What is called “income tax” is the fee charged by the private Federal Reserve for the use of its private property, Federal Reserve Notes. Unless a substantial portion of these fictitious digits of credit injected into circulation by banks in the so-called loan process is collected in income tax and retired from circulation, the money supply will inflate too fast for production to keep up with it, the fraud of the banking system will expose itself through skyrocketing prices, public confidence in the currency will be destroyed, and the Federal Reserve will go out of business.
Securities versus private property
There are only two kinds of securities: debt securities (e.g., bonds and certificates of deposit) and equity securities (e.g., stocks).
If a digital currency represents title to a promise-to-pay (debt security) or shares or units of ownership of a tangible asset (equity security), it can be construed as a security and thus draw the attention of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Digital currencies like Bitcoin are private property and not a security because they do not represent title to a promise-to-pay or shares or units of ownership of a tangible asset.
The Federal Reserve’s underlings in the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service and henchmen in government can be counted upon to try to blur the distinction between digital currencies like Bitcoin and others that qualify as a security and lump them all together to deter people from using the former.
Important note
In this monograph, use of “crypto,” “cryptocurrency,” or “cryptocurrencies” refers only to non-security-type digital currencies (like Bitcoin): private property.
Nature of cryptos
Cryptocurrency (one’s own private property) allows one to live and work with other like-minded souls without giving out a Social Security Account Number or using Federal Reserve Notes (private property of the Federal Reserve) or participating in the voluntary Social Security-income tax scheme; doubtless many owners of cryptos have figured this out already.
Federal Reserve bankers and their stooges in Congress see the writing on the wall, but are powerless to legislate against cryptocurrencies directly; all they can do is try to dissuade people from using them through indirect means.
This is why we are seeing such cockeyed measures as the current proposed legislation from Congress, which purports to require declaration of ownership of cryptocurrency when traveling in and out of the country and criminalize exercise of the unalienable and constitutional right to property[1].
Neither Congress nor the Secretary of the Treasury nor the United States Securities and Exchange Commission have authority to regulate cryptocurrencies because (1) each is a constructive (inferred, implied, made out by legal interpretation) association (private, unincorporated society / community) whose members, called “peers,” use a particular software and application of blockchain technology to interact with each other by way of private contract for the purpose of promoting the mutual advantage of achieving consensus without a central authority,[2] (2) the Constitution at Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 forbids laws that impair the obligation of contracts, and (3) although most people do not know it, and as cited herein below, the Supreme Court has confirmed repeatedly and unambiguously that the right to sell one’s labor (or buy the labor of another) by private contract is incidental to / inseparable from the unalienable and constitutional right to life, liberty, and property.
Note: Because cryptos are property, there is no profit in any transaction: quid pro quo (Lat. what for what; something for something), i.e., even exchange.
All collections of income tax go to the Federal Reserve
Most people erroneously believe that collections of income tax are used to build roads and run the country. Rather, all collections of income tax are used to pay interest on the purported national debt allegedly owed to the Federal Reserve; to wit:
“Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that . . . 100 percent of what is collected [in income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt [paid to the Federal Reserve] . . . . In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.” J. Peter Grace, “President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control: A Report to the President” (Reagan), dated and approved January 12 and 15, 1984, p. 3.
Private-sector workers in charge of collecting income tax
Income-tax collection is handled by the Department of the Treasury and its service facility, the Internal Revenue Service. As of May 29, 1920, the Department of the Treasury is a private organization, independent of government, 41 Stat. 654.
Accordingly, and unlike executive and judicial officers of the United States, no executive or employee of the Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service is required by statute to take an oath of office—meaning that any oath they may take is discretionary / voluntary and all such executives and employees are non-governmental, private-sector workers, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
Proof that the Secretary of the Treasury is not a U.S. Government employee:
“The second part of the amendments prohibits the [Secretary of the Treasury] . . . from receiving salary or other compensation from the U.S. Government. . . . The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.” Senate Report No. 94-1148 of Oct. 1, 1976, re amendment of Bretton Woods Agreements Act, P.L. 94-564, 90 Stat. 2660, re § 2 of House Report 13955 [p. 8], p. 5942.
