Archive for August, 2010|Monthly archive page

Congressional statute versus public law

In American Sovereign on August 13, 2010 at 3:16 pm

I forward this message for your review.  I am not making recommendations other than do your own research and only act on what you know to be true.

An Analysis of the Facts, by: Kevin, of the family: Hines

“Was HJR-192 repealed?”   I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had gullible sovereigns asked me this question.  They have blindly believed this patriot mythology without thinking it through.  That’s the problem: sovereigns who are too lazy to do any research or think through a rumor thoroughly before blindly believing anything they hear or read.  Stop watching the NFL games on Sunday and start thinking things through!!!

First of all, “HJR-192” is the short name for “House Joint Resolution 192”, so let’s understand what a “resolution” is.  A New Year’s resolution applies to you, the one who made it, not to your next door neighbor or anyone else.   You’re the one who “resolved” to lose weight or quit smoking or exercise more, and your neighbor is not obligated to do what you resolved for yourself.   “HJR-192” is strictly a resolution that applies only to the members of Congress (who “resolved” it) and to its subjects.   It can be modified at anytime by Congress if they so choose, just as you can modify your New Year’s resolution if you so choose.

However, modifying a Public Law is a little different matter.  The law in this instance, per the actual “Statutes at Large” books, is identified as: “Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112”.  I went down to the SMU Law Library, found it, and photo-copied it for myself.  It contains the very same wording as “HJR-192”; however, one is a resolution and one is a Public Law.

Kevin’s Rule #4 – “Always do your own homework.  Verify everything.  Discern fact from error, truth from lies.  Never act based on someone else’s claims!!”

If I refer to “HJR-192”, am I not telling the listener or reader that I am a subject of Congress, and that I am a citizen of the UNITED STATES?? Sorry, but that is the last thing I want to say.  I can, however, say that the Federal Government has placed insufficient amounts of lawful money in general circulation, i.e., gold and silver coinage, thus, forcing me to “discharge” my debts with commercial paper, i.e., putting them off to a future point in time, and restricting my obligation as a sovereign to “pay” a debt.

I refer to the Federal Government’s obligation to me as: “Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112”, not “HJR-192”.   The Federal Government took away my ability to pay a debt with lawful money, but that doesn’t make me a subject of Congress or of the Federal Government, and thus, their resolution does not apply to me.   However, their obligation to me under their Public Law does apply to me because there is insufficient lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, which includes me.

When the Federal Government took much of our lawful money out of general circulation in 1933, i.e., gold coins, thus leaving an insufficient amount of lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, i.e., only silver coins remaining, the Congress wasrequired to give the people a remedy.   Public Law: “Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112” is that remedy. It states that the Federal Government will pay my debts, dollar for dollar.   Note: It doesn’t say that the government will pay for anything I desire to buy (like a car), only that it will pay my legitimate debts.

Most, if not all, of the State Constitutions require the State to pay its debts in gold and silver coin.   By taking away a State Government’s ability to comply with it’s Constitutional mandate of paying its debts in gold and silver coin, the Federal Government involuntarily restricted a State Government’s ability to function in a de jure capacity.   The de jure States went into suspension after the following four acts were committed: (1) the taking of gold coins out of general circulation in 1933, (2) in 1964, the U. S. Mint ceased minting any more silver coins, (3) in 1968, Silver Certificates could no longer be redeemed for silver, and (4) on August 15, 1971, President Nixon closed the Gold Window, thus stopping the redemption of foreign-held dollars for gold.  At that point in time, the U. S. Dollar was backed solely by the full faith and credit of the American people, and the States could no longer function in a de jure capacity while in a state of suspension.

The States went into suspension because the Federal Government involuntarily forced the State to pay its officers, judges, employees, etc. with something other than gold and silver coin, which was required by the State Constitution.   This “something other than gold and silver coin” was nothing more than “fiat” money, or script, back by nothing but the labor of the people.   Thus, Constitutionally, the States could no longer function in a de jure capacity because it no longer had the ability to pay its debts in the form mandated by its Constitution, i.e., contract with the people.

