch very much a matter of royal discretion. During the period of the republic, the administration of justice was in the hands of the consul, pretors, and inferior magistrates. It was during the epoch of the republic that most of the fundamental rules for the regulation of private rights and peaceful pursuits were introduced into Roman law. The law was gradually developed by the peculiar modes of administering justice. In the later days of the republic the praetor urbanus was the magistrate chiefly concerned in the administration of justice. But neither he nor any other Roman judicial magistrate ever decided directly the matter brought before him. He only allowed the action upon a statement made by the plaintiff, and regulated the proceedings to a point in which the matter in dispute was reduced to a proper form for investigation and decision. The case thus prepared was then referred by him, with directions, to a judex, chosen by the parties themselves from amongst their fellow-citizens, whose function it was to investigate the facts and pronounce judgment upon the issue. This judicial reference and direction by the pretor to the judex was called an edict. It contained a statement, in a certain formula, of the matter in dispute and the general rules of law applicable to it, with a direction to the judex to make his decision conform to the facts as he might find them. The ownership of land was excepted from this mode of trial. It was decided by the court of one hundred men. The praetor urbanus was elected annually. It was the working of his jurisdiction that chiefly developed Roman law. The old forms of action, contained in the twelve tables, required every suitor to bring his case within their strict terms; else he was without remedy, no matter how just was his complaint. These forms, so narrow and technical, were, in the course of progress, abolished, so as to enlarge legal remedies. There was given to the praetor urbanus authority to devise new rules and orders applicable to special cases which might be brought before him. If a person complained of an injury for which the old law afforded no remedy, the praetor urbanus could, upon a statement of facts by the party, allow him an action, and put the facts, with the prop0er judgment upon them, into a certain formula, for the direction of the judex to whom he referred the matter. In this way, through the jurisdiction of the praetor urbanus, new actions, enforcing claims not before recognized by the law, and new rules of law applicable to the changing wants of society, were established. But the new remedies were made to take the form of those which had been long observed; and thus progress was made to conform to the Roman spirit of conservatism. Customs, as they grew up in the various new business and changing conditions of society, were allowed as law in these new actions. It was the custom for pretors, on entering upon their office, to publish an edict, declaring the principles upon which they intended to administer justice during the year of their pretorship. This was called a continuous edict. By this practice, the pretor would appear to the suitors to be governed by preestablished general rules, and not to be influenced by the special interests of any particular case. His administration would, therefore, be felt as more impartial and just. The pretor also passed special edicts, as cases, not anticipated in the continuous edicts, were brought before him. These continuous edicts had authority only during the year of the pretor who declared them. But in time, successive pretors came to adopt, in their own edicts, the rules declared by their predecessors. In this way, a body of edictal law became as well established and as authoritative as if it had received the express sanction of positive legislation. As the edicts of the pretors embraced new usages and customs, as well as any

special rules that might occur to the minds of the respective pretors, which grew up in the changing business of a progressive society like that of Rome, the edictal law was the purest sort of legislation, springing from the spontaneous acts and opinions of the people. Society, in the modes of its working, declared the rules of its actions; and the pretors gave them judicial sanction, and thereby made them law. The edictal direction to the judex was not the only mode in which the pretor discharged the function of justice. He also, in certain cases, passed edicts, ordering specific things to be produced or restitution of them to be made. And he also sometimes, by interdict, forbade certain things to be done. These acts of the pretor might be final, or merely preliminary to further proceedings, in which the rights of the parties would be settled. The law was still further developed, and that into a more ample justice, because of relations to Rome to foreign states, especially to those with which she had formed treaties, giving their citizens certain civil rights, such as the right to acquire and hold property within the Roman dominion. In order to administer justice, in cases growing out of foreign relations, a special magistrate having jurisdiction over them was annually elected, called praetor peregrinus. As in the cases brought before this pretor the parties were never both Roman citizens and the transactions involved were hardly ever entered into with reference to Roman law, the principles common to all systems of law were applied as dispensing, in such cases, a more adequate justice. Through this liberal form of administering justice between Romans and aliens, a practical acquaintance with the laws of foreign states was acquired by the Roman magistrates, and such rules as seemed common to all systems of laws were recognized as a law of nations, and were made a part of the civil law of the Romans. And thereby the law of nations, because of its universal acceptance as a standard of right and justice, became a part of the positive law of the Romans. Under this law the rights and obligations of foreigners, as well as of Roman citizens, were recognized and judicially enforced. According to the teachings of Roman jurists, it was from the law of nations that the law of contracts, such as buying and selling, letting and hiring, loans and bailments, partnership, and the law of slavery so far as it gave the right of property in man, and many other matters, were introduced into the Roman civil law. This mere judicial development of the law left it in a shapeless and unwieldy mass. Magistrates annually elected, as the Roman pretors were, could hardly know what had been decided by their predecessors. Consequently there could be very little like fixed principle in the law, if it were left to mere judicial development; especially, too, as the subsequent pretor was not bound by the decisions of his predecessors, but could exercise his judgment untrammeled by precedent. Therefore it was that a class of men arose by the side of the administration of justice, who became connected with it in a very peculiar relation, and supplied the defects in the judicial system, and by their very writings reduced the law into shape. These were the Roman jurists, so celebrated in the history of European law. They made their first appearance in the time of Cicero. Quintus Mucius Scaevola was the first of them, and Servius Sulpicius was the second. These jurists must not be confounded with the mere practitioners of the law. The mere practicing lawyer held a lower position in the legal profession than the jurist. The business of the mere practicing lawyer was to give legal advice, and to draw up testaments, contracts, and other instruments in legal form. He had nothing to do with the management of causes before a court. The orator, though his great vocation was in the senate and before the assemblies of the people, was the advocate in criminal trials and in important civil cases.

The jurists, in the time of Cicero, besides doing the business of practitioners of law, also appeared in public, at certain times and places, to give their advice orally to those who asked it, and also opened their own houses for the same purpose. Young men who wished to acquire a knowledge of the law were present when the jurists gave their advice, and saw the mode in which they transacted legal business. Cicero was a pupil of Scaevola. He was admitted to the intimacies of his accomplished family, and learned, as he said, elegant conversation from his refined daughters. But it was under the empire, when the glory of the republic was gone, that the jurists attained their eminence, and in fact became the architects of the great system of Roman law. Though Scaevola and Sulpicius wrote treatises on the law, these treatises had no authority beyond the opinions of men learned in the law. But Augustus Caesar gave to a certain number of jurists the privilege of giving opinions in cases which might be referred to them by a judex; and if the jurists were unanimous, the judex was bound by their opinion; if they were not unanimous, the judex was left to adopt what opinion seemed to him best. Tiberius Caesar, during his reign, adopted the practice of authenticating, under his seal, the opinions of certain jurists. This class o privileged jurists, whose unanimous opinion made rules o flaw, became an established institution. Some of these jurists, were advisors of the emperors in al matters of legislation, as well as in matters of law referred to them either immediately or by appeal. As the military power, which during the republic was kept in the strictest subordination to the civil, could, under the empire, at any time be put above the civil authority by the emperor, his very title being military, Septimus Severus appointed Papinian, the greatest of all the Roman jurists, pretorian prefect, which placed him at the head of the army and of the law. And Ulpian and Paulus, only a little, if at all, less eminent as jurists than Papinian, were successively appointed praetorian prefect by Alexander Severus. The jurists wrote innumerable treatises on the law, which came to be of as much authority as their privileged opinions. It was these writings that exerted a paramount influence in developing and bringing into system Roman jurisprudence. The law contained in the twelve tables, the edictal law, and established usage, were the materials upon which the jurists labored in their writings with great honesty of purpose, remarkable good sense, and fine dialectical skill. Oratory was no longer, as it had been during the glorious period of the republic, the great art by which men rose to eminence in the state. Its voice was now silent; when to speak of the rights of Roman citizens was treason. Therefore, to the silent and obscure labor of building up jurisprudence the greatest minds devoted themselves. The writing of the jurists became in time so numerous, that, in order to help the incapacity of those who administered law, at a time when, amidst general degradation, the great jurists had no successors, the Emperor Valentinian III, by a constitution, declared that the writings of Papinian, Paulus, Gaius, Ulpian, and Modestinus should have the force of law when they were unanimous; when they were not unanimous; the opinion of the majority was to be followed; and when they were equally divided, the opinion in which Papinian concurred was to be adopted. Thus, according to a tendency common to all systems of law, the Roman, in the new application of principles required by the ever-changing conditions of society, gradually, through the offices of the two pretors and afterwards through the writings of the great jurists, emerged from the narrow rules which originated in the early peculiarities of Roman society, and gradually expanded itself into a more ample scheme of justice, fitted for a universal dominion. It became in time, allowing local differences, the common law of all the provinces.

This system of jurisprudence was closely connected with the imperial theory and form of government, both by the manner of its growth and the political doctrines introduced into it by the writings of the jurists. The jurists were, in politics, imperialists; and they made their legal opinions support the imperial authority at all points of doctrinal application and administrative contact between it and the law. For though the theory of the republic was forgotten, and the right of revolution, so often exerted in the early history of Rome, was hardly even a matter of tradition, still it was deemed necessary, by the jurists, to vindicate to human intelligence, by some theory of right, an authority so stupendous as that of a Roman emperor. Therefore it was that the jurists invented the fiction of the lex regia, by which it was pretended that all the authority of the Roman people was irrevocably granted to the emperor. And, to complete their theory of absolutism, the jurists introduced into their writings, as a constitutional principle, the dogma, Whatever pleases the prince has the force of law. Thus the jurisprudence which had been recast in an imperial mold became a part of the imperial system; and as the chief functionaries under the empire were generally selected from the profession of the law, they entered upon their official functions thoroughly imbued with imperial ideas and trained to principles of imperial policy. The administration of the law, too, was subordinate to the imperial authority, not only in theory but in practice, the courts being organized accordingly. Under the republic, the courts were open to the public in both civil and criminal trials. Under the empire, open courts disappeared, and an appeal lay in all cases to the emperor in his imperial court. Thus a perfect system of despotism, disguised under forms of law, was built up on the ruins of the republic. After the seat of the Roman empire had been transferred by Constantine to the borders of Asia, and the unity of the Roman dominion had been broken into a western and an eastern empire, the Emperor Justinian, in the first half of the sixth century of the Christian era, had all the constitutions which had been promulgated by the successive emperors compiled into a code. And afterwards, at the suggestion of Tribonian, a distinguished lawyer who had been one of the compilers of the code, a commission was appointed, with Tribonian at its head, to make a selection from the writings of the elder jurists, which should comprehend all that was most valuable in them, and should be a compendious exposition of Roman law. The commissioners, in the very short period of three years, produced their compilation, called the Pandects or Digest, containing literal extracts from thirty-nine jurists, those from Ulpian and Paulus constituting about one half of the whole work. The Pandects or Digest, besides being designed as a book for the practitioner, was designed also to form a necessary part of legal education in the schools of jurisprudence at Constantinople and Berytus. But it was too vast a work, and required for its comprehension too great a previous knowledge of law, to admit of its being mad an introduction to a course of legal study. Justinian, therefore, appointed Tribonian, in conjunction with Theophilus and Dorotheus, respectively professors in the law schools of Constantinople and Berytus, to compose an elementary law book. The produced the Institutes. The code, the Pandects or Digest, and the Institutes contain the civil law as it has come down to modern times, and are the sources from which the modern jurists have derived their knowledge of Roman jurisprudence. They embody principles and ideas of law which were the slow growth of ages, and which, beginning with the origin of the Roman people, had been gradually unfolded, modified, and matured.