Further, the operational manual for all Internal Revenue Service employees, the co-called “Internal Revenue Manual,” is devoid of evidence that it was legislated by Congress or published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nature of the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is no more part of government than Federal Express:
“The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking monopoly.” Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, p. 1260.
“The Federal Reserve Banks . . . are not federal instrumentalities . . . but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
“Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. . . .” Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir.1982).
The Federal Reserve Act (Ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, December 23, 1913), is the creation of Baron Alfred Charles de Rothschild (1842-1918), Director of the private Bank of England,[3] implemented via his straw author, Paul Moritz Warburg,[4] a German banker and Rothschild confederate awarded United States citizenship in 1911 specifically for this purpose.
The Federal Reserve is a corporation patterned by its architect, Baron Rothschild, after its parent corporation, the private Bank of England, and instituted not under aegis of the national government established by the Constitution but the government of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.[5]
The parent bank of the private Bank of England is the private Bank of Amsterdam,[6] whose principals (goldsmith-bankers and bullion brokers) in 1622 conceive but fail in their efforts to get the Dutch government to institute the commercial artifice that will come to be known as income tax.[7] In 1799 the English Parliament institute income tax in accordance with the wishes of their creditor-masters, the goldsmith-bankers of the private Bank of England.
Unilateral Rothschild control of the money supply
An extremely rare public disclosure (Rothschild proxies own 96% of all media worldwide) reveals unilateral Rothschild control of the Federal Reserve System (via controlling interest in each of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s nominal-stockholder banks, which, collectively, own controlling interest in the stock of the remaining 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks; thereby securing Rothschild control of the entire Federal Reserve System) and documenting the reality of unilateral, alien domination of the Fed’s primary borrower and debtor-slave, Congress, and Congress’ employer, the U.S. Government, and, by virtue of the Fed’s private ownership of the currency (Federal Reserve Notes), the money supply and economy; to wit, in pertinent part:
“This said Rothschild [i.e., the Rothschild Dubai office, institutional proxy of Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild] is not getting directly involved but will act through commercial banks in which it has equity or has connections with, like JP Morgan and other ones. Moreover, through the same commercial banks, Rothschild has a say, and a powerful one, over the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY).
“By law the latter plays a key role in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and thus has a crucial role in making key decisions about interest rates and the US money supply.
“Through the FRBNY Rothschild is in a privileged position to influence US monetary policy and shaping US monetary supply, crucially important since the US dollar remains the main reserve currency in the world.” AsiaNews, “Signs of a new financial storm for September coming from Dubai and Saudi Arabia,” June 1, 2009.
How banks make “loans”
The American economy is not based on capitalism; rather on banker belief or trust in borrowers, called credit (Middle French (15c.) crédit “belief, trust”); to wit:
“The Federal Reserve is a fount of credit, not of capital. . . .” New York Times, “Stabilizing Money Rates,” Section 3, Editorial Section, January 18, 1920, p. 33 (the presumed source of this quote is Warburg).
Banks never loan their assets, deposits, reserves, money, or property in the so-called loan process; only costless, fictitious digits of credit. Federal Reserve publications explain how the fraud is perpetrated:
“What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction [checking or credit-card] accounts.” Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1994, p. 6.
“Money for loans comes from . . . institutions such as banks, which have the power, within limits, to create money in checking-type accounts when they make loans.” The Hats the Federal Reserve Wears, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, p. 11.
“If it [a bank] makes loans, it will simply credit the checking accounts of the borrowers. . . . new money, in the form of additional checkable deposits, will be ‘created.’” The Federal Reserve Today: Fed Funds Rate, Discount Rate, 11th ed., Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 1994, p. 21.
“Because the bulk of a bank’s loans are made by simply crediting the customer-borrower’s deposit account, the loan in fact becomes new deposit money.” Your Money: A Review of Money in the United States, 3rd ed., Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 1991, p. 17.
“[M]oney exists simply as a bookkeeping entry at a bank . . .” The Story of Money, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2009, p. 17.