Since the Federal Government took away the gold coin money in 1933, thus causing the States to suspend operations by preventing them from honoring their obligation to pay their debts in gold and silver coin, then there had to be a remedy.  “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112” is the remedy, not just for the States, but also for the sovereign men and women who created the States.   Until gold and silver coinage is reinstated in sufficient quantities for general circulation, that remedy cannot be repealed.   Congress may have repealed some parts of “HJR-192”, or even all of it, because “HJR-192” is merely a resolution for Congress and its subjects.   However, the true remedy is provided to the people by Public Law: “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112”.

Until the State Governments come out of suspension, by the Federal Government’s placing sufficient quantities of lawful money into general circulation, your remedy, pursuant to “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112” cannot be repealed and will continue to be there.   The remedy of the subjects/citizens found at “HJR-192” might not be there because their remedy is nothing but a resolution, but the remedy of the sovereign found at Public Law: “Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112” will still be there because a sovereign’s remedy is Public Law.

If, as many uninformed sovereigns claim, the promise that the Federal Government will pay your debts, dollar for dollar, is no longer valid, then these sovereigns have no basis for claiming their remedy by using the 1099-OID process for the refund of out-of pocket funds expended to pay their debts.   Either (1) you believe that the Federal Government repealed your remedy, and therefore, there is no 1099-OID refund process available to you, or (2) you believe the Government has an obligation to pay your debts, dollar for dollar, and therefore, the 1099-OID process for a refund is your remedy and you can use it to recover the funds you expended to take care of your debt obligations.   You can’t believe your remedy has been repealed, and then try to claim your remedy by asking for a refund using the 1099-OID process.

Now that you understand the difference between a resolution and a Public Law (and why your remedy was given to you), you may recall how a well-known “patriot attorney” who specializes in tax matters has worked hard to intentionally mislead sovereign men and women into believing that their remedy has been repealed.   HOGWASH!!! He’s talking about a subject’s remedy by resolution, not a sovereign’s remedy by Public Law.   Please do your homework and think outside the box before disseminating patriot mythology to others, possibly causing them to stumble by your lack of research and knowledge.  If you wish to continue arguing this ridiculous allegation without doing your homework, i.e., refusing to spend the time required in studying the monetary system in detail, please do so privately, not on any public forum, so as not to mislead others with such mythology.

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings. Nous Resterons La. Chris Lund


Why the state cannot hear a human being

In American Sovereign on August 3, 2010 at 10:57 am

There is a lot of confusion on this topic.  I hope that the following is accurate and helps clear some misunderstanding.  I also invite differing opinion.

Let’s get this straight. “person” is a creation of the acts of legislature as expressed (defined) in statute.  It is not an actual physical thing or being.  “Person” is a concept, a role of conduct.  “Person” did not exist in its statutory capacity until a legislative act created it.  Yes, the vernacular word ‘person’ did exist but is has nothing to do with this topic.

Likewise, a corporation is not an actual physical thing or being.  It is a concept. Sure, it has a physical presence through what we call its property, it’s name, its identifying characteristics,  its products and its equipment, but the actual corporation is nothing more than a concept in practice through its writings and the vocalizations of those human beings who act in the capacity of its officers.  The closest a corporation comes to actually existing is through its minutes and bylaws.  Every manifestation of a corporation, every crumb of what appears to be its existence is only an act of a human being who labors to give expression to the concept of the corporation.  A corporation cannot act on its own since it does not exist in actuality. Even a maggot, a bacterium, an infective prion particle exist in actuality, but a corporation is only a concept.

Likewise, the “Natural Person”  is a creation of the acts of legislature as expressed (defined) in statute.  “Natural person” is a concept.  In this case, “natural person” is the legislatures view, what they “see” of the human world, through their statutory “eyes”.  They do not “see” the actual living being, they see the evidences of that human being through the writings and vocalizations he sends to the administrative organs of the State within the functional capacity of statutory authority.  The “Natural Person” can be said to be evidenced, for the purpose of presumption of its existence, by  the human being during those times in which a human acts to manifest the concept of the legislatively defined “Person”.