During the progress of Roman jurisprudence the forms of legal procedure had undergone an entire change. As soon as the republic was overthrown and the empire was established by Augustus, changes in the law began to be contemplated; and two schools of law reformers arose, one school in favor of adhering to the strict technical forms of the law under the republic, and the other in favor of substituting for them simple and general forms, more accommodated, as they said, to the larger equity, the more ample justice of the jurisprudence required by the enlightened spirit of the age. At the head of the republican school stood Labeo, and at the head of the other stood Capito. Both were eminent lawyers. But the first, though in favor of liberalizing the principles of the old jurisprudence, was utterly averse from changing the strict technical forms of procedure, as he believed they afforded the only protection to the rights of the citizen. Capito, on the contrary, a time-serving adherent of the new order of things, maintained that the forms of legal procedure, as well as the jurisprudence itself, must be changed to suit the spirit of progress. The controversy between these schools of lawyers lasted nearly a century, the imperial party gaining ground all the time, until the Emperor Hadrian, by the perpetual edict, exercised uncontrolled legislative authority, and fixed forever the character of the imperial jurisprudence. From this epoch the civil law and its procedure assumed that pretorian form and spirit which were consummated in the Code, the Pandects, and the Institutes of Justinian. The old forms of law procedure of the republic, and the respect for precedent when the law was an emanation from the manners and spirit of the people, gave way to the more simple forms of the empire. Thus was consummated what has sometimes been considered an advance in jurisprudence. But in this opinion things wholly different have been confounded: the machinery for carrying law into effect has been confounded with the law itself. There can be no doubt that the law itself was so improved, under the empire, as to make it almost a new creation; but there should be as little doubt that the mode of procedure was changed from one suited to the liberty of the citizen to one suited to arbitrary power, by its enlarging the discretion of judges. If we now turn to the common law of England, we will find that, as far as administrative principles and forms of procedure are concerned, it is the opposite of the Roman civil law as it was molded under the empire. The principle which, in the practical administration of the two systems, marks the primary essential distinction between them, is the relative obligatory force under them of precedent or former decisions. Under the common law, former decisions control the court unconditionally. It is deemed by the common law indispensable that there should be a fixed rule of decision, in order that rights and property may be stable and certain, and not involved in perpetual doubts and controversies. Under the civil law the principles is different. Former decisions have not so fixed and certain an operation, but are considered as only governing the particular case, without establishing as a settled rule the principle involved in it. When a similar case occurs, the judge may decide it according to his personal views of the law, or according to the opinion of some eminent jurist. The civil law, as administered at the present time on the continent of Europe, possesses all the uncertainty and fluctuations of doctrine that results from the little respect paid by it to precedent. The commentaries of the doctors, who have succeeded to the jurists, are as various as the diversity of human judgment can make them. The late United States Attorney General, Legare, who studied law in Germany, with all his strong predilections for the civil law, said, "One who was initiated in this study, as we happened to be, under the old plan of the eighteenth century, with Heineccius for a guide, will find himself in the schools of the present day in almost another world - new doctrines, new history, new methods, new textbooks, and, above all, new views and a new spirit."

The diversity of doctrine in the schools signalized by Mr. Legare descends into the courts to perplex and bewilder the administration of justice. Let anyone, who wishes to examine a specimen of this perplexity in regard to a fundamental classification which the civilians make of laws into personal statutes and real statutes, refer to the opinion of the supreme court of Louisiana, by Mr. Justice Porter, in Saul v. His Creditors, in 17 Martins' Reports. After referring to the jurists of the different European countries who have treated of this distinction, Justice Porter says: "The moment we attempt to discover from these writers what statutes are real and what personal, the most extraordinary confusion is presented. Their definitions often differ; and, when they agree in their definitions, they dispute as to their application." And Mr. Justice Story, in his "Conflict of Laws," when speaking of the civilians who have treated of the subject of his book, says: "The civilians of continental Europe have examined the subject in many of its bearings with a more comprehensive philosophy, if not with a more enlightened spirit. Their works, however, abound with theoretical distinctions, which serve little purpose than to provoke idle discussions and metaphysical subtleties, which perplex, if they do not confound the inquirer. * * * * Precedents, too, have not, either in the courts of continental Europe or in the judicial discussions of eminent jurists, the same force and authority which we, who live under the influence of the common law, are accustomed to attribute to them; and it is unavoidable that many differences of opinion will exist amongst them, even in relation to leading principles." Such is the fluctuating wind of doctrine with which the judicial mind is liable to veer under the civil-law institutions where precedents have but little force. The common law, in broad contrast to the civil law, has always wholly repudiated anything as authority but the judgments of courts deliberately given in causes argued and decided. "For (says Lord Coke, in the preface to his 9th Report) it is one amongst others of the great honors of the common law that cases of great difficulty are never adjudged or resolved in tenebris or sub silentio suppressis reationibus, but in open court: and there upon solemn and elaborate arguments, first at the bar by the counsel learned of either party, (and if the case depend in the court of common pleas, then by the sergeants at law only;) and after at the bench by the judges, where they argue (the presiding judge beginning first) seriatim, upon certain days openly and purposely prefixed, delivering at large the authorities, reasons, and causes of their judgments and resolutions in every such particular case, (habet enim nesio quid energia viva vox:) a reverend and honorable proceeding in law, a grateful satisfaction to the parties, and a great instruction and direction to the attentive and studious hearers." Nothing less elaborately learned and cautiously considered than such a judgment of a court has a legitimate place in the common law. By such adjudication has that great system of jurisprudence been built up. The opinion of no lawyer has a place in the system of common law. And this wise principle of the common law is never lost sight of by those bred in its spirit. When Lord Coke wrote his commentaries upon certain statutes of England, from Magna Charta to Henry VIII, which are called his II Institutes, he did not give his personal opinions of their meaning, but gave the judicial interpretations of them, which had been made. In the conclusion of the preface to the II Institutes he says: " Upon the text of the civil law there be so many glosses and interpretations, and again upon those so many commentaries, and all written by doctors of equal degree and authority, and therein so many diversities of opinions, as they rather increase than resolve doubts and uncertainties, and the professors of that noble science say that it is like see full of waves. The difference, then, between those glosses and commentaries are written by doctors, and which be advocates, and so in a great manner private interpretations; and our expositions or commentaries upon Magna Charta and other statutes are resolutions of judges in courts of justice in judicial courses of

proceeding, either related and reported in our books or extant in judicial records, or in both, and therefore, being collected together, shall (as we conceive) produce certainty, the mother and nurse or repose and quietness." Such is the doctrine of the common law! Nothing but the solemn voice of the law itself, speaking through its constituted tribunals, is of any judicial authority. And how august is that authority, reposing as it does upon the solemn decisions of courts which have administered justice in the very same halls for nearly eight hundred years! In vain shall we search the history of nations for a parallel to this stability of law amidst the fluctuating vicissitudes of empire. It is this stability of law, ruling over the prerogative of the crown and administering equal justice to the high and the low through so many centuries, that vindicates the "frame and ordinary course of the common law" to the consideration of the present times. It is this primary difference in the principles of practice, under the two systems of law, which gives to the common law its great superiority over the civil law, as a practical jurisprudence regulating the affairs of society. It has the great advantage of producing certainty in regard to all rights and obligations which are regulated by law. But, above all, it excludes private interpretations and controls the arbitrary discretion of judges. In the common law the principles of interpretation are fixed and certain. Rules of interpretation were early adopted, and have never been departed from. Other rules from time to time have been adopted, but when once introduced into practice they become precedents. But it is far otherwise in the civil law. Different schools of interpretation have existed in countries where it is administered in modern times, called respectively the historical and philosophical schools. And the law is subject to all the fluctuation in practice which grows out of the different principles of interpretation of these schools. By the different principles of interpretation, and by the principle that former decisions may be disregarded, much certainty in the law is lost; so that often the decision of the plainest case, unless it depends upon some fundamental positive rule, can hardly be confidently foretold. This difference in the administrative principles of the common law and the civil law is intimately connected with their different modes of procedure and with the different degree of respect paid to technical forms. Under the common law, forms are as sacred as the principles they embody. They are precedents. The precise form being a precedent, the certainty of the principle which it embodies is thereby fixed. There can be no more dispute about the principle than about the form which embodies it. Every new case must conform to it, there can be no dispute about its import. The great instrument by which certainty has been given to precedents in the common law is special pleading. This is the mainspring and the regulative force of the whole machinery of the common law as a practical jurisprudence. By it every step, from the original writ to the judgment, is kept in specific undeviating forms. There can be no dispute about the specific import of every step in the procedure. And when the decision is made, no matter how loosely the opinion of the court may be expressed, the pleadings in the case give definiteness to the point or points decided, and preserve them forever as a precedent for future judges to follow. The object of judicial proceedings is to ascertain and to decide upon disputes between parties. In order to do this, it is indispensable that the point or points in controversy be evolved and distinctly presented

for decision. The common law and the civil law have different modes for accomplishing this purpose. The rules of common law pleading are designed to develop and present the precise point in dispute upon the record itself, without requiring any action on the part of the court for the purpose. The parties are required to plead alternately in writing, until their respective allegations of affirmation and denial terminate in a single material issue, either of law or of fact, the decision of which will dispose of the cause. By the civil law the parties are not required to plead in such a way as to evolve upon the written record, by the allegations of the respective parties, the point in dispute, but are permitted to set forth all the facts which constitute the cause of action or defense at large; the questions of law not being separated from the questions of fact, as in the common law pleadings, but the whole case is presented in gross to the court for its determination. Under this practice, the court has the labor of reviewing the complex allegations of the respective parties, and methodizing them, and evolving for adjudication the material points on which the controversy turns. When the court of chancery in England began to take cognizance of disputes between parties, it adopted the civil law mode of procedure. This court assumed to eschew the strict technical rules of the common law, and to proceed upon the broad equities of the case; and therefore, naturally required the statement of the facts at large. As the trial by jury did not pertain to this court, the inconvenience of mingling questions of law and of fact was not felt, as they were both decided by the court, and therefore needed not to be separated on the record, as in courts of law, where they are decided by different tribunals. And, besides, the chancellor, from the nature of his court, can take all the time required for the examination of the questions of law and of fact involved in the allegations of the opposite parties. There is, therefore, nothing in the organization of the court of chancery, which forbids the use of the civil law mode of pleading. Indeed, the court of chancery is, in form, a civil law tribunal. Its whole practice is modeled after the edict law of the Roman pretor. But the civil law mode of pleading is not applicable to the common law courts. In these courts questions of law are determined by the judges, while questions of law are determined by the judges, while questions of fact are determined by the jury. It is therefore manifest that it is at least convenient that these questions, which are to be decided by different tribunals, should be separated upon the written record before the case is presented for trial. The material points, about which the parties are in dispute, cannot be so easily evolved from the complicated mass of facts in the hurry of a trial as they can be by pleadings carefully framed beforehand by experienced lawyers, in accordance with rules which require all issues to be single, involving only one question, and to be stated upon the written record itself. And certainly it facilitates the administration of justice to have the record of every case disencumbered of all extraneous matters, and of everything irrelevant and immaterial, and nothing but the naked points in dispute, whether of fact or of law, presented distinctly to the judges and the jury, as is done by the special pleading of the common law. Nothing is more important, in the administration of justice, than a distinct theory and law of evidence. Without it there can be no certainty in administrative justice. For it matters not how clearly a system of jurisprudence may define obligations and rights, if in judicial investigations improper evidence is

