http://www.4bypass.com/codebreak5.htm
This story starts around the 1830 era. The States and United States were
getting ripped off by the banks where they deposited their money. History
calls this the era of the great banking swindles. In order to protect
themselves, these corporations (the States and the United States) decided to
create their own Independent Treasury in 1840 under Van Buren's message of 5
Sept. 1837. However, it was bitterly opposed by Henry Clay and Daniel
Webster who were Whigs, a party devoted to Nationalist tendencies. The
independent treasury bill, also known as the subtreasury or divorce bill,
was introduced in the Senate where it passed. It incorporated the
legal-tender amendment. This proviso called for a gradual reduction in the
acceptance of notes of specie-paying banks in payment of government dues
until 1841, when all payment should be made in legal tender.
This meant that the governments were now violating their agreement of 1783
with the Crown and violating the obligation in the Constitution that only
the PRIVATE banks could issue paper money. This scheme was instituted as
the first bank of the United States, which was run by foreign controlled
stockholders of the British realm. These foreign stockholders are listed in
the American Almanac and Repository for the year 1833, which was obtained
from the University of Lewisburg. John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the
supreme court is listed as having 3878 shares and the second largest foreign
stockholder. He ruled against the constitution when ruling for the bank in
the well known McCulloch case in Maryland. Conflict of interest runs rampant
in "government" now and then doesn't it? Because the hard money would show
the inflation of paper money, it had to be stopped to support the federal
reserve note by the Crown operating through the internationalist bankers.
GOING AFTER THE WRONG PEOPLE?
A TEST OF COMPREHENSION
BY THE INFORMER
This could be a once upon a time story but for the fact that it is
true...
This story starts around the 1830 era. The States and United States
were getting ripped off by the banks where they deposited their
money. History calls this the era of the great banking swindles. In
order to protect themselves, these corporations (the States and the
United States) decided to create their own Independent Treasury in
1840 under Van Buren's message of 5 Sept. 1837. However, it was
bitterly opposed by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster who were Whigs, a
party devoted to Nationalist tendencies. The independent treasury
bill, also known as the subtreasury or divorce bill, was introduced
in the Senate where it passed. It incorporated the legal-tender
amendment. This proviso called for a gradual reduction in the
acceptance of notes of specie-paying banks in payment of government
dues until 1841, when all payment should be made in legal tender.
This meant that the governments were now violating their agreement
of 1783 with the Crown and violating the obligation in the
Constitution that only the PRIVATE banks could issue paper money.
This scheme was instituted as the first bank of the United States,
which was run by foreign controlled stockholders of the British
realm. These foreign stockholders are listed in the American Almanac
and Repository for the year 1833, which was obtained from the
University of Lewisburg. John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the
supreme court is listed as having 3878 shares and the second largest
foreign stockholder. He ruled against the constitution when ruling
for the bank in the well known McCulloch case in Maryland. Conflict
of interest runs rampant in "government" now and then doesn't it?
Because the hard money would show the inflation of paper money, it
had to be stopped to support the federal reserve note by the Crown
operating through the internationalist bankers.
This Independent Treasury called for all government payments and
disbursements should be made in hard money after June 30, 1843 and
sub-treasuries were established in New York, Boston, Philadelphia,
St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington and Charlestown. This Act was
repealed when the Whig Party gained control of the country. When the
Whigs were defeated in 1844, the Independent Treasury was
reestablished in 1846. 1 Every thing was as it should be because the
Treasury now dealt in specie and tweaked the nose of the foreign
banking cartel. As the saying goes, "you don't fool mother banking,"
when showing that paper was the cause of inflation and the cause for
the banking swindles.
Enter the Rothschild/Vatican cabal that was kept from instituting
the first Bank in the United States when Washington instituted the
emergency powers clause of the constitution in 1791. At one time the
King of England was controlled by the Vatican. The Vatican stated
that the Magna Charta violates the tenets of the Church because
possession of rights by anyone does so. 2 For those of you that
think the International Bankers are behind all this, think again
after reading the following. You better know history all the way
back to the Bible before saying you know who pulls the purse
strings. You so called "christians" who read the New History of
America know what I mean. This is taken from Britannia: Sources of
British History.
KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope.
In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen
Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of
Pope Innocent III, had by "impious persecution", tried to
"enslave" the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid
on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike",
wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or
innocent. When this didn't work, the king, himself, was
excommunicated. Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a
letter of concession to the pope, hoping to have the interdict
and the excommunication lifted (1213). John's concession which,
in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm.
The satisfied pope lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of
England and their king.
