Between the 1860s and the early 1900s, changes in banking and taxation mechanisms were occurring through legislative actions. Influential individuals closely connected to the powers in England significantly impacted the legislation passed in the United States during this period.
However, it’s essential to note that such legislation didn’t directly affect individual states or their residents. The legislators did not find it necessary to clearly distinguish these aspects. The responsibility to comprehend the relationship between individuals, states, and the United States, along with the laws passed by the legislature, fell upon the people.
This understanding of the distinction between the United States and individual states was instilled in homes, schools, and churches. During that time, early admiralty courts did not interpret legislation as broadly, as people were vigilant about recognizing when the courts exceeded their jurisdiction. The people held control because they were aware of their identity and their position in relation to the United States Corporation.
The Great Diversion
In 1913, the United States introduced several private laws that facilitated the inclusion of subjects, particularly the newly emancipated slaves from the Civil War, as property of the United States. The 14th Amendment established a new category of citizens – United States citizens that had not been recognized before. Prior to the 14th Amendment in 1868, individuals were either born or naturalized in one of the several states; there were no persons born or naturalized directly in the United States. United States citizenship was a consequence of state citizenship.
After the Civil War, a new class emerged, marking the beginning of the democracy initially situated in the District of Columbia. The American people in the republic within the various states could opt to become one of these new United States citizens by choice. The 15th Amendment in 1870 granted this new class the privilege to vote in the democracy. These citizens had to apply for marriage, register to vote, and record births and deaths through a simple application process. While benefits accompanied this new citizenship, it also brought duties, responsibilities, and liabilities regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward Mandell House is credited with providing a detailed outline of the plans implemented to subjugate the American people.
(1) The 13th Amendment in 1865 paved the way for individuals to voluntarily enter a form of servitude to receive benefits offered by the United States. Whether Edward Mandell House actually uttered these words is somewhat inconsequential, as the described scenario in the statement associated with him appears to have been effectively put into practice. In 1913, significant legislative changes furthered this narrative: the Federal Reserve Act established central banking for the United States, the 16th Amendment empowered the government to reduce currency circulation through taxation, the 17th Amendment supported the notion that Americans had willingly joined the United States democracy, and the American Bar Association was created, providing a path for British Crown influence over the courts.
In 1917, the United States legislature enacted the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Emergency War Powers Act, providing the United States with the authority to suspend constitutional limitations. These acts allowed the government to exceed its peacetime powers by invoking any perceived social, political, or financial emergency, leading to the imposition of numerous “laws” aimed at bolstering the United States’ coffers. Declarations of emergencies, whether genuine or contrived, have become a common occurrence in the United States and its administrative units (States), but their application is typically limited to the subjects of these entities.
During the 1920s, there was a heightened effort by the States to encourage mothers to register their babies, a practice initially mandated for the newly freed Black slaves who were considered federal property. This period was marked by a sense of contentment, and many people were not closely monitoring governmental developments. However, the stock market crash in this era caught many off guard, as those not privy to insider information were not forewarned to withdraw their investments before experiencing substantial losses.
In the 1930s, federal legislation was introduced to facilitate the registration of babies through birth certificate applications, ostensibly to provide government workers with maternity leave and pay. Concurrently, states advocated for the registration, effectively surrendering ownership, of cars via certificate of title applications and for land through deeds of trust, transferring land ownership to the State. Unbeknownst to the people, constructive trusts were covertly established as they unwittingly entered into the United States democracy, becoming sureties for the nation’s debts. The distractions of the Great Depression diverted public attention from these developments.
During this period, the Social Security program and various other United States initiatives were launched, enticing Americans to volunteer as sureties for the debts associated with the new registered property and adhesion contracts. By 1933, the plan was well underway, with extensive registration, or surrender, of property through various United States agencies, including state subdivisions, ensuring considerable wealth for the United States and its officials.
This entire process unfolded without full disclosure of the material facts accompanying each registration application, raising questions of fraud. The potential fraud provided sufficient grounds to accuse United States officers of treason unless a remedy could be provided for the people to reclaim their property and seek compensation for the damages incurred due to the fraudulent actions.