admitted, and proper evidence is rejected, there can be no security. The system of common law pleading is framed with reference to this point, making issues of fact simple, so that the relevancy of evidence can be easily perceived. The common law is greatly superior to the civil law on this point. In the loose, detailed statements of civil law pleadings the exact point in dispute will often be left in so much doubt that the evidence will be various, latitudinous, and vague; and many topics will be introduced at the trial which have nothing to do with the real questions in dispute. It has been said that the whole government of England is but a contrivance to bring twelve men into the jury box. Trial by jury is, therefore, in connection with the court, the great end of the government; and special pleading is the great instrument by which that peculiar form of judicature is made efficient. It presents the precise points to be determined, and thereby indicates the character of the evidence required, which is all that any contrivance can accomplish. It is thus seen how the common law pleading gives certainty to trials at law, making the questions to be decided precise, the admission and rejection of evidence definite, and retaining on the record, after the trial, precision in everything, from the summons to the judgment, sot that it can be know what was in dispute, what was proved, and what was adjudged. It must not be inferred from what has been said that I undervalue any influence which the civil law has exerted in liberalizing any too narrow principles of the common law in that long sweep of ages through which they both have governed the affairs of men; though I think that this influence has been exaggerated by some of the ablest writers on the common law. It is not as systems of principles of justice that I have contrasted the common and the civil law. It is only their respective modes of procedure in administering justice that I have contrasted. We must, in such a discussion, e careful not to confound what Sir Henry Spelman calls "the course and frame of justice" with the principles of justice. In concluding the contrast between the common law and the civil law, as a juridical question, it will be profitable to consider the two systems of law in their political aspects. The march which the civil law has made over the continental European nations has carried its forms of procedure with it; and it cannot be pretended that either liberty or property has been as well protected in these countries as in England. The people of these countries are of the same race with those of England, and had originally the same institutions. "When we peruse, " says Sir Francis Palgrave, "the annals of the Teutonic nations, the epithet Teutonic being used in its widest sense, the first impression which we receive results from the identity of their ancient laws and modes of government which prevailed amongst them. Like their various languages, which are in truth but dialects of one mother tongue, so their laws are but modifications of one primeval code. In all their wanderings from their parent home the Teutons bore with them that law which was their birthright and their privilege; and even now we can mark the era when the same principles and doctrines were recognized at Upsula and at Toledo, in Lombardy and in England. But, descending the stream of time, the tokens of relationship diminish, and at length disappear. Amongst the cognate races of the continent of Europe political freedom was effaced by the improvement of society. England alone has witnessed the concurrent development of liberty and civilization. From whatever causes it may have originated, a beneficial impulse was given by the Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Norman governments to the courts of justice, which, though emanating from the crown, were interposed between the sovereign and his subjects in such a manner as

to tend towards a limited monarchy. And if this tendency had not continued and increased, the share of authority possessed by the people or their representatives would have been as feebly established here as in other countries, which, starting from the same point, proceeded in a less fortunate career. Deprived of the security afforded by the institutions which became the strongholds of liberty and the stations of defense, from which the patriot could not be dislodged, the Parliament of England, like the Cortes of Spain or the States-General of France, would long since have declined into inefficiency and extinction." It was the civil law of imperial Rome which gradually undermined the Teutonic institutions on the continent of Europe. The fundamental text of that law, as we have seen, is, "the will of the prince has the force of law." This gradually became the fundamental doctrine of the governments of continental Europe; and the juridical principles and the modes of procedure made it efficient in practice. The palatial courts, to which appeals lay from all inferior tribunals, enabled the prince to control the whole administration of justice. The prerogative of the crown could not, therefore, be resisted by the courts, as it has been at important junctures by the courts of England. It is the law, and the law only, which can successfully resist the encroachments of despotism. In the absence of defined laws, and an independent judiciary to enforce them, the only check upon arbitrary power is popular insurrection; and the people, after they have overthrown by force one despotism, are liable, by their excesses, as all history shows, to succumb to another. In the great contest between the civil law and the Teutonic laws and institutions, which occurred all over Europe after the fall of the Roman empire, the Teutonic, under the name of Anglo-Saxon, prevailed in England. King John was compelled, while that contest was going on, to sign Magna Charta, proclaiming the great fundamental principles of the common law. Soon afterwards, under the influence of the spirit of the common law, the representative system of government, composed of democracy, monarchy, and aristocracy, was established; which has served as a model for our form of government, and that of every nation that aspires after freedom. At that epoch Bracton wrote his treatise, "On the laws and customs of England." In it he asserted the supremacy of the law over the king. His words are, "Rex non debet esse sub hominc sed sub Deo et lege." This work was afterwards translated into French by Houard, an eminent Norman lawyer, and he avowedly suppressed that passage as too inconsistent with French constitutional law to be circulated in France. Such was the difference, at that early period, in the principles of constitutional law in England, where the common law prevailed, and in France, where the civil law prevailed. In the beginning of the reign of Edward I the foundations of the common law were laid. The clergy, who favored the civil law, no longer monopolized legal knowledge. A school of common law had been established. Laymen had gradually formed themselves into societies called "inns of court," where they devoted their lives to the study of the common law. Edward selected his judges from this body of professional men. Then it was that the principles of the common law and the modes of procedure were systematized, and the courts, as they have subsisted for nearly six centuries, were framed and established; and the statutes which were passed during the reign for reforming the law were framed with reference to the principles of Magna Charta and the common law. In the latter part of the fifteenth century the common law received a new impulse towards development from the celebrated treatise of Sir John Fortescue, "In Praise of the Laws of England." The work was written to instruct the prince royal, who was afterwards Henry VI, in the principles of the constitution

of England as a monarchy limited by law. The superiority of the common law to the civil law as a scheme of liberty is thoroughly vindicated, and the greater prosperity of the people of England, when compared with the people of France, is ascribed to the different systems of law by which the two countries are respectively governed. It was during the Elizabethan period of English history that the character of English jurisprudence was fixed forever on the basis of common law. The great lawyers who fixed the landmarks of English jurisprudence at that climactic epoch in English civilization utterly repudiated the civil law as inapplicable to the English polity. "As for your Majesty's laws of England," said Lord Bacon, "I could say much of their dignity, and somewhat of their defect, but they cannot but excel the civil law in fitness for the government; for the civil law was not made for the countries with it governeth." Lord Coke, by his Reports and his Institutes, laid that broader foundation for the common law which the exigencies of society in the era which was opening required. From that period to the present time the common law has held on in the direction then given to it. It has within itself an inherent force of expansion and progressiveness. It consists of elementary principles capable of indefinite development in their applications to the ever-varying and increasing exigencies of society. There are certain fundamental maxims belonging to it which are never departed from. These are the immutable basis of the system. There are other maxims which are restricted by modifications or limited by exceptions. It is pre-eminently a practical system. It has broken away from the shackles of theory and technicality when, in the changing conditions of society and of property, justice and expediency required it. For a time the ancient rules and practice may have resisted the equitable demands of the new exigencies in human life; but when the new exigencies have shown themselves to be permanent interest in society, English jurisprudence has always found within its acknowledged frame of justice means of providing for the new rights and obligations which have sprung from the ever-widening sphere of civilization. The method of its progress is simple and plain. When a case is brought into a court the first question which legitimately emerges from the facts is, whether there is any statute which provides for it. If there is none, then it is inquired whether there be any clear principles of common law which fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. If the answer be again in the negative, then springs up the inquiry, whether there be any principle of the common law which, by analogy or parity of reason, ought to govern. If from neither of these sources a principle of adjudication for the case can be educed, it is recognized as a new case, and the principles of natural justice are applied to its solution. But if the principles of natural justice, on account of any technical or other impediment, cannot be applied to the settlement of the respective rights of the parties, then, by the immutable juridical principles of the common law, founded upon the jealous limitation of judicial discretion, if equity cannot relieve, the case must fail; and provision can only be made by statute for future cases of like nature. It matters not how the civil law or other foreign jurisprudence may have disposed of the question, unless, upon one of the principles which have been stated, the case can be adjudged, the party must fail of relief who seeks the aid of a court. "The Roman law," said Tinda, C.J., in Acton v. Blendell , "forms no rule, binding in itself, upon the subjects of these realms; but in deciding a case upon principle, where no direct authority can be cited from our own books, it affords no small evidence of the soundness of the conclusion at which we have arrived if it proves to be supported by that law the fruit of the researches of the most learned men, the collective wisdom of ages, and the ground-work of the municipal law of most of the countries in Europe."

Upon such principles has the common law based its practice and developed its science. From first to last, through the courts at Westminster, the common law has resisted the introduction of the civil law into the jurisprudence of England. At the very time that the Tudors and the Stuarts were grasping at high prerogative the common law was maturing its vigor in the courts. Coke, one of their judges, did more to develop and organize it for protecting the individual against arbitrary power than any man who has appeared in the progress of English society. In him the professional instinct of the common law judge reached its sublimest sense of human right. He saw that the English constitution draws its whole life from the common law, and is but the framework of its living spirit. By the common law "every man's house is called his castle. Why? Because it is surrounded by a moat or defended by a wall? NO! It may be a straw-built hut the wind may whistle through it, the rain may enter, but the king cannot." In all the various revolutions, with their dark and dreary scenes of violence and bloodshed, through which England has passed, the people have clung to their ancient laws with a devotion almost superstitious. When our forefathers established governments in America they laid their foundations on the common law. And when difficulties grew up between them and the mother country, they acted as their English ancestors had always acted in their political troubles - interposed the common law as the shield against arbitrary power. When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those "indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled." And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties. From the book; A TREATISE ON THE PRINCIPLES OF PLEADING IN CIVIL ACTIONS: COMPRISING A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS IN A SUIT AT LAW. BY HENRY JOHN STEPHEN, SERGEANT AT LAW. ___________________ . . . . Res antiquæ laudis et artis Ingredior, sanctos ausus recludere fontes.--Vide. ____________________ THIRD AMERICAN FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION: WITH A PREFACE, AN INTRODUCTION, A DISSERTATION ON PARTIES TO ACTIONS, AND NOTES. BY SAMUEL TYLER, LL. D., PROFESSOR IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF COLUMBIAN COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, D. C., AND AUTHOR OF THE MARYLAND SIMPLIFIED PLEADING, ETC., ETC. ____________________ WASHINGTON, D. C.: WALTER C. MORRISON, LAW-BOOK PUBLISHER AND SELLER. Copyright, 1871, by W. H. & 0. H. MORRISON. Copyright, 1898, by WALTER C. MORRISON.

TO THE ALUMNI OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF COLUMBIAN COLLEGE, THIS EDITION OF A WORK, THE STUDY OF WHICH IS SO WELL FITTED TO SHARPEN AND INVIGORATE THE MIND OF THE LAWYER AND IMPART TO IT A PRACTICAL FACILITY, IS, WITH THE BEST WISHES FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL SUCCESS. Respectfully Suscribed.

Common Law is the Law of the People... Our American Common Law

What Is Money?
1. A promissory note is a written promise by one person to pay to another or to bearer a fixed sum of money. See: Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill 57; 107 NE 826; Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass 113. 2. As a decree by a court of the U.S. for the payment of money can be made only for the payment of so many dollars of some specie of money that is made lawful money by a statute of the U.S., it follows that a recovery upon such a promissory note or contract must be for some dollars in gold and silver coins. See: The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben. 144, 8 Fed. Cases 4,281; Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869), 3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed. Cases 4,928. 3. The general rule is that a final judgment for money must specify the amount awarded. See: U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356 US 227; 45 Am Jur 2d 81.