Banks risk nothing in the so-called loan process; “borrowers” risk everything.
An interview with a Federal Reserve official published by the National Geographic Society reveals that the Federal Reserve is free to bestow loans of unlimited amounts of credit (costless digits) upon anyone they choose (e.g., Congress, who sign a promise-to-pay and do what they are told):
“When the Fed pays the [securities] dealers, a hundred million dollars will thereby be added to the country’s money supply, because the dealers will be credited that amount by their banks, which now have that much more money on deposit.
“But where did the Fed get that hundred million dollars?
“‘We created it,’ a Fed official tells me. He means that anytime the central bank writes a check, so to speak, it creates money. ‘It’s money that didn’t exist before,’ he says.
“Is there any limit on that?
“‘No limit. Only the good judgment and the conscience of the responsible Federal Reserve people.’” Peter T. White, “The Power of Money,” National Geographic, January 1993, p. 84.
The Secretary of the Treasury confesses to the fraud:
“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. This money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.” Robert B. Anderson, quoted in U.S. News & World Report, “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” August 31, 1959, pp. 68-69.
“Fractional-reserve banking”
The lending scheme of the Federal Reserve Act is known as fractional-reserve banking or lending (not defined in law dictionaries). Under this practice, commercial banks (instrumentalities of the Federal Reserve) must set aside a certain portion of their deposits as so-called reserves, either in cash in their vaults or in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank. The reserve requirement represents only a fraction of what a bank can loan out.
For example, if a bank has a 10 percent reserve requirement and receives a deposit of $5,000 from a customer, the bank may loan out the equivalent of 90 percent of the $5,000 deposit, or $4,500, in fictitious digits of credit. Banks do this without drawing from the deposit of the customer from which the new digits of credit are created and loaned out.
But it does not stop there.
Let us say the borrower of that $4,500 pays it to some business and that business then deposits it in its bank. That bank may then repeat the process and loan out 90 percent of its new deposit of $4,500, or $4,050, to another borrower.
A loan of the $4,050 and deposit back into another bank would authorize a third loan of $3,645.
After the above three deposit-loan cycles, $12,195 in “new money” (digits of credit) is created from—and in addition to—the original deposit of $5,000. The original depositor still can access his $5,000, but there is now an additional $12,195 in circulation. Fractional-reserve lending constantly inflates the money supply.
Since there was no corresponding increase (or at best a very tiny increase) in production / products available for sale in the amount of time it took to make the foregoing three deposits and loans, there is proportionately more money in circulation available to purchase existing products—which automatically results in an increase in prices.
This is why the price of everything keeps going up: Banks keep increasing (inflating) the money supply every time they make a so-called loan—at no cost or risk to themselves, and at the expense of everyone else—at a much faster rate than additional products can be produced. Inflation is a silent, invisible tax on the funds in your possession through continual erosion of the purchasing power of those funds.
Banks make profits primarily from collection of payments of interest. When loans of credit are repaid, the principal amount of the loan is retired from circulation by the bank the same way it was created, computer-keypad keystroke, but the bank retains for its own use all payments of interest received.
Congress and U.S. Government slaves of the Federal Reserve
“The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.”
Proverbs 22:7 (English Standard Version).
“‘In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will. . . .’” [Italic emphasis in original.] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 79, quoted in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 252 (1920).
There is no provision of the Federal Reserve Act that requires the U.S. Government to repay the principal amount of any loan received from the Federal Reserve, only to make payments of interest (profit for the Federal Reserve), which is why the national debt keeps rising: Loans to the U.S. Government permanently inflate the money supply.
If there are insufficient funds for an interest payment, Congress simply vote to spend more money (borrow more credit) and make the interest payment out of proceeds of the loan.
The Federal Reserve is the master in the relationship, the U.S. Government the slave.