The concept of plausible deniability played a crucial role in the complex web of legal and political maneuvers undertaken by the United States. If a remedy existed, the absence of its use by the people absolved the government of fraud charges, even in a common law court. The United States merely had to make the remedy available, without the obligation to explain or disclose its location to the public.
This lack of requirement extended to attorneys, who were not mandated to be knowledgeable about the remedy, affording them plausible deniability when individuals struggled to comprehend new laws. Similarly, legislators didn’t need intricate knowledge about the bills they passed, providing them with a form of plausible deniability. If the people failed to utilize their remedy, the United States emerged victorious. However, if the people discovered their remedy, the government had to acknowledge it and return registered property to the people, contingent upon the public’s awareness of the remedy and its proper invocation.
The strategy included fostering an environment of plausible deniability. Even when individuals were aware of their remedy and pursued it, attorneys, judges, and legislators could act as if they did not comprehend the people’s claims.
Measures like mandating public schools to teach civics, government, and history from politically correct textbooks were implemented to ensure the public remained unaware of the remedy for an extended period. The introduction of new state and federal laws, seemingly subjecting the people to rules and regulations, added an additional layer of protection against the discovery of the remedy.
The public ‘socialist media’ was carefully shaped to disseminate politically correct, albeit substantially incorrect news consistently. This deliberate misinformation aimed to dissuade people from even considering the existence of a remedy. This manipulation facilitated the separation of individuals from their money and time, deterring them from pursuing the remedy long enough for potential solutions to become lost in the vast volumes of law libraries across the country.
Despite these obstacles, a significant number of people sensed discrepancies between the laws and the “facts” taught in government schools. The realization that the American people were seemingly both free and subject to a de facto government’s whims spurred resourcefulness, leading individuals to actually discover and pursue the remedy.
The Fraudulent Insurance Policy that Changed EVERYTHING
In 1933, a pivotal development occurred with the implementation of House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192), a significant piece of legislation that marked a turning point in the financial landscape of the United States. This resolution, recorded in the Congressional Record, served as the country’s insurance policy and was not required to be promulgated in the Federal Register. An Executive Order on April 5, 1933, further facilitated the withdrawal of gold from circulation.
Representative Louis T. McFadden formalized charges on May 23, 1933, against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Congressional Record May 23, 1933, page 4055-4058). Despite his efforts, HJR 192 passed on June 3, 1933. McFadden, known for his outspoken criticism, declared on June 10, 1933, that the Federal Reserve Board and Banks were among the most corrupt institutions globally.
HJR 192 functioned as an insurance policy shielding legislators from charges of fraud and treason against the American people. It also protected the public from damages caused by the actions of the United States. Unfortunately, for his outspoken stance, McFadden was reportedly poisoned by agents associated with the federal corporation.
The resolution fundamentally altered financial obligations by stipulating that debts were no longer required to be settled with gold. It explicitly prohibited the inclusion of clauses in contracts demanding payment in gold, even retroactively for contracts predating June 5, 1933. Instead, HJR 192 allowed United States subjects and employees to discharge public debts using any type of coin or currency that was generally accepted in the normal course of business in the United States.
Initially, United States Notes served this purpose, but later, the Federal Reserve, in collaboration with the United States, introduced a new medium of exchange through paper notes and debt instruments. Federal Reserve Notes, the current currency used to discharge public debts, are acknowledged to have no intrinsic value, as explicitly stated by the Federal Reserve itself.
Introducing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
In the 1950s, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was introduced to the states as a standardized framework for managing the evolving legal landscape of commercial transactions. It aimed to unify procedures and establish a consistent approach to handling commercial transactions and legal fictions as if they were tangible realities.
A significant shift occurred as security instruments, such as commercial paper, replaced substantive collateral for debts. These security instruments could be supported by presumptive contracts, allowing debt instruments with collateral and accommodating parties to substitute for traditional money. This marked a departure from reliance on tangible currency, as a new form of money, known as ‘Money of Account’ (created by Bill of Exchange), emerged. To facilitate this transition, a uniform system of laws was necessary to uphold security instruments grounded in commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance, as reflected in state statutes regarding ‘Tender of Payment.’