John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland,
duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the
faithful of Christ who shall look upon this present charter,
greeting. We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our
charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had
offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in
consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy,
and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to
God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our
kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who
humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy
Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but
of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel
of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy
apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church,
and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors,
the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with
all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own
sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as
for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a
vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that
prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and other household of the lord
pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid
lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman
church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of
the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall
do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by
our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show
homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to
the Roman church without demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our
own, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession
we will establish that from the proper and especial revenues of
our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we
ought to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St.
Peter, the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks
sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks,
and at Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the
kingdom of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of
Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and
regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above,
we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind
ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if
we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this,
whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom,
and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and
this charter of our obligation and concession shall always
remain firm."
This occured before the Magna Charta. The Magna Charta did not wipe
this covenant out. Said covenant with the Pope continues on until
this present day. As far as the Pope and King are concerned, the
Magna Charta is null and void. Why? Because of the Vatican\banker
cabal that tried to setup the first bank of the United States. Back
to the question at hand.
How does the King stop this act pulled against him? Become bed
partners with the Rothschild/ Vatican cabal by calling on his
covenant wih the Vatican that you just read. See, whatever deal the
King made with the people didn't change the contract with the
Vatican. Just like when the Colonies made you, the man, Sovereign
-and the King agreed by Treaty of 1783. It did not change the
control of the states by the King. So, with minor changes of the
Independent Treasury during the Civil War, it remained the same
until merged with the federal reserve system in 1913.3 The federal
reserve notes were used by the private banking cartel that operated
in America. Even in 1890 the Congress spoke about, and acts were
created wherein the federal reserve notes were mentioned. The
creation of the Federal Reserve System was the inroad to get rid of
the Independent Treasury.
Most Board members of the Federal Reserve System were American's who
operated as front men for the internationalist's pulling the puppet
strings. These federal reserve banks were empowered to rediscount
the systems currency, commercial and agriculture paper of member
banks, not the United States currency, and was to be based upon
approved rediscounted paper deposited by member banks. Against such
paper the reserve banks could issue Federal Reserve notes, which
were accepted as government obligations, as part of the circulating
money supply.
Note, there is no mention of the United States Note because that was
100 percent backed by gold and silver. However, the Federal Reserve
note had to be backed by only 40 percent of the gold and silver. Now
we have two banking systems running side by side and causing great
strife for the law-merchants. This was good for the average joe
because he could depend on the Independent Treasury to accept his
gold or silver for safe keeping and return 10 years later with a
silver or gold certificate (a U.S. note) and redeem a 20 dollar U.S.
note for 20 dollars of gold or silver.
Not so with the Federal Reserve note, for if push come to shove he
could obtain what was left after the obligation was paid by the
United States on this bogus note which only needed to be backed by
40 percent gold or silver. See how the Crown via the private banking
cartel is causing a problem. It's called the Hegelian theory.
"Mother banking," as stated before will destroy you. It just took
till 1921 to do it. The private federal reserve swindled the
people's money in eight short years. When the banks couldn't pay the
depositors when they wanted their own money back in 1929, they
declared imperfect commercial international war on the people of
America when the federal reserve themselves had Roosevelt bring
forth the Trading with the Enemy Act. This Act was rewritten in 1933
to include the people of America, where it had not done so before in
1917.
The Independent Treasury had a Secretary of Treasury and was named
"the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States." Yes, he really
existed because there was an honest to goodness United States
Treasury. Enter now the problem solvers, the King in drag. They
proceeded to abolish the United States Treasury in the year 1921 by
the Act of 1920.4 Now the fraud will be shown for what it is. In
other words, we are not dealing with people that we think we should
be dealing with in the taxation scam. Anybody who has a 1992 CD Rom
of the 50 Titles of the United States Code can pull all this
material and much more. I am scraping the top portion to get you
started. So here we go down the rabbit trail.
Under Independent Treasury, Title 31 USC 3322,
"Historical and Revision notes; In subsection (a), before clause
(1), the words `Secretary of the Treasury' are substituted for
`Treasurer of the United States' because the of the source
provisions restated in section 321 (c) of the revised title. . .
. The words `treasurer or' are omitted as obsolete because of
the 1st-4th pars. under the heading `Independent Treasury' in
the Act of May 29, 1920 (ch. 214, 41 Stat. 654; also see 31 USC
3301 Historical Notes."
Ok, let us look at 41 Stat 654, which says, "Act May 29, 1920,
abolished office of Assistant Treasurer at specified cities." Stat.