Fractional-reserve lending gone wild
In 2008 in Zimbabwe, when the estimated annual rate of inflation surpasses the quadrillions of percent, the Mugabe regime ceases tracking it. An article with the improbable title “Lack of Bank Note Paper Threatens Zimbabwe Economy” chronicles the effects of inflation in that little country on a yearly, monthly, and hourly basis; to wit:
“As hyperinflation spiraled last year, Fidelity [Printers] printed million-dollar notes, then 5-million, 10-million, 25-million, 50-million. This year, it has been forced to print 100-million, 250-million and 500-million notes in rapid succession, all now practically worthless. The highest denomination is now 50 billion Zimbabwean dollars (worth a U.S. dollar on the street).
“Despite the recent currency shortage, the Zimbabwean dollar has continued to slide against the U.S. dollar and shopkeepers are still increasing their prices steeply. The price of the state-owned Herald newspaper has leaped from 200,000 Zimbabwean dollars early this month to 25 billion now. Before the crunch, a beer at a bar in Harare, the capital, cost 15 billion Zimbabwean dollars. At 5 p.m. July 4, it cost 100 billion ($4 at the time) in the same bar.
“An hour later, the price had gone up to 150 billion ($6).” Los Angeles Times, “Lack of Bank Note Paper Threatens Zimbabwe Economy,” July 14, 2008.
Mugabe abandoned the Zimbabwe dollar shortly thereafter—whereupon, all domestic debt was wiped out, foreign currencies (US Dollar, Euro, British Pound, and South African Rand) began appearing, and the Zimbabwe economy began to flourish as though nothing had happened (Alf Field, 321Gold.com, “Zimbabwe: A Fresh Start,” November 11, 2009.
For absolutely mind-blowing photos when the annual rate of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was just passing 231-million percent (highest bank denomination note ended up at Z$100 trillion, worth about US$2 at the time), click here.
There is no difference in the 2008 lending policy (fractional-reserve lending) of the Central Bank of Zimbabwe and that of today’s Federal Reserve, only the degree of abuse.
Origin of the fraud of so-called fractional-reserve banking
The so-called fractional-reserve lending scheme is dependent on (1) a central bank and government-enforced monopoly (to bar competing non-member banks), and (2) public confidence in the currency. As confessed by essayists at the private Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the practice traces to goldsmiths; to wit (Bold emphasis added.):
“It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their ‘deposit receipts’ whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller, who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found out that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes,[8] were acceptable as money[9] since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
“Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving away their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. . . .” Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1994, p. 3.
In earlier times, goldsmith-bankers deceitfully (and criminally) would loan into circulation not lawful money (gold or silver coin) but their unconditional promises to pay lawful money on demand (see fn. 7), i.e., their own promissory notes, but in excess of the amount of lawful money they had in their vault to redeem said promissory notes.
The scheme lasted as long as there was confidence in the convertibility of a goldsmith-banker’s promissory notes into gold or silver and the promissory notes circulated like currency. When public confidence waned and too many people started showing up to redeem promissory notes for gold or silver, the goldsmith-banker would pack up whatever he had left and flee the town, defrauding those left holding his worthless promises-to-pay of their wealth.
The goldsmith-bankers of the private Federal Reserve essentially did this exact thing in 1933 when, after they had swindled nearly all American gold by way of collection of interest payments in gold from the U.S. Government for loans of costless Federal Reserve Notes and shipped it all to England and Germany, they excused themselves of the crime by having (1) Roosevelt (falsely) accuse the American People of hoarding gold and outlaw all ownership of gold coin, certificates, and bullion (Executive Order 6102, April 5, 1933), and (2) Congress suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause of the Constitution (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933).
Until incorporation of the private Bank of England July 27, 1694, “usury” meant lending at interest and carried the death penalty in all cultures. The English Parliament exempted Bank of England goldsmith-bankers from penalty for usury (death) in exchange for non-repayable loans of gold (at eight percent interest, however).
The reason for this is simple: The amount needed to pay interest on loans does not exist. Only principal amounts are loaned into circulation—making it impossible for all borrowers to pay both interest and principal (hence the need for bankruptcy laws).
Today “usury” means lending at a rate of interest in excess of that allowable by law—but we still have the same situation: Banks never put into circulation the funds needed for interest payments.
The long-term effect of lending at interest—whether at a rate allowable by law or not—is acquisition of ownership of everything by the banks. Every modern banker / fractional-reserve lender is a usurer and enemy of mankind.