An example is a doctor.  A man is not actually a doctor.  He does not cease being a man and transform into another being which we know as a doctor, any more than he could transform into a goat.  He is viewed as “being a doctor” during those times in which the human acts to manifest the concept of “being a doctor”.  Man likewise is viewed by the State as being “Natural Person” during those times in which the human acts to manifest the concept of “Person”.  The physical living body and spirit or soul is not recognized, its intent as expressed through its interaction with statutory authority is all that the State is capable of recognizing.

No one is actually a plumber, a husband, a doctor.  These are roles which we act out, no matter how strongly we take these roles to heart, they remain as roles of human expression.  They are stations in life but not life itself.  Likewise you can play the role of “Natural person” for the purposes of statutory function or statutory interaction with the State.

No one is “made into a person”.  No one “Becomes a person”.  It is a role.  Flesh and blood men and women act in the role of the person.  And they are viewed as being “natural persons”, as contrasted to artificial persons ( such as those which are ens legis or existing solely by means of legislative action), during those times that they act the role of legislatively defined “Person”.

Examples of artificial persons (persons created by way of artifice) ens legis are:  corporations, associations, LLC, the official authority aspect of an Official (but not the official’s physical manifestation in the acting human being), partnerships (but not the partners themselves.) The ens legis comes to exist when some one or more human beings apply for and establish the artificial entity which is recognized by the administrative departments which are statutorily empowered to do business of the legislature or STATE and regulate that ens legis.  In this case the human being acts as an officer for the “Person”, usually in the capacity of “officer” (such as President of a corporation).  The ens legis are created within the functions of statute and remain there.  They are not created by statute as an independent creation.  This is an important concept to grasp; that the ens legis or artificial person, the “Person”, the “natural Person” are all created within and remain within the statutory construct or statutory “world” as some might confusingly call it.  They do not exist independent of the statutory construct.  They are characters in the story.   In the case of the “Natural Person”  a real flesh and blood human being has some capacity to decide how it ( the “Natural Person”) will conduct itself.

Examples of “Natural Persons” are license holders and operators.  Those human beings who apply for and obtain permission to do business for the State as a priveledge.  In the instance of the Natural Person, case there is no ens legis between the State and the Human Being, there is no artificial construct (ens legis) between the State and the Human being.  There is however, the presumption, on the part of the State, that a “Natural Person” exists as the manifestation of the human being operating under the privilege or license and giving it expression.

The State cannot hear Human beings.

The State can hear Natural Persons which might express exactly what a human being might express, except that the “voice” of the “Natural Person”, is heard in their forum and under the presumption that the one speaking is doing so in the capacity of natural person.  Utterances from the natural person which are inconsistent with the ascribed characteristics of Natural Person are disregarded as nonsense or babble.  Words which come from a Natural Person wherein one is attempting to enforce rights and power manifest in man by God or by force of nature are not taken cognizance of by State/Federal officials.

Officials acting within their official capacity, as they must since they cease being officials when under other conduct, are incapable of crossing the line into the real world of human beings (except in their own human capacity when not acting in their official capacity).  They exist and operate solely within the provisions and powers of the statutes and interact only with “Persons”, both Natural and artificial.  The statutory world acts upon the living world through the constructs known as “Persons”  if everyone refused to act in accord with the Statutes, they would collapse.  Peoples’ participation in the scheme is what is called “consent of the governed” or voluntary servitude.

Do you get it now ?  Human beings, freemen, have no voice within the statutory world.  None.  They are not heard.  If they are to act within the statutory world they must be elected to an “office”  where limited discretion is granted and human expression is denied, or take employment in an administrative capacity without discretionary power.

It is an astonishing mechanism by which the acts of corporate government are held independent from but bearing upon the living world.  The only breech available is reform (which means destruction or rejection of the statutory authority or power).

Bob Gavett