A Clear, Simple Primer on Money
"This is what we should be learning in school, but are not. The reason why is obvious once we see this or other videos or books on the subject. This is the root cause of most of the misery in our world today. War, poverty, inflation, environmental pollution, climate warming... all would be solved if we reformed our money supply." Click here for more. 4. An act by the legislature of Alabama, September 30, 1920, page 36, providing when a check is presented or forwarded to the payee bank for payment, it may at its option pay or remit the same in money or in exchange drawn on its reserves. However, it is unconstitutional and void as an attempt by the state to make a class of debts payable at the option of the debtor in something other than gold and silver coin. See: Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga. (1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 L Ed 427. What your government thinks about using gold and silver as money. 5. As bills of credit were entirely abolished, the paper money of the state banks was the only currency or circulating medium to which the prohibition (Art. 1, Sec. 10) could have had any application. See: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 US 533. (What is checkbook credit, lines of credit, etc.?) 6. Congress was vested with the power to borrow money and that the promise of payment having been given, no authority remained to alter or destroy the original promise. See: Perry v. U.S., 294 US 330. 7. The states are not forbidden to issue coupons receivable for taxes, nor execute instruments binding themselves to pay money at a future day for services rendered or money borrowed. See: Poindexter v. Greenbow, 114 US 70; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 US 567; Houston & Texas Central R.R. v. Texas, 177 US 66. (If this is true, then why do states borrow from banks? States issue bonds and the banks buy the bonds by creating a new demand deposit and nothing is deposited. When it comes time to pay the bonds, the state acts as a collection agent for the bank.) 8. Neither the president nor the cashier of a bank has a right to accept anything but money in payment of an obligation due the bank. See: Aliquippa National Bank v. Harvey, 12 A.2d 409, 340 Pa 223; First National Bank of Mt. Holley Springs v. Cumbler, 21 A.2d 120; Re Bowen 46 F. Supp 631, 16 A.2d 409. 9,"Some years ago a new type of installment credit appeared in banks throughout the country. It became known as check credit or revolving check credit. Basically, it provided that those eligible for such credit be granted a line of credit in the agreed amount. In order to use that line, the borrower needed merely to write checks. The checks were special checks, and were NOT actually checking accounts. The check was merely the instrument by which the loan account was activated.

Usually it did not go through all the processes that an ORDINARY check does once it reaches the bank.However, it had the APPEARANCE of an ORDINARY check, and was so used by the customer and the person to whom he gave the check." Source: "The Bankers Handbook" (? edition), page 530. (Does the bank disclose this information to you? It should be quite important for you to know that the bank just created a bookkeeping entry to create the "loan", and that the checks were not actually checks, but had the appearance of checks. This is what is known as a common law cheat and should be in violation of Fair Trade Practices because it gives banks a much greater advantage in business than you or I, or other businesses.) See: Title 15, Sec. 1635 of Chap. 41. 10. Unless there is what the law considers a valuable consideration, it will not be sufficient to maintain an action. And there is a distinction between a valuable consideration, other than money, and a money consideration. While in the "former" case the slightest consideration will support a promise (consideration other than money) to pay the largest amount to the full extent of the promise, in the latter the consideration will support a promise only to the extent of the money forming the consideration. The law leaves the measure of a valuable consideration other than money, for a promise to pay, to the parties to the contract; but money being the standard of value, is not the subject to be changed by contract, and will support a promise to pay money only to the extent of the amount of the consideration. See: Sawyer v. McLouth, 46 Barb 350. 11. The term "tender" as used in the books, denotes a legal OFFER, one which one party is under obligation to make and the other bound to accept. See: Duluth v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229; Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66. 12. The promissory note, even when payable on demand and fully secured, is still, as its name implies, only a PROMISE to pay, and does not represent the paying out or reduction of assets. See: Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner of IRS, 51 L.Ed. 2d 48 (Feb. 22, 1977). 13. Money does not embrace notes (promises to pay money). See: Lane v. Railey; U.S. v. Wells; Devenny v. Devenny; State v. Hoke; Hamilton v. State; etc.. (Since a Federal Reserve Note is not even a note [a promise to pay], money cannot embrace a Federal Reserve note.) 14. An agent (clerk) has no implied authority to receive anything else than MONEY in satisfaction of a debt due his principal. He cannot, therefore, take payment in a check. See: Hall v. Storrs, 7 Wis. 217; Buckwalter v. Craig, 55 Mo. 71. 15. Payment of debts is imperative/axiomatic/essential for the right of contract/property to exist, for without payment (delivery of money), the debt still exists. See: Stanek v. White, 215 NW 784. 16. It is the general rule that a pledger, whose tender (offer) has been refused, will not be granted affirmative relief of an equitable nature, unless he has kept the tender good or at least comes before the court in an attitude of willingness to pay what is due him. See: Norton v. Baxter, 41 Minn. d 146; Tuthill v. Morris, 81 NY 94. 17. Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me 410. (Federal Reserve Notes are not money.) 18. Federal Reserve notes may be refused. See: MacLeod v. Hoover, 105 So 205, 159 La 244. 19.

19. The only substances ever declared as money within the U.S. were gold and silver, in coin form, with copper/nickel serving in token capacity only. See: 12 USCA 152 re. "lawful money" and Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, at Sections 11, 16, & 20; re. copper/nickel tokens, see Sec. 9, and 31 USCA 460. 20. A legal tender, when made, must be kept good according to the rules of the common law. See: William Wolf Co. v. Canadian R.R. Co., 56 Pac. Rep 453. 21. It has been held that if the instrument recites on its face its consideration, the consideration must be proved. See: Smith v. Doherty, 60 SW 380, 109 Ky 616. 22. Where the instrument sued upon is nonnegotiable, plaintiff must prove its consideration. See: Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Dalton, 167 NY S 332. 23. A promissory note is defined as an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in dollars. See: Regulation A, Sec. 4 (1005) (a) Federal Reserve Act. (Dollars = money, not Federal Reserve notes.) 24. Money imports value. See: Neufield v. U.S., 118 F.2d 375. (What value has a piece of paper with green ink on it, especially when it is redeemable in no-thing?) 25. Money has value only by law and not by nature so that a conviction of those who use it is sufficient to deprive it of its value and of its purchasing power. See: Incitti v. Ferrante, 175 A 908. 26. When a contract is agreed to be paid in dollars, a payment in money is meant and not the transfer of notes. See: Simon v. Douglas, 225 SW 721; 189 Ky 644. 27. Income must be money or that which is convertible into money. See: Snyders Estate, 31 A.2d 132, 136; 346 Pa 615. (Is any Federal Reserve note convertible at par or otherwise, through a bank, for money?) 28. Monetary value means value calculated on the basis of $1 for an amount of silver or gold equal to the amount at the time contained in the standard silver dollar or gold dollar. See: USCA Title 31, Chap. 8, Sec. 448(b) (Gold and silver have a value lies in and of themselves -- notes do not.) 29. Money is a commodity, having a value of its own. It is a common measure of value. It has change ability. See: U.S. v. Gellman, D.C. Minn. 44 F. Supp. 360. (Gold and silver are commodities and have a value in and of themselves -- notes are not commodities and have no value in and of themselves. Granted they are speculated upon in the money markets but that does not mean they have a value in and of themselves. Their value lies in the confidence of the people, not in the thing itself.) 30. Money is defined as meaning a representative standard or measure of value. See: Jones v. Overstreet, 4 T.B. Mon. 547. 31. The courts have found occasion to decide that the pleading did not raise certain issues such as: want of consideration See: Sopp v. Linfrand, 36 P.2d 794; negotiability Banca Commission Italiana Dr. Genova v. P. Schlegal Co., 80 P 414; ownership Sheffield v. Hatch, 135 So 165); payment Minor v. Carpenter, 152 P 737. 32. Checkbook money is not legal tender. See: Story of Checks, Federal Reserve Bank of NY, p 20. 33. Commercial banks are important financial institutions because they can create money -checkbook money. See: Moneys Economic Balance, Federal Reserve Bank of NY, P 17 (8th ed., 1979). 34.

34. A check is defined as a draft or order upon a bank, purporting to be drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment of a certain sum of money. See: Federal Reserve Act, Reg. J, Sec. 3 (12). (Money is not notes.) 35. Nothing contained in this chapter shall impair the redeemability of any currency of the United States. See: 31 USC 9?6. (If currency has any redeemability -- where?) 36. Bank notes are promissory notes of a bank, payable to bearer. They are a good tender unless objected to at the time because not money. See: Parsons Laws of Business, Page 172. (Anything is acceptable as a tender unless objected to.) 37. It cannot be doubted that under the Constitution the power to provide a circulating of coins is given to Congress. And it is settled by the uniform practice of the government and repeated decisions, that Congress may constitutionally authorize the omission of bills of credit. Having this in the exercise of undisputed constitutional power undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. See: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall 533, 19 L Ed 48. 38. "Federal Reserve notes are valueless." See: Internal Revenue Code at section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.. 39. Taxes lawfully assessed are collectible by agents in money, and notes cannot be accepted in payment. See: Town of Frankfort v. Waldo, 128 Me 1. (If notes cannot be accepted, what about checks?) 40. Securities are defined as notes or evidences of debt. See: Rev. Rule 66-321, CB 1966-2, p 59. 41. Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me 410. 42. Only the note which represents money is negotiable. See: Omohumbro v. Crumm, 18 Gratt 703. (What note represents money? If there is none, nothing is negotiable.) 43. A check, to negotiable, must be payable in cash. See: Little v. Bank, 2 Hill 425. (Checks and notes are not cash.) 44. One of the factors showing that notes are worth their full face value is "the willingness of the payee to guarantee payment." See: Volume 10, Law of Fed. Income Tax, Se. 59.51. (Who will guarantee the face value payment of a federal Reserve note? You can change notes for notes but that is not a payment of the note.) 45. Congress may issue treasury notes, their issue being an exchange of credit for money or property. See: Metropolitan Bank v. Dyke, 27 NY 400. 46. A state cannot, by indirect means, or any device, emit bills of credit. See: Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet 431. 47. A bill of credit is not a good consideration for a contract. See: Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 431; Bank v. Clark, 4 Mo 59; Linn v. Bank, 5 Ill 87. 48.