Income tax and public confidence in the currency
The primary purpose of “loans” of credit from the Federal Reserve is to finance the global war machine of its debtor-slaves in Congress and the U.S. Government, deceitfully called the Department of Defense, and the myriad private arms manufacturers and “defense” contractors comprising the remainder of the military-security industrial complex. Such loans are justified by the so-called full faith and credit of the U.S. Government; to wit:
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT phrase meaning that the full taxing and borrowing power, plus revenue other than taxes, is pledged in payment of interest and repayment of a bond issued by a government entity. U.S. Government securities . . . are backed by this pledge. John Downes and Jordan Elliot Goodman, Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms, 6th ed. (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003), p. 166.
When the U.S. Government borrows credit (costless digits entered in an account) from the private Federal Reserve, the money supply is increased by the amount of the loan, which drives up prices.
When there is too much inflation prices rise too fast and the public loses confidence in the currency.
To prevent this from happening the private Federal Reserve, via its tools, the so-called Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, collect so-called income, estate, and gift taxes, which are used to pay interest on the national debt to the Federal Reserve, who retires those amounts from circulation, thus reducing the money supply (deflation), which tends to keep prices down and promote public confidence in the currency.[10]
More, however, is injected into circulation from loans of credit than is extracted from circulation in taxes; resulting in constant inflation of the money supply and higher and higher prices.[11]
Were people to find another way to market products or their own labor or acquire products or the labor of others directly via private contract, without the use of Federal Reserve Notes, there would be fewer and fewer taxable transactions, and less and less tax liability for the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to collect.
Cryptocurrency (private property) provides such a way.
With as little as one percent of the American population moving into the private societies / associations / communities of cryptocurrency ownership and avoiding transactions with Federal Reserve Notes, the Federal Reserve will have to cut back dramatically on its loans of credit or face rapid and certain destruction of public confidence in the currency.
Presently the Federal Reserve is facing loss of public confidence in the currency because of too many digits of credit in circulation from, among other things, nonrepayable loans of credit to the U.S. Government and deferred (unpaid) loans of credit to students (student loans).
For the same reason a leopard cannot change its spots, the Federal Reserve cannot change its nature—and will continue to wage war on the world through finance of its debtor-slaves, the U.S. Congress and military-security industrial complex, an obsession which will result in obliteration of public confidence in the currency via skyrocketing prices and disintegration of the Federal Reserve.
Social Security Ponzi scheme
“Unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso. That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself,” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 3rd rev. (8th ed.) by Francis Rawle (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s Law Dictionary”) p. 2166.
Upon inspection, it is discovered that despite its advertised purpose as a retirement program, the principal part of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, is income tax. The organic Social Security Act is income-tax legislation.
“Non differunt quæ concordant re, tametsi non in verbis iisdem. Those things which agree in substance, though not in the same words, do not differ.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 2149.
The Social Security-income tax paradigm has all the elements of a Ponzi scheme, defined as follows:
“Ponzi scheme. . . . A fraudulent investment scheme in which money contributed by later investors generates artificially high dividends for the original investors, whose example attracts even larger investments. • Money from the new investors is used directly to repay or pay interest to old investors, usu. without any operation or revenue-producing activity other than the continual raising of new funds. . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., Bryan A. Garner, ed. in chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999), p. 1180.
Current workers are “later investors”; retirees are “original investors.” Money from the paychecks of current workers is used directly to support retirees. Benefits paid to retirees leads current workers and prospective “new investors” (immigrants and children who come of age and join the workforce) to believe that they too will receive retirement benefits when they retire if they enroll in Social Security.
Because it takes multiple current workers paying Social Security payroll taxes to support one retiree, the scheme must attract ever-increasing numbers of “new investors” (workers) to keep up with payments to retirees. Since such arrangement is unsustainable, it is only a matter of time till the day of reckoning arrives.
Former President George W. Bush discloses the reality of the fraud:
“At a rally in North Carolina last month, the president said, ‘Some of you probably think there is a kind of bank, a Social Security trust bank.’ In fact, Bush said, ‘there are empty promises, but there’s no pile of money that you thought was there when you retired. That’s not the way the system works.’