By the mid-1960s, this transformation was largely achieved, with most states adopting the Uniform Commercial Code by 1964. The UCC essentially codifies accepted and mandatory procedures that individuals engaged in commercial activities must adhere to. While the basic principles of commerce were established millennia ago, they evolved and became more sophisticated over time.
In the 1900s, a notable shift occurred in the principles of commerce, moving from substance to form, with presumption becoming a crucial element of the law. The enforcement of commercial claims increasingly relied on presumption, allowing claimants to navigate court proceedings without producing claims on every occasion. The UCC successfully combined methods for addressing both substantive and presumptive commercial activities, applying these principles uniformly without regard to individuals.
Those who persuaded individuals to register (surrender) their property, ranging from land and cars to guns and children, to state subdivisions gained control over substance through these registrations. Consequently, the states could extract additional ‘use’ taxes from the people for utilizing the property of the state. The states, along with the United States, became holders of titles to various forms of property, including children.
Defining “Property” & Profits
The term “property” is defined as the interest one holds in a thing, with the thing itself being the principal. Profits or interest derived from another’s property rightfully belong to the owner of that property. In the context of registered property, profits made by those who engage in deceptive practices, often by pledging the registered property in commercial markets, do not belong to the deceivers. Instead, these profits rightfully belong to the owners of the registered things, which are ultimately the people.
It’s crucial to recognize that corporations may show ownership of paper titles to things, but the true substance cannot be represented within the realm of fiction. The movie Last Action Hero is cited as an example, illustrating the confusion that arises when attempting to mix substance and fiction. While fiction may sometimes closely resemble substance, it can never truly become substance – it’s an inherent impossibility.
To safeguard against fraud, the profits generated from all registered things must be placed into a “constructive” trust for the benefit of the true owners, who are the people. If these profits were deposited into the general fund of the United States without being separated into distinct trusts for each owner, it would constitute fraud. Each owner’s profits must be kept separate and not commingled.
Responsibility for accessing these profits lies with the owner, and if they fail to utilize their available remedy – often represented by fictional credits held in a constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger – to benefit from the profits, it cannot be blamed on the deceivers. If an owner fails to learn the applicable laws that would open the door to their remedy, it remains their responsibility, not the fault of those engaging in deceptive practices. Owners are accountable for understanding the law, ensuring they comprehend that the profits from their registered things are available to discharge debts or charges brought against their public persona (Debtor-straw-man) by the United States.
The Debt of the United States
In the financial system, if the United States holds the “gold,” it is responsible for settling bills from the trust account, fund, or financial ledger. A “fund” is defined as money set aside to pay a debt. The fund is established to discharge public debts attributed to United States subjects, ultimately benefitting the accommodating parties – the American people. The national debt encompasses what is owed to the owners of the registered things, namely the American people, as well as other creditors.
When the United States owes a debt to the owner of a thing, and the owner is presumed to owe a public debt to the United States by accommodation, it seems logical to request the United States to discharge that public debt from the trust fund.
To avoid paying public debts on behalf of the people, the United States may assert that an owner cannot be an owner if they agreed to be the accommodating party for a debtor-person. This argument implies that if people are indeed the principals, they should know how to manage their financial and political affairs, unless they have never been properly educated.
Owners may unwittingly, out of ignorance, admit or act as if they are accommodating parties, taking on the debtor’s liabilities without receiving consideration in return. The presumption that they are the accommodating party is powerful enough for courts to hold the owner of the thing liable for taxes on something they actually own or owe.
While debtors may have the use of certain things, the ownership still belongs to the creditors. The Uniform Commercial Code outlines specific duties and responsibilities for debtors. If an owner is presumed to be a debtor due to previous admissions and adhesion contracts, convincing the United States to discharge public debts on their behalf becomes challenging. Moreover, the courts, often staffed with loyal judges, scrutinize any mistakes made by individuals attempting to utilize their remedy.