48. A state cannot incorporate individuals and authorize them to coin money. See: Briscoe v. Bank, 11 Pet 257. (But can the Federal government?) 49. Tender is an unconditional offer to perform couples with a manifested ability to carry out the offer and production of the subject matter of the tender. See: 243 F. Supp 741, 744. 50. An offer of performance which, if unjustifiably refused, places the refusing party in default and permits the party making tender to exercise his remedy for breach of contract. See: 17 P.2d 952, 953. 51. A check is a written order or request addressed to a bank, by a party having money in their hands, desiring them to pay, on presentment, to a person therein named, or bearer, or to such person, or order, a named sum of money. See: Bouviers Law Dictionary. (No one has money in the bank to pay any person. Money is not notes or checks.) 52. A check is an order on a bank, drawn on a deposit of funds, for the payment of a certain sum of money. See: Norton on Bills and Notes. 53. A check, to be negotiable, must be payable in money. See: Little v. Bank, 2 Hill (NY) 425. (Notes are not money.) 54. A check given in exchange for a negotiable instrument is a conditional payment only unless there is an express agreement to the contrary. See: Steele v. Vanderslice, 367 p 2d 636. 55. Promissory note within meaning of V.A.M.S. Sec. 401.001 is a promise to pay sum certain in money. See: Dillard v. Dillard, 269 SW 2d 481. 56. A note is an acknowledgment of debt. See: Smith v. Mills, 296 P 2d 481, 49 SE 2d 431; Gales v. Frank, 121 NY S 2d 435. (Do those who possess notes, possess debt?) 57. Where note is void ab initio it is nonnegotiable. See: Modern Ind. Bank v. Taub, 47 A.2d 348. 58. Parties to a negotiable instrument are generally held to be liable in capacity in which they signed the instrument and sueable accordingly. See: Reed v. Buck, 370 SW 2d 867. (Who signs Federal Reserve notes?) 59. Petition seeking to enforce the terms of a promissory note must allege a promise to pay made by defendant. See: McGee v. Taylor, 242 SW 2d 621. (Court cases have often been dismissed because all parties to the action were not named. Anyone suing a bank should include the Secretary of Treasury and whoever signed the note. However, Federal Reserve notes are not really promissory notes and there is no promise to pay thereon.) 60. The essence of a check is that the instrument is an unconditional order in writing to pay a sum certain in money. See: State v. DeNicola, 126 NE 2d 62; Aetna Oil Co. v. Glenn, 53 F. Supp. 961. 61. A check is not money. See: School Dist. v. U.S. National Bank, 211 P 2d 723. (Notes are not money.) 62. A bank note is a promissory note of a bank, payable on demand, and intended to circulate as money. See: Commissioner v. Gallagher, 126 Mass 54. (Payable in what?) 63. Nothing is consideration for a note that is not regarded as such by both parties. See: Standly v. Western Mutual Life Ins., 95 Ind 254; Sterns v. Franks, 96 P.2d 802; 35 Cal App. 2d 676. 64.

64. Instruments not bearing terms of negotiability such as words "or order" or "or bearer" were not negotiable. See: Inst. Penn. v. Utne, D.C. Minn (1962), 360 SW 2d 823. (Todays Federal Reserve notes contain no such words and are not negotiable except for more notes.) 65. A note is an instrument which, by its terms, purports to evidence unconditional promise to pay. See: McCullough Tool v. C.I.R., (1963), 318 F.2d 790. 66. Note which was not payable to order or bearer was not negotiable. See: Strom v. Dickson, (1962), 361 SW 2d 823. 67. A holder of a note is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course and is entitled to sue on the note. See: Waterman v. Sullivan, 81964, 397 P 2d 739. (But we do not have valid notes.) 68. In order for a note to be negotiable it must contain both an unconditional promise to pay and a fixed or determined date of payment. See: Bank of Kimbol v. Rostek, (1967), 423 P 2d 579. 69. A promissory cannot be received as cash. Nothing shall be deemed capital paid in except money bona fide. Under no circumstances shall a promissory note, check, or other obligation be treated as actual paid in capital. See: Pac. Trust v. Dorsey, 72 Cal 55. 70. "The giving of a note for a debt is not payment." See: Van Stone v. Stillwell, 142 U.S. 128. (Are payments made via a Fed NOTE? See #93) 71. It will not do to say that their interest in the welfare of the state and their responsibility to their constituents will be sufficient safeguards against corrupt legislation of this or any other character. Suppose the powerful mining and other corporations doing business in this territory were to concentrate a heavy and combined moneyed influence upon a corrupt and venal legislature -- an institution not entirely unknown to the history of our republic -- and should procure the passage of an act making their certificates of stock lawful money in the payment of taxes, I think it would be difficult to find a lawyer who valued his legal opinion as worth anything, who would be willing to defend such an act as valid. See: Haas v. Misner, 1 Idaho 170, 178. 72. Act of Dec. 23, 1923, Sec. 317: Upon the deposit with the treasurer of the U.S. of bonds so purchased, and Federal Reserve bank making such deposit, shall be entitled to receive from the comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank. Such notes shall be the obligations of the Federal Reserve Bank. They shall be issued and redeemed under the same terms as national bank notes. (In the beginning the Federal Reserve banks bought the bonds with money; they issued notes in the amount of bonds purchased. The Federal Reserve banks bought bonds and deposited them with the treasurer. The U.S. Treasurer had possession of both the bond and the money. The Federal Reserve banks issued the notes. The notes were to be obligations of the Federal Reserve banks. The Federal Reserve banks loaned the notes to the government, and in this way the Federal Reserve banks got back all the money they paid for the bonds; but also, in the beginning, the notes were to be used only for settling accounts between the 12 Federal Reserve banks, and for no other purpose were they authorized.) See: 12 USC 411. 73.

73. The case of a State which pays off its own debts with paper money, no more resembles this than do those to which we have already adverted. The courts have no jurisdiction over the contract. They cannot enforce it, nor judge of its violation. Let it be that the act discharging the debt is a mere nullity, and that it is still due. Yet the federal courts have no cognizance of the case. But suppose a State to institute proceedings against an individual, which depended on the validity of an act emitting bills of credit; suppose a State to prosecute one of its citizens for refusing paper money, who should plead the constitution in bar of such prosecution. If his plea should be overruled, and judgment rendered against him, his case would resemble this; and, unless the jurisdiction of this court might be exercised over it, the constitution would be violated, and the injured party be unable to bring his case before that tribunal to which the people of the United States have assigned all such cases. See: Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wall 100. 74. According to State v. Thomas money was property but Federal Reserve notes are only a claim on property and, Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money--not legal tender. See: State v. Thomas, 12 USC 411. 75. Make the bank identify the thing loaned. Certainly if the bank claims to have loaned something they can identify it, and according to the law of tender, the tender must be kept good. If a judgement could be settled with a tender, then the litigation would never end. A Federal Reserve note being a chose in action, something to be sued upon (UCC), but then, under state law, there can be no "holder in due course" on an incomplete instrument, and a fed note is an incomplete instrument as it will not pay to bearer. This amounts to a common law cheat, which is the obtaining of money or property by means of false tokens, symbols, or device; this being the definition of a cheat or cheating at common law. See: State v. Renick, 33 Or 584, 56 p 275, 44 L R A 266, 72 Am. St. Rep. 758. 76. What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious. In a word, they are determined to annihilate all debts, public and private, and have agrarian laws, which are easily effected by means of unfunded paper money which shall be a tender in all cases. See: Gen. Knox. 77. In order to constitute a loan, there must be a contract whereby one party transfers to the other a sum of money. See: U.S. v. Neifert White, 247 F.Supp. 878. 78. A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another of a sum of money. See: Kirkland v. Bailes, 155 S.E. 2d 701. (Yet the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says in Modern Money Mechanics that banks make loans by promising to lend.) (However a promise to lend cannot be enforced. In order to constitute a loan, money must be loaned, but banks make loans by promising to lend, and promises to lend cannot be enforced.) 5 MRSA. 79. The thing given or taken in exchange must be specific and so distinguishable from things of like kind as to be clearly known and identifiable. See: Preston v. Keene, 14 Pet 133. 80. The extension of credit is not the giving of value. See: UCC 3-303:0; Atkinson v. Englewood State Bank, 141 Colo 436. 81. A loan is the creation of debt by the lenders agreement to pay MONEY TO THE DEBTOR. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code 9-A, Sec. 1.301 (23)(a)(1). 82.

82. Banks extend credit, not money. See: National Bank v. Atkinson, 55 Fed. Rep. 571. 83. Fair and reasonable value means the best price to be at once in money -- cash being the antonym of credit-- cash value importing value in money. See: State v. Woodward, 93 SO 826, 208 Ala 31. 84. A note given to town treasurer in payment of a tax, being illegal as against public policy, does not discharge the tax. See: Embden v. Bunker, 86 Me 313. 85. There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one 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 the disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation makes it the subject of transfer by assignment. See: Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N.H. 361, 66 Am. D. 729; William R. Stank v. M.W. White, 172 Minn. Reports 390. 86. Although it apparently was still necessary in the 1790s to allege fictionally that such bills were drawn "according to the custom of merchants, Butter v. Ouchterloney, S SC, 3-68) all agreed that an instrument executed by a non merchant was negotiable if it contained words of negotiability customarily used by merchants, such as "or order" in an appropriate place. See: Whitney v. Whitney, Quincy 117 (1765); Laws and Usages Respecting Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, by John Tisdall. 87. According to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), "a debt can only be paid with money or goods." The UCC, of course, is state law which supersedes federal law. "The Federal Government has no power to impose on any state officer any duty whatsoever, and compel him to perform it." See: Commonwealth v. Dennison, 24 How. 66. 88. A judgement for money must specify the amount in words or figures with some mark or character to indicate what they represent. Re See: Boyd (D.C. Or) Fed. Case No. l1746 (see also United Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel, 3 F.2d 634.) (Figures in the absence of dollar marks should be void as there would be no figure or mark to indicate what the numbers represent.) 89. In the absence of any provision of law precluding payment in a particular kind of coin specifically designated in a contract, the general rule is that such contract may be enforced by the rendition of a judgement for the particular kind of coin designated. See: The Emily Sounder, 17 Wall 666; Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall 687; Land v. Gluckauf, 28 Cal 288; Gilman v. Douglas County, 6 Nev. 27. 90. The support of the general rule by the courts has been based not on the difference in the kinds of money, but on the ground that the party specifically contracted for payment in a specific thing. See: Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694. 91. The issuance of Federal Reserve notes is not an attempt by the government to coin money, it is a pledge of the government to pay dollars. See: U.S. v. Ballard, 14 Wall 457. 92. No payment is effectuated by the delivery of a bill or note which is unenforceable. See: Lee v. Fontaine, 10 Ala 755. (A note is unenforceable unless it is negotiable.) 93.

93. Giving of a note does not constitute payment. See: Echart v. Commissioners C.C.A., 42 F.2d 158, 283 US 140; Noland v. Maryland Casualty Co., D.C. Md. 38 F.Supp. 497. (See #70) 94. When a decree provides for the payment of money, that term imports constitutional currency. See: Shackleford v. Cunningham, 41 Ala 203; West Oliver Co. v. Bail & Crommelin, 12 Ala 340. (Constitutional money is not notes or checks.) 95. For judgements payable in US funds. See: Shaw Savill Albion & Co. v. The Frederickburg, C.A. N.Y. 189 F.2d 952. 96. Definition of funds: Money in hand; assets; cash; money available. See: Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer, 28 Ill 335; U.S. v. Jenks, D.C. Pa. 264 F 697; Johnson v. State, 37 Ga. App 129. 97. Money is property. Federal Reserve notes are liabilities, not assets. Cash, according to the book. See: "The Federal Reserve Bank; Its Purposes and Functions," is coin. 98. Current money: Whatever is receivable and current by law as money. See: Henderson v. Farmers Savings Bank, 199 Iowa 496. 99. The precious metals alone are money, and whatever else is to perform the functions of money must be their representative and capable of being turned into them at will. So long as bank paper retains this quality it is a substitute for money; divested of this, nothing can give it that character. See: 3 Websters Works 41; Woodruff v. Miss, 162 US Reports 307. 100. A Note is only promise to pay. See: Fidelity Savings v. Grimes, 131 P 2d 894. 101. Legal tender notes are not good as lawful money of the U.S.. See: Rains v. State, 226 S.W. 189. 102. Checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the U.S.. See: State v. Nealan, 43 Ore 158. 103. Where the Fed. Gov. is a party to commercial paper, it is bound by same rules which govern private persons. See: Continental American Bank v. U.S., C.C.A. La. (1947) 161 F.2d 93. 104. The government assumes all responsibilities of private persons when it issues commercial paper. See: U.S. v. First National Bank, 138 F.2d 681. 105. The term "dollar" means money since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds or other evidences of debt. See: Devenny v. Devenny, 74 Ohio St. 96, 76 NE 688. 106. Federal Reserve Notes are a first and paramount lien on all the assets of the issuing Federal Reserve bank. See: Moodys Bank & Financial Manual, page 2105. (If Federal Reserve notes are a lien on the banks, no wonder they want to eliminate the use of Federal Reserve notes and deal only with computer entries.) 107. Negotiable Instruments Law was designed to cover commercial paper and U.S. currency. See: LSA-R.S. 17; 1 et seq LSA-C.C. art 2139.