654 is the source for 12 USC 121. Now let us look at "section 321
(c)" in 41 Stat. Just as one would guess, that has been involved
with the IRS over many years, alcohol.
41 Stat 321, source for 27 USC Sec 71 to 90a Omitted.
CODIFICATION.
I will quote only two of the sections.
Section 81, 5, related to withdrawal of alcohol produced at any
industrial alcohol plant tax-free for denaturing, for use by any
scientific university, for scientific research by any laboratory, or
for use in any hospital or sanitarium, was incorporated in sections
3108 (a) and 3124 (a) of Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
Section 88, 6 related to applicability of administrative provisions
of internal revenue laws, was incorporated in section 3122 of
Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
So let us look at "47 Stat. 1957" in Section 81, it states;
"49 Stat. 1957, related to extension of industrial alcohol laws to
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, was incorporated in section 3123 of
Internal Revenue Code of 1939."
Now back to end note 4., which is the source law for 31 USC 1310.
The Historical and Revision Notes state, "The word `official' is
substituted for `officer' for consistency in the revised title. In
clause (1), the word `Treasury' is substituted for `Treasurer of the
United States' because of the source provisions restated in section
321 of the revised title and Department of the Treasury Order 229 of
January 14, 1974 (39 F.R. 2280). The words `or of an assistant
treasurer' in section 1 of the Act of June 23, 1874, are omitted as
superseded by section 1 (1st par. under heading `Independent
Treasury') of the Act of May 29, 1920 (ch. 214, 41 Stat 254)."
Ok people now you know Mary Ellen Withrow is the "Treasury" because
she is the "Treasurer of the United States," correct? So why is it
stated in the Notes, "In subsection (c) (2), the word `Secretary' is
substituted for `Treasurer" because of the source provisions
restated in section 321 (c) of the revised title?" Simple there is
no "secretary" that is the Secretary of the United States Treasury
as there is no United States Independent Treasury anymore. Following
the trail to this point you have;
WHAT ONCE WASIS NOW
Treasurer"Secretary of the Treasury"
Treasurer of the United States"Treasury"
Treasurer"Secretary"
Read this until you have it firmly locked in your brain. The
"Secretary" in the Internal Revenue Code is at present, Manual Diaz
Saldan'a, 7 who, was the treasurer of Puerto Rico? He is the
"Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." See, they don't tell you
who is Secretary of what Treasury, do they? Fraud perhaps, but you
didn't ask, did you? Are liars and theives supposed to tell all? And
all along you thought it was Robert Rubin or his predecessors
because isn't he called Secretary of the Treasury? Don't presume
anything when dealing with liars, theives, profligates, cretins (all
three branches of de facto usurpers) and the like. Now go back and
tie in 41 Stat 321, 49 Stat. 1957 with Title 27, Title 26 and all
other sections where the term "secretary" is used such as 6020 (b).
Do not confuse the Secretary of treasury Robert Rubin with the
Secretary of the Treasury Mary Ellen Withrow (old Treasurer of the
United States Treasury) or is it Manual Saldan'a, Secretary of
Treasury of Puerto Rico? Rubin is Secretary of the treasury alright,
but not of the United States. He is Secretary of treasury of the
Federal Reserve/IMF. The agent of the United States that took place
of the Independent Treasury through the Federal Reserve Act.
That is why he has no subscribed oath of office under 5 USC 3331 and
why he is paid by the International Monetary Fund/Bank found in 60
Stat 1401 et seq. Rubin is not the "Secretary" described in 26 USC
6301, is he? And neither is Mary Ellen Withrow who is also the
Secretary of the Treasury according to the chart above. Now look at
26 USC 7401, and define the "secretary" so it does not conflict with
the "secretary" in 26 USC 6301, defined in 27 CFR 250.11. Can the
"secretary" in 7401 or any other section be anyone other than the
one defined in 6301? If it does, then provide to me the definition
found in any regulation or statute for another "secretary,"
otherwise it would be "manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof" of what Congress had in mind when abolishing the
Independent Treasury, and changing the definitions all around, huh?
The Attorney General holds the Title of Alien Property Custodian and
when they team up in 26 USC 7401, they both have to sign on the
dotted line to prosecute you for what, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
commercial crimes? How about contract crimes where you became a
government employee receiving "Federal Wages?" I'll get to that
around page 8.
Now let us see what happened to those real Treasury "officers" that
were changed to "officials" in section 321 when the Independent
Treasury was abolished. We go to;
Title 5 USC 5512, Historical and Revision notes.