“. . . Each generation of workers pays payroll taxes to support retirees and the disabled in return for the expectation that the next generation will support them when they retire.” Los Angeles Times, “Real Bonds, and Worries, Draw Interest,” March 6, 2005.
Former Texas Governor Rick Perry is more to the point:
“Campaigning in Corona del Mar, Perry . . . attacked Social Security as an unsustainable ‘Ponzi scheme’ and ‘monstrous lie’ to younger Americans counting on its benefits. . . .” Los Angeles Times, “GOP rivals still clashing over Social Security,” September 8, 2011, p. A17.
According to the latest report from the Social Security Administration, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (commonly known as “Social Security”) will be insolvent by 2021, but will cannibalize funds from the Disability Insurance Trust Fund until 2034, when both will be bankrupt (SocialSecurity.gov, “Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs: A Summary of the 2017 Annual Reports”).
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme run by the private Federal Reserve (not the U.S. Government) via its instrumentality, the Department of the Treasury (the Treasury Department is independent of government, supra; the Secretary of the Treasury is not a U.S. Government employee, supra).
The private Federal Reserve Bank is the recipient of all collections of income tax, supra, and the trustee of all funds collected in Social Security payroll taxes.[12] The U.S. Government is its debtor-slave and does what it is told.
Most people ineligible to enroll in Social Security when they joined
Beginning with the organic Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, and continuing through the present day, the only persons eligible to join the Social Security-income tax and -Ponzi scheme are residents of the District of Columbia or one of the territories; to wit: In 1935 it was the District of Columbia or Territory of Alaska or Hawaii (both of which territories were admitted into the Union 24 years later, in 1959); today it is the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The fraud was perpetrated by the Federal Reserve’s debtor-slaves in Congress, who converted “State” and “United States” into statutory terms, gave them a definition with a constitutionally opposite meaning that excludes all members of the Union and comprehends only the District of Columbia and the territories, and then preyed on your (or your parents’) mistaken belief that you reside in a “State” or the “United States” (now defined by statute to mean federal territory over which Congress exercise exclusive legislative power).
For evidence of the foregoing fact, see “Why the proposed ‘Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Counterfeiting Act of 2017’ applies to only a tiny percentage of Americans”; for a 1½-page explanation in fairy-tale form, see “How central bankers regard the Fourth of July.”
Presence of one or more of the following destroys the validity a signature or contract: fraud, duress, undue influence, menace, or mistake.
If, at the time nearly everyone supposedly enrolled in the Social Security-income tax and -Ponzi scheme they were not a resident of the District of Columbia or one of the above territories and were ineligible to join the in the first place—and shanghaied politically to the District of Columbia by way of stealth legislation and fraud, to pay income tax and ensure the longevity of the private Federal Reserve, and such enrollment occurred by mistake.
Certified public accountants: False representations to corporate executives
No one has any legal duty to submit to a Ponzi scheme—no matter who is running it (Federal Reserve) or trying to enforce it (U.S. Government)—and there is no law requiring disclosure of a Social Security Account Number or participation in the Social Security-income tax and -Ponzi scheme in order to work in America—and no one can present such law.
The only time one must produce a Social Security Account Number is if he wishes to receive Social Security-related benefits. In all other instances, without exception, the proffering of a Social Security Account Number is a voluntary act. This is why actors in government refer to income tax as “voluntary”: One incurs liability when he volunteers a Social Security Account Number to a payor, who then reports the volunteer’s earnings to the Internal Revenue Service in a Form W-2 or 1099.
The American People have been hoodwinked and defrauded by the legions of certified public accountants infesting corporate America, who must be “approved” by the Internal Revenue Service in order to be eligible to prepare tax returns for others as an accountant, and have falsely represented to corporate executives that people who do not produce a Social Security Account Number upon request do not have the right to sell their labor via private contract and cannot be hired by the company.
Of course, no CPA can present any law that supports such theory or explain how Americans sold their labor by private contract for the first 146 years of the Republic prior to arrival of the Social Security-income tax and -Ponzi scheme in 1935.