108. The publics use of demand deposits as money is not based on authorization by the Federal Government. Even today, legal tender, the kind of money in which debts are payable, does not include demand deposits. See: An Introduction to Money and Banking, by Colin and Rosemary Campbell, Professors of Economics. 109. U.S. Currency does not contain all of essence of negotiable instrument under Louisiana law. U.S. currency is the object for which negotiable instruments issue. The very first requirement of our negotiable instrument law is that the instrument be signed by the maker. The signatures on paper money are made by facsimile stamp put there by machine. See: Civil Code Art. 2139 La; 120 So. 2d 845. 110. We are involved in a confidence game; there is nothing to our currency except the confidence the people have in it. See: Congressman Ron Paul. 111. Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all commerce and industry. See: President James Garfield. 112. The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who would question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. See: Abraham Lincoln. 113. Funny money supply: The Feds cant count it let alone control it. See: Barrons Financial Report, Feb. 3, 1975. 114. This sound state of the currency will have another most happy effect upon the laboring man. He will receive his wages in gold and silver; and this will induce him to lay up, for future use, such portion of them as he can spare. This he will not do at present, because he knows not whether the trash which he is now compelled to receive as money will continue to be of any value a week or a month hereafter. See: James Buchanan, Jan. 22, 1840. 115. A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due course. See: UCC 3-303;1(1). (The bank holds a note but what did the bank give for the note; what thing of value did they part with?) 116. With respect to a consumer credit sale, the creditor may not take a negotiable instrument other than a currently dated check or a draft payable within seven days. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code, Title 9, Sec. 3.307. 117. A promise to pay is not the equivalent of actual payment. See: Christianson v. Beebe, 91 P 129, 32 Utah 406. 118. Notes do not operate as payment in the absence of an agreement that they shall constitute payment. See: Blackshear Manufacturing Co. v. Harrell, 12 S.E. 2d 766. 119. A court will take judicial notice of the worth of a dollar. See: Read v. State, 92 NY 321. 120. Federal Reserve Notes and national bank notes may be used to pay an obligation evidenced by usual form of promissory note. See: Beery v. Los Angeles County, (1953), 253 P 2d 1005. (This case was over Wallace Berry, the movie actor. The notes in question were redeemable in lawful money and would pay to the bearer on demand.)

121. Par: When used in connection with currency, treasury notes or bank bills, par means equal to gold. See: Crim v. Sellars, 37 Ga 324. 122. Equal to gold and silver. See: Galloway v. Jenkin, 63 NC 147; Harrisburg Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa 451. 123. Thus it is laid down by books of authority that if a man draw a bill of exchange, he is, for the purposes of that bill, a merchant. See: Comyns Digest; Merchant, A,1. (are we all, than merchants?) 124. One who is the cause or occasion of a condition by which a loss has been caused ought to bear it. See: Marion Mortgage Co. v. Grennan, 87 A LR 1492; 106 Fla 913. 125. One who is not the cause of an occasion should not be made to suffer for it. See: Marion Mortgage Co v. Brennal, 87 A LR 1492; Buxbaum v. Assicurazioni v. Winston, Tx Civ. App 137 SW 2d 93. 126. The simple meaning of money is current coin. See: Salt Lake County v. Utah Copper Co., CCA Utah, 93 F.2d 127. 127. Payment is the discharge of an obligation by the actual delivery of money or its equivalent. See: Chrysler Corp. v. Hanover Ins. Co., C.A. 7, Ind. 350 F.2d 652; 383 US 906. 128. Money is what is coined or stamped by public authority and has its value fixed by public authority. See: Paul v. Ball, 31 Tex 10 Kennedy v. Briere, 45 Tex 305; Richard v. American Union Bank, 253 NY 166. 129. The USA has no inland jurisdiction Arndt v. Griggs, 134 US 316 and thus cannot compel one, upon ones proper objection, to obtain, use, tender, nor alienate any private negotiable instruments-- not excluding FRAUDS (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices), and this was held so by the state supreme courts, even when federal gold and silver coins were in existence (see ALZR administrative agency related fines, taxes, bails, etc. See: Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal 318; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall 71. 130. Thus, where the judge (sic) chancellor adjudges imprisonment where he cannot fine, the same operation of law/equity destroys his necessary "discretion" and without discretion, he ceases to be a judge/chancellor, and the court CORAM NON JUDICE (no judge in attendance) as in Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 US 274, where the court is without power or refuses to grant a hearing; Windsor, Supra. Thus no fine nor imprisonment can be enforced at all. 131. "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that they days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." See: Deuteronomy 25: 13-15. 132. From the Constitutional debates on bills of credit contained in Article 1, Section 8 which stated: The legislature of the United States shall have the power to . . . coin money . . . and emit bills of credit of the United States. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, by James Madison, Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, 1966. Mr. G. Morris moved to strike out and "and emit bills of credit." If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless.

MADISON: Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. MORRIS: Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. COL. MASON: Through he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was willing to tie the hands of the legislature. (legislature = Congress) MERCER: (A friend of paper money) It was impolitic . . . to excite the oppression of all those who were friends to paper money. Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this was a favorable movement to shut and bar the door against paper money. This mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else . . .. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good. Mr. WILSON: It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources. Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation. Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "and emit bills." ---The motion for striking out carried. On August 28, Article 1 Section 10 was debated. The standing version was worded this way: "No state shall coin money; nor grant letters of marquee and reprisal; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of nobility." 133. "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." See: John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920. 134. The mischief to be prevented, as disclosed in the history of the country, has been considered by the court in construction of the constitutional provisions against the emission of bills of credit by the states. See: Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410. 135. No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt . . ., said notes shall be obligations of the United States . . . they shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States. See: Title 12 U.S.C., Section 411: 136. Lawful money under the Constitution Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1, is "Gold and Silver." This provision of the constitution has never been amended. Thus, any other form of promised money is a fraud. 137. The dollar of gold, nine-tenths fine, consisting of the weight determined under the provision of section 821 of this title, shall be the standard unit of value: and all forms of money issued or coined by

the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, and it shall be the duty of the secretary of treasury to maintain such parity. See: Title 31, Sec. 314. 138. . . . Bank notes which are issued for circulation by authority of law, and are in actual and general circulation at par with coins, as a substitute for coin, interchangeable with coin, bank notes which actually represent dollars and cents, and are paid and received for dollars and cents at their legal standard value. Whatever is at a discount --- that is, whatever represents less than the standard value of coined dollars and cents at par- --does not properly represent dollars and cents and is not money. See: Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551. 139. Federal Reserve Notes are not legal money. See: Jerome Daly v. First National Bank of Montgomery, Minn. Justice Martin v. Mahoney, Credit River Township, December 7-9. 1968. Ruled that Federal Reserve notes were fiat money and not legal tender.

Nationwide Banking Fraud
by Dan Meador, January, 1999 Actually, the State common law court is created by the judicial portion of your State constitution. In the Oklahoma constitution, its Article VII. The "statutory" court, a/k/a "private" court, is convened in the framework of the Uniform Commercial Code; the UCC proceeds "in the course of the civil law" where your constitutional State court, in law, proceeds "in the course of the common law." This is where the "one form of action" crap began screwing things up as early as 1842. Law proceeds in the course of the common law; equity proceeds in the course of the civil law. Equity has only a civil side. The form of pleading is approximately the same as the UCC, but our respective States constitutions, except in Louisiana, incorporate provisions in the bill of rights that prohibit depriving us of life, liberty or property except by due process of law, "in the course of the common law". This corresponds with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. All Federally-chartered financial institutions proceed in the framework of the UCC. This is an "adopted act" in each of the several States, and under Conflict of Law Doctrine, which Oklahoma statutes actually set out, adopted acts must yield to original acts, the Constitution of the United States and constitutions of the several States included. In another forum, I related the definition of "credit" in the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act; Truth in Lending Act (Title 15 U.S.C.), as set forth in Regulation Z (12 CFR 226): "Credit means the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment." I spent much of December researching bank business, which is the way I stumbled across that definition, then in the last week I went to the State code; in Oklahoma Statutes, the UCC is Title 12A, & our Consumer Credit Code is Title 14A. These are both uniform acts generated through the Council of State Governments, so each State will have them.

Now, here is where the cross-over is via State codes. The definition of "credit" in the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code, which accommodates the Federal, is at 14A O.S. Ann. 1-301(7): "Credit means the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment." This has to be considered in the context of Article I, Sec. 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit..." Now for our pivotal question: Can the legislature of a State grant an authority which the Constitution of the United States prohibits the State from exercising? Obviously, no. Yet the UCC accommodates the whole Federal Reserve-related fraud, including the private scrip Federal Reserve (bank) Note, and "public money", both of which are predicated on "obligations of the United States". How is it that Fed.-member banks can grant authority for someone to defer payment of debt, or to incur debt then defer payment? I dont find that power enumerated for the United States or the State in their respective constitutions. Therefore, the whole Fed scam must be limited to territory of the United States where Congress has plenary or municipal power under the territorial clause, which is Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 of the Constitution. This is borne out via the definition of "State" in Regulation Z and elsewhere. Yet even if Congress had this authority, it could not be delegated to private enterprise -- it would be a function of Government of the United States. There we have the key. National banking associations are formed by five or more people to provide a limited range of financial services to officers and employees of United States Government and/or political subdivisions of the United States. Once formed, they become members of the Federal Reserve, and must subscribe to FDIC insurance. FDIC insurance insures only accounts of "public money", and the only people entitled to use of "public money" are officers and employees of United States Government, etc. Then they apply and become "Federal Tax and Loan Depositaries" (see 31 CFR Part 202 et seq), and once they are certified as such, they serve as "fiscal agents" of the United States. They also apply to become Federal Home Loan Banks, commercial and consumer credit banks, etc., and in these various capacities, they are quite literally agents of U.S. Government. They thereby "hypothecate" loans where the "credit" they extend is credit of the United States -- the authorization to "defer payment of debt or incur debt and defer payment" is predicated on a grant of authority via the financial institution operating as "fiscal agent of United States Government". They are no longer operating in a private capacity. A national banking association, etc., may be chartered anywhere, but operation as a Federal Home Loan Bank, etc., is territorial -- these Federally chartered entities may extend credit only in the geographical United States subject to Congress plenary or municipal authority in territory of the United States. They dont even have regulatory authority to file liens in the several States, as is the case for the Internal Revenue Service. Regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR Part 1320) help to demonstrate that few if any of the documents filed in county courthouses are legitimate. The definitions of "credit" in Regulation Z and the State version of the Consumer Credit Code demonstrate the Cooperative Federalism "crossover" on the State side.