"In subsection (b), reference to the `General Accounting Office'
is substituted for `accounting officers of the Treasury' on
authority of the Act of June 10, 1921, ch 18, title III, 42
Stat. 23. Reference to the `Attorney General' is substituted for
`Solicitor of the Treasury' and `Solicitor' on authority of
section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933, ch 212, 47 Stat. 1517;
section 5 of E.O. 6166, June 10, 1933; and section 1 of 1950
Reorg. Plan No. 2, 64 Stat. 1261."
What becomes apparent now is that the term Solicitor only deals with
contracting parties and operates in Chancery court to which he
represents the Treasury. There must be a contract. You have one with
the government? No? better think again when we get to joint-venture.
A solicitor can control the property in the interim during a case.
Now there is a statute that declared the "attorney General" to
become the "Alien Property Custodian." Before we get to that you
will have to understand the functions of the Alien Property
Custodian and why it is so critical to understand in reference to
the above paragraph's dates dealing with the War Powers Act, so read
Title 50 Appendix, Sec. 9. After reading this we now come to the
meat of who is coming after you in conjunction with the Secretary of
the Treasury of Puerto Rico by reading Part of 8, "Attorney General.
The term `Attorney General' includes the Alien Property Custodian
whose functions were transferred to the Attorney General pursuant to
Executive Order 9788 (3 CFR 1943-1948 Comp., p.575) . ..." Please
note the word "includes" is restrictive. This is proof that the word
includes is restrictive in all IRS code or statute where the word
means is not used. You don't have to go any further than this for
proofs.
Sec. 9 "Trading With the Enemy Act. The term `Trading With the
Enemy Act' includes all amendments of such Act, and all orders,
rules, and regulations issued or prescribed under such Act or
any such amendment."
Now put 303.1-1 (d)
" . . . charged with the liability for internal revenue tax in
connection with such property." with 303.1-1 (g) "Property. The term
`property' includes money, . . .." Federal reserve notes are
property to which a liability attaches under;
10 "Tax. The term `tax' has the meaning stated in section 36(d) of
the Treading With the Enemy Act as added by the Act of August 8,
1946."
11 "Interest and Penalties. (a) Liability for interest and civil
penalties. Under subsection (d) of section 36, of the Trading With
the Enemy Act there is no liability for interest or penalty on
account of any act or failure of the Attorney General."
12 Claims for refund or credit. "(a) Claims for refund or credit
must be filed within the period prescribed by section 6511 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as modified by section 36(c) of the
Trading With the Enemy Act.. . .."
Hello Enemy of congress, are you listening yet. Are you
comprehending that the control of the IRC is done by the Trading
With the Enemy Act of congress?
Title 50 13 PART I. PRESIDENT AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SECTION 101. FUNCTIONS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, all
functions vested by law in the Alien Property Custodian or the
Office of Alien Property Custodian are transferred to the
Attorney General and shall be performed by him or, subject to
his direction and control, by such officers and agencies of the
Department of Justice as he may designate.
(b) The functions vested by law in the Alien Property Custodian
or the Office of Alien Property Custodian with respect to
property or interests located in the Philippines or which were
so located at the time of vesting in or transfer to an officer
or agency of the United States under the Trading With the Enemy
Act, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq.), are transferred to
the President and shall be performed by him or, subject to his
direction and control, by such officers and agencies as he may
designate.
PART II. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY SEC. 201. CONTRACT
SETTLEMENT FUNCTIONS
(Repealed. Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat.
1068, 1085. Section transferred various contract settlement
functions to the Secretary of the Treasury and abolished the
Office of Contract Settlement.) [So now the contract is with the
Treasurer who was the Secretary of Treasury of the United
States? Does it say Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States? So it must be the Treasurer, see above who you are
dealing with.]
SEC. 202. NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT FUNCTIONS
The functions of the Attorney General and of the Department of
Justice with respect to (a) the determination of Internal
Revenue taxes and penalties (exclusive of the determination of
liability guaranteed by permit bonds) arising out of violations
of the National Prohibition Act (see 27 U.S.C. note preceding
Sec. 1) occurring prior to the repeal of the eighteenth
amendment to the Constitution, and (b) the compromise, prior to
reference to the Attorney General for suit, of liability for
such taxes and penalties, are transferred to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury:
Provided, That any compromise of such liability shall be
effected in accordance with the provisions of section 3761 of
the Internal Revenue Code (of 1939) (see 26 U.S.C. 7122). All
files and records of the Department of Justice used primarily in
the administration of the functions transferred by the
provisions of this section are hereby made available to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue for use in the administration
of such functions."
Are they talking about "individual income taxes" here or ATF taxes?