Further, no CPA is competent to prepare a tax return for anybody because there is not a single one that understands the meaning of the (fraudulent) definition of the statutory term “State” or “United States” in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code) or the geographic area in which the Internal Revenue Code applies (see fn. 12), due to ignorance of the basic rules of statutory construction with which all statutes of Congress are composed (see “Why the proposed ‘Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Counterfeiting Act of 2017’ applies to only a tiny percentage of Americans” for said rules and examples of how to interpret the meaning of such definitions).
Right to sell or buy labor by private contract inseparable from unalienable rights
Unalienable (or absolute) rights cannot be abridged or lost, surrendered, or bargained away by any means and are retained always.
"in·a·lien·a·ble . . . Not transferable; that cannot be rightfully, properly, or legally sold, conveyed, or taken away. un·a·lien·a·ble
"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . (Declaration of Independence).'"
A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, ed. in chief (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1903), p. 906.
“Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. . . .” Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 116 (1872).
Decisions of the Supreme Court are not law per se but have the effect of law.
The following Supreme Court decisions are conclusive about the right of every American to sell his labor by private contract, or purchase the labor of others by private contract, free from intervention by government or demand that he surrender a portion of his labor / earnings (property) to a third party as a condition of selling his labor; to wit:
“The ‘liberty’ mentioned in that amendment [Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution] . . . is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to br [sic] free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.” Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, (1897).
“Liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it; the one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.” Lochner v. People of State of New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
“The right of a person to sell his labor upon such terms as he deems proper is, in its essence, the same as the right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell it. Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 175 (1908).
“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property . . . is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich, for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money.” Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915).
“But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.” Frost Trucking v. Railroad Commission of State of California, 271 U.S. 583, 594 (1926).
The right to contract cannot be disunited from the unalienable and constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, i.e., life, liberty, and property—or the exercise thereof converted into a crime; to wit:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966).
“Execution of process and the performance of duty by constituted officers must not be thwarted. But these agents, servants of a Government and a society whose existence and strength comes from these constitutional safeguards, are serving law when they respect, not override, these guarantees. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.” Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir.1956).
A reminder of who you really are, politically
From an earlier time, when fewer congressmen and Supreme Court justices were owned by Rothschild goldsmith-bankers (Bold emphasis added in each citation.):
“It has never been deemed necessary to enact in any constitution or law that citizens should have the right to life or liberty or the right to acquire property. These rights are recognized by the Constitution as existing anterior to and independently of all laws and all constitutions.
“Without further authority I may assume, then, that there are certain absolute rights which pertain to every citizen, which are inherent, and of which a State cannot constitutionally deprive him. But not only are these rights inherent and indestructible, but the means whereby they may be possessed and enjoyed are equally so.
“. . . It is idle to say that a citizen shall have the right to life, yet to deny him the right to labour, whereby alone he can live. It is a mockery to say that a citizen may have a right to live, and yet deny to him the right to make a contract to secure the privilege and the rewards of labor . . .
“Every citizen, therefore, has the absolute right to live, the right of personal security, personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These are rights of citizenship. As necessary incidents of these absolute rights, there are others, as the right to make and enforce contracts, to purchase, hold, and enjoy property, and to share the benefit of laws for the security of person and property.” [Bold emphasis added.] The Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, April 7, 1866, page 1833 of 1920.
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws, and not of men.’ For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1885).
The same feudal ideas [that in European countries, particularly in England, the Prince is the sovereign and the people his subjects] run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471–472 (1793).
Actors in the Internal Revenue Service or government would have you believe that because your parents were deceived into appearing to enroll you in the Social Security-income tax and -Ponzi scheme that you lost your standing as a joint tenant in the sovereignty, the unalienable right to property, and right to contract privately and donated your labor (property) for public use for the rest of your life by way of a statute of Congress—a hoax and a lie unsupported by any constitutional authority.