The way to attack, in my opinion, is on the State side. The financial institution, IRS or whatever is governed by several legitimizing compliance laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Register Act, etc., so if they arent in compliance with these mandates, the State cannot afford them legitimacy merely because the UCC & Consumer Credit Code are on the books. When acting as "agency of the United States", these entities must comply with Federal mandate; only Congress may legislative, and must legislate for any operation of Federal Government, per Article I, Sec. 8, clause 18 of the Constitution. When it exceeds or fails to comply with Federal legislation, the agency takes on "color of authority", so when it executes documents which have the appearance of legitimate Federal claims but dont have, they are counterfeiting securities of the United States. Each of the several States has laws against counterfeiting. Here is where the well-pleaded case comes in: Proceed under governing State law against the counterfeiting effected in a private capacity. Demonstrate that they are not carrying out legitimate functions of an "agency of the United States". Thereby, State law governs prosecution. I dont take absolute responsibility for this strategy. Maxine Dawn of Iowa called recently, and subsequent to our visit, sent pleadings from a 1993 case in the United States District Court in the Western District of New York. It was a case where a USDC judge issued an order for the defendant to turn over books & records IRS wanted. As part of the counter-attack, the defendant filed a complaint with the Attorney General against the revenue agent, the judge, and others for counterfeiting securities of the United States. The U.S. Attorney, and the judge, found it convenient to dismiss the case in pretty short order. You dont find many of those "opinions" published, but I suspect there are more than anyone realizes. Wonder why the judge found it convenient to dismiss? At Article I, Sec. 8, clause 6, the Constitution provides that, "[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States." Obviously, theres a choice of "venue" as anyone who proceeds "under color of Federal authority" to file counterfeit (not authentic) securities of the United States in one of the several States party to the Constitution has transgressed State and Federal law. Prosecution can be in either jurisdiction. Since nobody is home in Article III district courts of the United States, it might be prudent to file affidavits of criminal complaint with State magistrates. Were still working on this somewhat interesting subject, so will have more on it later. Dan Meador.

How the Private Banking System Devastates the Earth
World Banks former Chief Economist William Stiglitz who resigned his post in dissent of the banks policies which cause economic devastation around the world. (Big Brother10-15-01) At the end of his interview journalist Greg Palast concluded "the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers." To do this, its necessary to understand how the bloodsuckers obtained their power. Herewith a brief description of how a cleverly devised banking system robs the average person of the right to a decent life while providing enormous wealth for its corporate owners and stockholders: Henry Ford, Sr., staunch member of the United States business community, once said "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." How did such a system get started? How do they keep it going? In 1935 during the Great Depression, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency questioned the role of money as a basic cause of nationwide bank failures. To explain the workings of our monetary system they called Robert Hemphill, a former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia. Hemphill told the august committee a fable - The Temple of the Thirteen Suns. The essence of this fable is that a rich man going on a journey wanted a way to pay expenses without having to haul his unwieldy supply of gold. The goldsmith agreed to store the gold at 10% interest and gave the traveler a receipt - an I.O.U. or letter of credit. After the traveler left, the goldsmith offered to lend this gold to any local merchant who would pledge all his possessions to him as security. In each case, the new borrower asked the goldsmith to keep the gold and give him a paper receipt. Thus the goldsmith still had all the gold - not to mention mortgages on the possessions of everyone who had borrowed from him! With each loan and payment of interest the goldsmiths fortune grew until he became the wealthier than everyone in town. Reflecting upon this state of affairs he said, "What a leadpipe cinch! I can collect just as much usury on this phony money as on the real gold." So began the banking business. Money is based on credit. To be used equitably, money must be issued and its value controlled by governments for the general welfare of the nation and its people. There is no need for money to be created as interest-bearing notes. However, its still being issued this way worldwide by private banks against the security of peoples own personal wealth or the wealth of other nations. The money you borrow from them is created out of thin air. Its a piece of paper that indicates you have pledged your possessions in exchange for your promise to repay the lenders of this money - with interest! The crucial point to understand is that the way money is created and issued determines the workings of the marketplace. Money issued at interest by private banks, such as the United States Federal Reserve

Bank, brings with it an overwhelming debt which has devastating effects on its own people and around the world. In contrast, money issued by a government without interest would benefit everyone. Instead of creating artificial shortages and causing horrendous suffering, interest-free money would simply be a medium of exchange and could release the abundance of human production. According to authors Fraser and Morse in Tomorrows Money: "The money of modern civilization is credit.[which] represents real wealth (goods and services}. But -- all our credit-tokens have been issued at-interest or as debt-tokens. First we had goldsmiths issuing credit- at-interest money to individuals. Next we had private banks issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals and the State. Now we have a Credit-Cartel issuing credit-at-interest to the entire world. Today, our wealth - your credit, and mine and the Nations - is monetized in this way." (1) "In England the goldsmiths method of issuing money was legalized under the Bank Act of 1694. [British] William of Orange needed money and [the Rothschild family] offered King William their gold - $6,000,000 - at 8% if he would give them a charter for a bank. And Permit them to issue an equal amount in paper notes at interest to themselves!" (2) Whats the matter with private banks issuing the nations money? "The interest system enables private corporations to regulate and control the Nations money supply - for their benefit instead of Societys" (3) (Does this remind you of the 2001 scarce energy crisis in California which suddenly turned into a glut, or the way gasoline prices rise and fall at the will of the oil barons?) Not only is the total debt from interest physically impossible to repay - especially if based on scarce precious metals - but "The interest tribute increases our taxes, lowers our buying power, depresses and oppresses the Nations production and business. The power and privilege to issue and regulate money are Sovereign Rights. They belong to the Nation - to us - and have been usurped and stolen from the people and the Nation to whom they rightfully belong." (4) The American colonies 1776 War of Independence against Britain was largely an effort to break free from the financial stranglehold placed upon them by the Bank of England. Space doesnt permit details of the struggle between Jefferson and Madison on the peoples side vs. Alexander Hamilton representing a privileged group desiring to start a similar bank in the American colonies. Hamilton won and the private Bank of United States was chartered in 1791. "In all transactions, the Nation was to be jointly responsible with the bank - but was not - to receive any of the banks profits. Many other benefits accrued to enrich the bank and its stockholders, including a comprehensive tax exemption." (5) Many government and other leaders in the U.S. have understood the power that money issuance gives to those who control it. * In 1787 John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

* President Abraham Lincoln: "By Government creation of money, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest." Lincoln tried to change the system by having the Treasury Department issue "Greenbacks" which were non-interest bearing notes. He was assassinated in 1865. * President James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States...and to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." But since the beginning of our country, bankers have been exercising de facto power in issuing the nations money. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act which consolidated the power to issue and regulate the nations money and handed it over to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a consortium of private bankers. Understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is "federal" in name only. * Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr.: "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." * Senator Louis T. McFadden (for 22 years Chairman of the U.S. Banking Currency Commission): "The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen." The U.S. public, taught to believe that our money is based on gold, becomes alarmed when someone reports that gold is missing from the Treasury. This no longer matters. Our money hasnt been backed by gold since 1935 when the Roosevelt administration took us "off the gold standard". The paper money issued by the Federal Reserve Bank reads: THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. * President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 in 1963 giving the Treasury Department power to issue silver certificates as the base of U.S. money. Once sufficient silver certificates existed it would eliminate the demand for Federal Reserve notes. JFK was assassinated five months later. (See: http://www.rense.com/politics4/jflandfed.htm) Others who championed the return of money issuance to the government included Congressmen Jerry Voorhis of California and Wright Patman of Ohio. These men understood what Mayer Anselm Rothschild, patriarch of the banking House of Rothschild, stated so clearly: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws" Workers around the world have vastly increased their productivity, yet their standard of living has fallen drastically. How many people work two jobs to pay back money created out of thin air using their own personal credit? How many millions in this country die premature deaths because theres no money for food and doctors bills? How many people in the Third World starve to death because their countries are burdened with enormous debts to international bankers? (In mid-2001, foreign debt owed to Western bankers was $3,000,000,000,000 - three trillion dollars!)

Human corruption has devastated the Earth to the point where many experts fear its impossible to restore a healthy environment. A change in consciousness is absolutely necessary. We need to stop exploiting each other. We need to act in a kindly and beneficial way toward the Earth and each other. Returning the power of issuing each nations money to its own government is one step that will ease financial burdens and stop massive genocide against our fellow beings.

Suzanne Phillips (1) Tomorrows Money by Felix J. Fraser and Elsa Peters Morse, New Age Publishing Co., 1948. (2) (3) (4) (5) Ibid. Sources re U.S. History: Financial History of the United States by Davis Rich Dewey; The Financier and the Finances of the Revolution. Vol. I Wm. Graham Summer; A World In Debt by Freeman Tilden; History of Great American Fortunes by Gustavus Myers; Journal of Wm Maclay; Constitutional Money by Etta M. Russell; works by Charles Beard; The Formation of the Constitution by G. Bancroft; The Story of Our Money, Olive Cushing Dwinell.

Silver Summit Speech
Silver Stock Report Speech presented on September 21, 2006 http://www.silverstockreport.com/email/speech.html (I wrote out my speech, and followed it closely, but not exactly. So, my speech went someting like this:) Welcome. Thank you all for coming to the Silver Summit. They say the smart money is in gold, and the smartest money is in silver! That means this group is the smartest group of investors on the planet, and recent performance of silver prices since 2003 is beginning to prove it. So, give yourselves a hand! (mild applause) I find it intimidating to speak to such a wise group, and Ive struggled to find the most useful and important things that I can say. Im very honored to be here. Im Jason Hommel. I’m the Editor of the Silver Stock Report that is sent to about 30,000 email addresses. Ive been accused of two things. First, people say Im a pump and dumper, stock tout, stock promoter. I admit to promoting stocks, legally. Second, people accuse me of writing too much on religion. But people want to know about what stocks to buy, and people continually thank me for writing about the Lord. At my best, Im a religious evangelist with a focus on silver. And I have very little respect for organized religion. Disorganized religion is far less dangerous.

So, since people think that Im either a stock promoter, or a religious nut, Im really honored to be here. (Audience applauded enthusiastically.) My speech today is on why silver is money, even though no nation on earth uses silver as money. David Morgan has pointed out that the words used for money, and silver are the same in most Romance languages. Silver is the only real money that there is. Gold, historically, is just too valuable to use as money if an ounce of gold is worth a years salary, or a modest home. Even at todays prices, as you know, it’s hard to get $500 bills! Throughout history, Silver has been used as money in more times in more places than gold. Silver is just not used much as money today. Most people dont want to know about silver, or dollars, as much as they want to know about the ratio between silver and dollars. In other words, the dollar price of silver--but most dont even care about that. People just want to MAKE MONEY. Ive been a success in numerous things, and a failure too. One thing Ive learned is that if you study hard, and know your subject, you are much more likely to be a success. It may take longer, but it pays off, too. So, if you want to make money, youd better first understand the subject, and know what money actually is! Ive listened to many experts; and they are nearly unanimous on one thing. Dont try to predict the dollar price of silver; because you will look like an idiot, you will most likely be wrong. And it will damage your credibility. And if silver is going past $1000/oz., why bother to say it before it happens. Just grow wealthy, and be happy. But first, it makes me happy to help people. Second, if I dont have any credibility, or if I dont care if I have any credibility, then I have nothing to lose! So, here it is--the opinion I have that everyone wants to know, and what some experts are uncomfortable in saying: I think silver will head beyond $8000/oz., in less than 15 years. And Ill tell you why. There are many, many fundamental reasons why silver will go up in value. 10,000 reasons, since there are probably 10,000 industrial applications that use silver. But its my job to focus, and help you focus, on the big reasons, or biggest reasons. Some of the big reasons are the story put out by GATA, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee. They have shown that the central banks of the world have loaned or leased about 15,000 tonnes of gold, out of about 33,000 tonnes. Gold is counted as "on the books", but it is no longer in the vault. Its an unsustainable manipulation or deception, and when it ends, gold will skyrocket. Ted Butler has also written great things about the excessive short position in the futures markets. When that manipulation or deception ends, silver will skyrocket. And I mostly agree.