Want to know why you are licensed, AKA the SS#, to get a job or
otherwise? It is due to the revamping of the War Powers Act of 1917
to make the people the enemy of the banking cartel. They charge
(tax) you for the use of the military scrip, AKA federal reserve
note, as it is a foreign bill of exchange. Here is but a small
portion of which you will have to read it all. I told you I'm only
scratching the surface and those of you that wanted cites to
research here they are.
Sec. 3. Acts prohibited 14
It shall be unlawful -
(a) For any person in the United States, except with the license
of the President, granted to such person, or to the enemy, or
ally of enemy, as provided in this Act (sections 1 to 6, 7 to
39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix) to trade, or attempt to
trade, either directly or indirectly, with, to, or from, or for,
or on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any
other person, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that
such other person is an enemy or ally of enemy, or is conducting
or taking part in such trade, directly or indirectly, for, or on
account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, an enemy or
ally of enemy.
Sec. 30. Attachment or garnishment of funds or property held by
Custodian 15
Any money or other property returnable under subsection (b) or
(n) of section 9 (section 9(b) or (n) of this Appendix) shall,
at any time prior to such return, be subject to attachment in
accordance with the provisions of the code of law for the
District of Columbia, as amended, relating to attachments in
suits at law and to attachments for the enforcement of judgments
at law and decrees in equity, but any writ of attachment or
garnishment issuing in any such suit, or for the enforcement of
any judgment or decree, shall be served only upon the Alien
Property Custodian, who shall for the purposes of this section
be considered as holding credits in favor of the person entitled
to such return to the extent of the value of the money or other
property so returnable. Nothing in this section shall be
construed as authorizing the taking of actual possession, by any
officer of any court, of any money or other property held by the
Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United
States.
TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS
Functions of Alien Property Custodian and Office of Alien
Property Custodian, except those relating to property or
interest in Philippines, vested in Attorney General. See notes
set out under section 6 of this Appendix. emphasis added
WORLD WAR II ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
Reestablishment and termination of Office of Alien Property
Custodian during World War II, see notes set out under section 6
of this Appendix.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in title 28 section 2680.
There you have it people, the Attorney General is coming after your
property and he has no interest or power over the Philippines, just
you. Hey, file a tort action, it's right in 28 USC 2680. And there
are other avenues located within this treatise to get remedy. The
question to ask is, "What RIGHT do they have to bring the action in
the first place, rather than, what claim do they have to bring?"
42 Stat. 23 created the General Accounting office which is not an
agency by any stretch of the imagination. It is an independent
establishment. 17 To prove it is not an agency read 5 USC 3132, and
while you are at it pull 5 USC 4101, 4301, 4501, 5102, 5342, 5531,
5561 and 7511 for the definition of employee and who it is, and is
not and 4701. 4701 describes "eligible." Here you will see if you
are "eligible" to qualify for government employment, under 3401 of
Title 26. If you think you have dependents that can be claimed under
26 USC 152, think again after reading Title 5 Appendix, Sec. 109
definitions. Are you a federal official? Another cite you should
fully investigate is 5 USC Sec. 5921.
"For the purpose of this subchapter -
(1) 'Government' means the Government of the United States;
(2) 'agency' means an Executive agency and the Library of
Congress, but does not include a Government controlled
corporation;
(3) 'employee' means an employee in or under an agency and more
specifically defined by regulations prescribed by the President;
Reference to 'ambassadors, ministers, and officers of the
Foreign Service under the Department of State' is omitted as
included in the definition of 'employee'. Emphasis added
In the Historical notes this is more explicit; "In paragraph (3),
the word 'employee' is substituted for `individual in the civilian
service' in view of the definition of `employee' in section 2105."
Further on in the notes you will find this:
"Section 522 of Pub. L. 86-707, Sept. 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 802.
Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act, provided that:
'Notwithstanding any provision of this Act (enacting chapter 37
of former title 5 (now covered by this subchapter), amending
other sections as shown in the Tables, and enacting provisions
set out as notes under this section and section 912 of Title 26,
Internal Revenue Code) and until such time as regulations are
issued under this Act, employees shall continue to be paid
allowances and differentials in accordance with rules and
regulations issued pursuant to the laws in effect immediately
prior to the enactment of this Act (Sept. 6, 1960) and such
rules and regulations may be amended or revoked in accordance
with the provision of such laws.'
By removing words such as ambassador, foreign counsel and others as
surplusage, they can get away with calling anybody an employee
because the definitive term was abolished. Also note the word
"civilian service" does not mean you, unless you are the "eligible"
working for the corporation called the United States or State
because the other "service" is the military service. So "individual"
is a term to describe an officer or employee of the government, NOT
you from the private sector. Now go to 2105 of Title 5 and you will
see that you, the average American is not described as an
"employee."