Acts of Congress repugnant to the Constitution are void
The entire Social Security System and income-tax legislation is a fraudulent congressional undertaking in the nature of a Ponzi scheme, deliberately created to defraud joint tenants in the sovereignty of their wealth (labor / property), for which there is no constitutional authority, and void:
“It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
“Between these alternative there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
“If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).
How joint tenants in the sovereignty conduct their affairs
“‘The right to make contracts about one's affairs is a part of the liberty protected by the due process clause. Within this liberty are provisions of contracts between employer and employee fixing the wages to be paid. In making contracts of employment, generally speaking, the parties have equal right to obtain from each other the best terms they can by private bargaining. . . .’” Morehead v. New York ex. Rel. Tipoldo, 298 U.S. 587, 610 (1936), quoting Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, at pages 545, 546, 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R. 1238.
“[W]e are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. . . .” [Bold emphasis added.] Hale v. Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75.
Cryptos allow one to exercise his unalienable and constitutional right to contract privately and trade his property (such as one’s labor, products, and digital currencies) for the property of others (such as their labor, products, and digital currencies), i.e., survive, without the involvement or intervention of any third party, such as agents of the private Federal Reserve in government, the private-sector Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service, or elsewhere.
No one has legal authority to stop you from trading your own personal property for the property of another or require that you divulge any details of any such private (and profitless) transaction—and cryptos (like Bitcoin) are simply another way to exercise your unalienable and constitutional right to property and right to contract.
Withdrawal from use of Federal Reserve Notes will hit a tipping point—whereupon we will see what was stated at the top of this monograph: The Federal Reserve will continue to inflate the money supply and dramatically outpace production, the fraud of the fractional-reserve banking system will expose itself through skyrocketing prices, public confidence in the currency will be destroyed, and the Federal Reserve will go out of business.
These things will happen naturally, irrespective of knowledge of this monograph.
~ Lockesmith.
Note: Lockesmith also writes under the pen name Thomas Clark Nelson.
[Footnote 1] The proposed legislation applies only to residents of the District of Columbia. For legislative evidence of this fact, see “Why the proposed ‘Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Counterfeiting Act of 2017’ applies to only a tiny percentage of Americans.”
[Footnote 2] Associations with no physical existence or management cannot be found or sued or be the subject of any law.
[Footnote 3] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, 2nd ed., 1992 election ed. (Staunton, Va.: Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1992), p. 102.
[Footnote 4] Id. at 128.
[Footnote 5] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” Ch. 62, Sec. 18, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” Ch. 180, Sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878 (retroactive to December 1, 1873), i.e., Sec. 2 of the Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, Sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).
[Footnote 6] David Astle, The Babylonian Woe: A study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (Toronto: Published privately, 1975), p. 114.
[Footnote 7] J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 107.
[Footnote 8] I.e., promissory notes, whereby the goldsmith-banker signed an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money, i.e., precious-metal coin, on demand.
[Footnote 9] “MONEY. Gold and silver coins. The common medium of exchange in a civilized nation.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 2238.
[Footnote 10] Federal Reserve banks are exempt from income tax; to wit:
“Sec. 7. . . . Tax exemption. Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.” Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, H. R. 7837, Ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, 258.
[Footnote 11] From the Coinage Act of 1792 to when Federal Reserve Notes first started hitting the streets in 1916, there was a one-to-one relationship between gold coins and certificates and silver coins and certificates: Zero inflation. A hundred years ago an apple cost a penny. Your author recently paid $2.25 for an organic apple. The apple is substantially the same as it was 100 years ago; what has changed is the money: Due to devaluation of the currency through inflation, it takes many times more of it to buy the same thing.
[Footnote 12] Please note when reading the following supporting citations, that Congress, in Title 26 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Code, have perverted word “State” into a statutory term with an absurd definition and constitutionally opposite meaning in order to perpetrate the fraud. In the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “State” excludes all members of the Union and embraces only the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and no other thing. Also, use of the statutory term “includes” or “including” in a definition excludes everything not listed in the definition except other things of the same kind or type as the thing defined. Here are the citations: 26 U.S.C. § 408(a)(2), (h) and (n) and 26 U.S.C. § 581. In respect of these citations there is only one “bank”: the Federal Reserve.