But I want to talk about the biggest fraud of all, the biggest deception out there. The biggest deception is so big, it has warped the thinking of most everyone in this room, even myself. This deception of what money is, is so dangerous, it can cost you your lifes savings, or even your life. If you think money is a mark, or image, it can cost you your life. Revelation 13 speaks on the mark of the beast, which is needed to buy and sell. Now is not the time to speak on this in detail, but on Sunday, I will give a presentation for 2 hours on the religious issues here. There is nothing more dangerous than an ignorant religious zealot who wants to force his views on other people. Im devoted to God, and Im ignorant about a lot of things. But Im getting to know money fairly well; because Ive studied it, and Im good at managing it. I would be much smarter than I am, if it were not for all of the stupidity in the world; especially my own. (I failed to use proper tone and/or beat, and was looking at my notes when delivering that line. The audience was silent, and did not laugh as I had hoped, and I had to move on.) PEOPLE TODAY DO NOT KNOW WHAT MONEY IS. Ive struggled to define it; over several years! Some say what you spend is money, or that you buy things with money. Or that currency is money. Others say the dollar is defined as a certain amount of silver in the constitution, and thats it; nothing more. The definition of words changes over time. But essential concepts and truths do not. Remember, the words for silver and money are the same in many languages. Please give me your attention while I talk about the Desirable features of money, my definition that Ive been working on. To function as money, a monetary item should possess a number of features: To be a medium of exchange: * It should have liquidity, and be easily tradable, with a low spread between the prices to buy and sell, in other words, a low transaction cost. * It should be easily transportable; precious metals have a high value to weight ratio. This is why oil, coal, or water are not suitable as money even though they are valuable. * It should be durable. Gold or silver coins are often mixed with 10% copper to improve durability, and coins are made with ridges around the rim to prevent coin shaving or debasement. To be a unit of account: # It should be divisible into small units without destroying its value; precious metals can be coined from bars, or melted down into bars again, with a low percentage cost. This is why leather, or live animals are not suitable as money. * It should be fungible: that is, one unit or piece must be equivalent to another, which is why diamonds, works of art or real estate are not suitable as money. * It must be a specific weight, or measure, or size to be verifiably countable. You must be able to weigh, measure, and count, your unit of account!

To be a store of value: * It should be long lasting, durable, it must not be perishable or subject to decay. This is why food items, expensive spices, or even fine silks or oriental rugs, are not generally suitable as money. * It should have a stable value. * It should be difficult to counterfeit, and the genuine must be easily recognizable. To be anonymous: * Money should not be subject to government tracking * It should be useable for purchases in a black market * It should not require equipment, tools or electricity to use * It should not require a mark, or image, to be valuable, but rather, be a just weight, and measure. So, if you want to "MAKE MONEY", YOU SHOULD TRY TO ACQUIRE THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS! I think silver is best, especially because silver is cheap, and will be a great store of value. When I compare things, I compare fundamentals. There are two ways to approach the fundamentals: first, the supply and demand: and second, the nature of the thing. So, for two items, silver and dollars, thats 4 areas of study (in addition to the study of money that we just went over): supply and demand of silver, and of dollars, and the nature of silver, and of dollars. 1. Let’s look at the nature of silver. Like gold, silver has all the properties of money, that we just examined and defined, above. SILVER, SINCE 2003, HAS BEEN A GREAT STORE OF VALUE; actually increasing in value at a much faster rate than the stock market or bonds. 2. What is the nature of dollars? Dollars are failing as a store of value. Look at commodity prices skyrocketing. Are dollars liquid? Yes, you can make change for zero cost, and exchange a $10 for two $5 bills. But there are banking hold times as long as 3 weeks on checks. And you cannot convert dollars to silver very easily; especially if no silver is available at your local coin shop. There is about a 7% spread for silver between the cost to buy and sell it. But is the 7% a spread on silver, or is it really a spread on dollars? There is a VAT of 17% on silver in most of Europe. Is that a tax on silver, or is it a disincentive or penalty on selling the Euro? Durable? Cash can go up in flames, or go to zero value. Stable value? No; the ratio of silver in dollars is changing. Dollars are not rare; not difficult to obtain; & are going down in value. Dollars are easy to counterfeit; and $100 bills are not always accepted overseas. Even Starbucks will not take a $100 bill. (Audience laughed at this joke, which my wife suggested I include.)

Dollars are traceable. There are numbers all over the place; both on the money, and on your account. In essence: dollars are fraud. They were a promise to pay in silver.The promise was broken. They are not a just weight and measure. Dollars are a unit of account, with no accounting! Dollars are not essentially money. At best, they are the current medium of exchange--thats only 1 out of 4 major things that money needs to be. A promise is not the same thing as having received what was promised! If people could be happy with mere promises, Id never have to spend a dime on my kids! Even kids know the difference! I feel stupid for having to point it out, but paper dollars are not money. People will actually argue with me over this; and I can only assume that they are ignorant religious zealots of the worst kind, because they are so ignorant, they do not even know what they worship; that they worship the lies of the dollar. We may call dollars money; we may think of dollars as money; but we are using the word "money" wrong; or we just do not understand what the word "money" means; as Ive explained. For many people in the world, the word "money" means the same thing as silver. 3.So, let examine the supply and demand of silver. There is Zero demand for silver as a medium of exchange-- it is not really used as a currency anywhere in the world. (Liberty dollar maybe, but its overvalued in my opinion.) There is almost Zero demand for silver as a unit of account--it is not used for debt in most of the world. (Except by a few traders in the futures markets.) There is now a small, but rapidly growing demand for silver as a store of value. Last year, it was 40 million ounces. This year, investment demand is perhaps up to 150 million oz/year since the introduction of the new Silver ETF? Im using silver as my store of value, and as my unit of account. If I acquire more silver, I consider myself to be successful. Most of the demand for silver today is for industry, jewelry, & photography. More than is produced each year. That does not leave much room for investment, or monetary demand. The Silver ETF has acquired 103 million oz.That was surprising. But silver shot up from $7.76 to a peak of $15 since the silver users made a fuss over the Silver ETF! The amount of actual silver available for investment has been variously estimated as between 60 million to 600 million oz. Or as much as 4 billion oz. if you include all silver jewelry and flatware and tableware. 4.Finally. Let’s look at the supply and demand of dollars.

$50 trillion world bond market. $50 trillion world paper money supply. Thats $100 trillion of paper money. The world derivatives market is worth $400 trillion. $400 trillion is about a million times larger than 400 million ounces of silver. It is impossible to exchange all the promises for payment. But the world tends to try to cash out all at once. People have asked me, do I think silver is a "once in a lifetime" opportunity? No, I think its a "once in human history" opportunity, with no prior historic examples. Never before have conditions like today ever existed. 1.We have consumed nearly all the silver in the world. 2.We continue to consume more than we mine. 3. The entire world has totally abandoned silver as money. But whether you know it, or can accept it, silver is money. And nothing else is. When gold becomes too expensive, and when paper money fails, silver is the only thing left to use as money. One of the best books ever written on trading, and highly regarded by many traders today, is "Reminiscences of a Stock Market Operator" by Jessie Livermore. In the book, he talks about how the markets totally stopped trading for up to nine months at a time during war in the early 1900s. I know several millionaires out there, in this audience, who think they will be protected in a monetary collapse, because they have brokerage accounts and silver stocks. But nothing can replace real silver that you may need to spend on food during a time period of a market crisis. Everyone here should have at least $5000 worth of silver. Therefore, I strongly urge you to go to your local coin shop, and clean them out. The coin shop may have only $5000 to $50,000 worth of silver on hand, and most investors here can easily buy all they have.Go to the bank, get your cash, and get your silver. And get a safe at Wal-Mart, and bolt it to your garage floor, or put it in your closet. Thank you. (I had time for about 10 questions in about 10 mintues in my 30 minutes of alloted time.) (At the Silver Summit, I gave 2 speeches, served on 3 panel discussions, and was interviewed twice. The first interview is up at kereport.com, and the second interview was longer, and was video recorded by monex.com. My speech on Sunday was video recorded, and the panel on Sunday was also video recorded, and Im not sure when they will be up. I gave the speech above on Thursday, 10:40AM, to a crowd of about 150-250 people, and I dont think it was recorded.) (Overall, this speech was very well received--many said it was my best ever. My most favorite compliment came from John Embry, a man whom I greatly respect and who is very bullish on gold and especially silver, who told me that my speech made him realize that hes not bullish enough on silver.) Please visit the IRSwiki, SVPwiki and UBOTwiki http://www.svpvril.com/Money.html#TOP%20Money

Our American Common Law
by Howard Fisher and Dale Pond Common Law is a real thing. It is a real system of laws derived from centuries of work, study and sacrifice of millions of people. It is not trivial and inconsequential as some would have you think. It is the Common Law that is most represented within Our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Our Bill of Rights. These documents were designed to limit and eliminate the vicious Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Law which was what we revolted against as Our Revolution against the totalitarianism of England. Did you know the Anglo-American system (Our system) of jurisprudence is the only one which developed out of what is called the Common Law, that is, the general law of private property known in the British Isles? It is true - Common Law was designed through the centuries to secure the rights of individuals (you and me) to property and to make it difficult for property to be taken away from us by a government or governmental structure (bureaucracy) without due process of law. The Common Law was expounded over the years in hundreds of thousands of case decisions as a result of trials in which the Common Law jury acted as the Judges, and in which they exercised the authority to hear and decide questions of both Law and fact. Common Law deals with legal relationships, powers and liabilities, and types of actions rather than theoretical definitions of abstract legal concepts. The Common Law was recognized by Our Founding Fathers and is the basis of all law in America today. The Common Law recognizes the Power of Government lies in the common people and not in an elite group of power brokers. It is the terrible Equity, Maritime or Admiralty Laws (laws of contract) that steals this power from the people and centralizes it into the hands of a few power oriented men. The Common Law deals in real property whereas the Equity Laws deal in written abstractions of performance (agreements or contracts). In other words, Masters own their own property, work and destiny. We are all Masters when we truly own our own property. Slaves do not own property, they usually rent property of another and are compelled to perform upon or with that rented (tenured) property according to some agreement or contract.

It is from such controversies involving property that all of our Rights have come. Property is known as Substance at the Common Law, and includes hard money in the form of gold and silver coin as required by Our federal Constitution and every other State Constitution as they were all drafted to be in perfect harmony one with another. Controversies involving these matters carry with them a Law jurisdiction, a jurisdiction in which all of our Rights are found. The Judge in a Court of Common Law is an impartial referee of the dispute, and he is bound to protect the Rights of the parties to the dispute, or he will have lost whatever jurisdiction he may have had, or claimed to have had. It is the Jury who decides whether or not the Facts of the case are valid and they also decide the Law - does it apply? Is it correct for this case?, etc.