Oh darn it, now you have to go all the way back to 2 USC 60e, Title
5, Part III, Subpart D, Chapter 53, Subchapter III, to find the
General Schedule Pay Rate of those to be taxed and the sections that
apply in all 50 titles of the U.S. Codes. In there is 26 USC 7471,
9010 and 9040. Now we have to go to 22 USC 3310, FOOTNOTE 2, and
that leads us to 5 USC 8334 (4) (A), federal wages. Gosh, does that
mean that, 42 USC 1717, "assignment of benefits; execution, levy,
etc., against benefits" apply to you under 26 USC 6331 (a) before
(b), (c), (d) can apply? We have always said the reason they don't
put Sec 6331 (a) on the notice of levy to your employer is fraud to
cover their theft. They don't need it for one of their own because
they are paying them out of the treasury.
Here is the proof. Now the cestui que trust they are operating has
just dealt them a death blow under breach of fiduciary trust because
the constitution is nothing but a treaty obligation on the people in
government, not you. Look also at 31 USC 1309 to see if you are
working for an employer under 3401 (d) of Title 26 as an employee
under 3401 (c) for this Social Security tax. Are you? A case for
Joint-Venture would have to be proved to bring you into the subject
matter jurisdiction. Now we are back to the "solicitor" and "Alien
Property Custodian" and the "contract that you though you didn't
have. They already have jurisdiction over the subject matter because
congress gave the courts that much. A footnote in a case, 18 "The
now widely recognized legal concept of joint adventurers is of
modern origin. It has been said to be purely the creature of the
American courts. [Oh, not the legislature?] The early common law did
not recognize the relationship of co-adventurers unless the elements
of a partnership were disclosed and proved. 30 Am Jur. page 676."
What this is saying is that the government does not have to prove
you are in a joint-venture with them as a corporation, 28 USC 3002
(15). It is presumed you are since you claim "citizenship/
residency" and didn't object to the use of the international bill of
exchange. That is the controlling fact, not that you are an employee
or have wages and all the other collateral issues that haven't won
in a coon's age. Ahh, but wait, you are forgetting something if you
have read The New History of America and James Montgomery's three
treatises on British Colony rule and the Reconstruction Acts of a De
Facto congress that put you under military occupation since the act
of March 7, 1867.
Under the War Powers act and military conquest under Lincoln, the
states became federal agents because the states were nothing but
"districts" under military rule of Congress that was a DE FACTO
Congress calling us the enemy under "imperfect war." 19 YES, we are
the enemy of the de factos, not the real Congress that went Sine Die
back in 1789. Here is where the state income tax issue comes in 20.
Also see Title 4 USC 111. 5 USC 5512 deals with "withholding of pay;
individuals in arrears." This is where 26 USC 6331 (a) comes into
play for all government workers and not you people. Also referencing
to 60c-3 of Title 2 you will see at (c) (1) where the W-4 applies
and who is to use it. Now you got the meat of the subject because
this is what the term "covered employment" means, it is employment
covered by federal employer or a corporation of a federal
government, 28 USC 3002 (15). But wait, it gets better, so go pull
and read these endnotes 21. After reading these then remember 41
Stat. 321? Well at the end is 49 Stat 1964 related to the effect of
act of June 26, 1936, which describes the duties and powers of the
"Secretary of the Treasury." You all know by now who it is, don't
we? This Stat is the source for 27 USC 202. You will love the
Codification part where it states,
"Subsections (a) to (d) provided for the creation of a Federal
Alcohol Administration as a division of the Treasury Department.
[ Hey people, department, not united States Treasury as it was
abolished] By act June 26, 1936, ch. 830, title V, 49 Stat.
1964, however, those subsections were repealed and a new
Administration created as an independent agency. 22 The
repealing act was to be effective when the new administrators
authorized thereby were appointed. While the officers so
authorized were never appointed and the repeal therefore never
became effective, subsections (a) to (d) have been omitted in
view of the Reorg. Plan No. III of 1940, set out in the Appendix
to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which
abolished the Administration and transferred its functions to
the Secretary of the Treasury to be administered through the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (now Internal Revenue Service)."
Don't you just love what the de facto's put in print for all to see?
It's like leaving a 100 federal reserve note in plain sight and the
thief never notices it. He goes for all the hiding places, as we do,
and never finds what is out in plain sight.
So you think you have a good grasp on who is who? You better have
because now go back and look at 41 Stat 654, which authorizes 12 USC
sections 121, 419 and 467, among other Titles. A closer look at sec.
121 reveals that by statute law the Treasurer must redeem any note
of any association, of which the Federal Reserve is, in United
States Notes 23. So now we go to Sec. 467. Tell me if Robert Rubin
or Mary Ellen Withrow is "the Secretary of the Treasury authorized
to receive deposits of gold or of gold certificates or of Special
Drawing Right certificates with the treasurer or any designated
depositary of the United States . . "? First, tell me what Treasury
are we talking about and then the name of the secretary? If need be
go back and see all the substitutions for terms when the Independent
Treasury of the United States was abolished such as in 31 USC 3322.
You have on hand in standard terminology the following;
Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin
Treasurer of the United States, Mary Ellen Withrow
Secretary of the Treasury, Manual Diaz Saldan'a, who the people
have no knowledge he exists.
From the three above who is the "Secretary" described in 26 USC
6301 for he, "shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal
revenue laws?"
Why do you write to Robert Rubin in a tax matter?
Which of the three above or none of the above, oversees all the
accounting of the money of the United States?
Have you ever asked under 26 USC 7401 for the authorization
papers signed by Manual Saldan'a to come after you for a civil
action?
What about a criminal action?
Isn't the Attorney General a solicitor, which means there must
be a contract for him to get involved in bringing you to trial?
ATF business is a contract isn't it?
Doesn't the General Accounting Office have to report to the De
Facto congress to account for all property given or taken by any
officer of the United States and given to either the Alien
Property Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States for
accounting?
Why can't you go to the General Accounting Office 24 and demand
to see where your specific property that was stolen has been
properly accounted for by the GAO and that it was properly
lodged with either the Alien Property Custodian or the Treasurer
of the United States?
Isn't it possible that since the GAO is an independent
instrumentality reporting only to de facto congress, that they
are the next target to sue out for the response the IRS should
have given you?
It might be for the following reason.
TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 55
Sec. 1084. Determinations of dependency
A determination of dependency by an administering Secretary
under this chapter is conclusive. However, the administering
Secretary may change a determination because of new evidence or
for other good cause. The Secretary's determination may not be
reviewed in any court or by the General Accounting Office,
unless there has been fraud or gross negligence. So here is
another "court" you can go to besides "any court." There is
certainly enough fraud to defraud you of your property, labor,
for commercial paper of no substance therefore, no quid pro quo.
The Appellate pleading in Bruun v Hanson, 103 F. 2d 685, not the
case you pull from the library, is the kicker against them.
There are a few people who have the entire case. Should you like
a copy call A.C.P.H. at 704-369-0064.
On the federal reserve note there appears two signatures, one is
the Treasurer of the United States, the other Secretary of the
Treasury, correct?
Since the first is of the United States and the other is of a
private banking concern, do we now have a foreign bill of
exchange authorized by two separate entities?
Does this not then become an international bill of exchange,
which operates all over the world wherein some countries use it
as their medium of exchange as does Panama?
If the Treasurer of the United States signed the note, what
earthly good reason would her Secretary have to sign it and in
what authoritative capacity?
Wouldn't it be redundant and cause the "note" (military scrip)
to fail all banking laws on being a valid "note?"
Under Military law the civil authorities have been given control
over the collections of revenues 26.
Are revenues under maritime principles and subject to admiralty
rules?
Are Admiralty rules controlled by the commander in chief of a
nation?
Does The United States have a President who is the commander in
chief?
Is it under treaty to collect debts for the British Crown?
Does there exist a blocking Code on the IMF/BMF for U.S./U.K
Treaty?
The de facto congress has complete control over military rule, not
the President of the corporation called the United States. This is
evidenced by the veto of President Johnson's veto after Lincoln was
killed. Congress put the people back under the military rule.
Congress set the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
That's all it set up. It did not set up the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. That fact has been brought to light so many times it's
stale. In fact not once in all my research in Title 5, Government
Organization, did the IRS, as an instrumentality, agency, or
independent establishment ever rear its ugly head to be defined as
such. A department of Treasury means just that, a department because
there is no U.S. Treasury any more. But go back and look at page 4,
31 USC 1310 and WHAT ONCE WAS- NOW IS. Therefore, any U.S. Attorney
is committing fraud when defending or acting as plaintiff party for
the IRS, which is not a legal entity. Name the statute generated by
congress that authorizes a U.S. Attorney to defend or represent a
private IRS flunky that is simply hired by a district director, and
not as a valid United States Employee under 5 USC 2105? Then to make
matters more complicated for them, ask the Secretary of State,
Madeline Allbright, to authenticate the record that she has issued a
license for that attorney to practice his profession as does every
other corporate profession. You might have fun with the States also,
because the supreme court only issues certificates of "club"
incompetence to an attorney and have no executive power to license
any one or any profession as does the Executive under UCC Rules.
Since I have exposed the admiralty principles used by the government
in the two cases cited in my writings 27 that stated the procedure
must start out in Admiralty then proceed to the civil side of
Admiralty to complete the case, shows how Manual Saldan'a plays an
important part. This Secretary of Treasury was created, and by the
Jones Act (Puerto Rico) and 48 USC 1469a-1 says, "Full amounts to be
covered into treasuries of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto
Rico and Virgin Islands; reductions prohibited.", play a important
part. The phrase "covered into" is controlling. Now for your
homework, research this phrase "covered into," and "covered
employment."
The real characters you should be addressing are; The "Secretary" of
the Treasury of Puerto Rico, the Service Center Director, The Chief
Collection officer, the Chief Assessment Officer, who are his
"delegates," then the Treasurer of the United States, the Alien
Property Custodian (Attorney General), the General Accounting Office
Director, and finally Congress, the real criminal usurpers (de
facto). Why have an alien property custodian? Because when the de
facto congress in 1867 created an enemy, that is us the people, need
to have enemies property taken it goes to the alien property
custodian. Have I rung any bells yet or are the cobwebs so thick the
fly can't escape? Bring charges against Congress, especially the one
or two usurpers that services the "district" that the action takes
place against you. Charge them with every crime you can that they
are subject to in Title 18. After all it is they that are bound by
those corporate laws not you. Did you take an oath to uphold their
corporate obligation handed down by the Crown? Did you take an oath
of allegiance to their corporate flag? You know, the allegiance that
was concocted and put into practice in the very late 1890's, that
none of the "Founding Fathers" would ever dream of pledging. Sure,
you can defend your country without taking allegiance to a piece of
cloth that represents a monarchy in sheep's clothing, while it is
really collecting from the ignorant sheeple the debt it owes to the
Crown by a treaty made long before you were born. I think you call
that FRAUD of monumental proportions and a criminal act of their
fiduciary capacity in administering a Cestui Que Trust, the
Constitution. Not to mention the real benefactors are sucking the
life blood out of you through their fraudulent banking system by
using inflatable paper to confiscate the hard money that the first
real United States Treasury tried to avoid. How are some of you so
called "patriots," for want of a better name, going to spread truth
if you don't know the truth? For starters why don't you spread the
word for people to buy and read The New History of America and James
Montgomery's British Colony I, II, & III.
You want to get your property back? You have to go to the Alien
Property Custodian under the following, if not predisposed to go to
the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
50 USC APPENDIX - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Sec. 9
TITLE 50, APPENDIX
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917 ACT OCT
Sec. 9. Claims to property transferred to custodian; notice of
claim; filing; return of property; suits to recover; sale of
claimed property in time of war or during national emergency.
-STATUTE-
(a) Any person not an enemy or ally of enemy claiming any
interest, right, or title in any money or other property which
may have been conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or
paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder
and held by him [that's the Attorney General] or by the
Treasurer of the United States, [that's Mary Ellen Withrow] or
to whom any debt may be owing from an enemy or ally of enemy
whose property or any part thereof shall have been conveyed,
transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property
Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held by him or by the
Treasurer of the United States may file with the said custodian
a notice of his claim under oath and in such form and containing
such particulars as the said custodian shall require; and the
President, if application is made therefor by the claimant, may
order the payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery
to said claimant of the money or other property so held by the
Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United
States, or of the interest therein to which the President shall
determine said claimant is entitled: Provided, That no such
order by the President shall bar any person from the prosecution
of any suit at law or in equity against the claimant to
establish any right, title, or interest which he may have in
such money or other property. If the President shall not so
order within sixty days after the filing of such application or
if the claimant shall have filed the notice as above required
and shall have made no application to the President, said
claimant may institute a suit in equity in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia or in the district
court of the United States for the district in which such
claimant resides, or, if a corporation, where it has its
principal place of business (to which suit the Alien Property
Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the case may
be, shall be made a party defendant), to establish the interest,
right, title, or debt so claimed, and if so established the
court shall order the payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment,
or delivery to said claimant of the money or other property so
held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the
United States or the interest therein to which the court shall
determine said claimant is entitled."
There is a lot more to this statute. I suggest you pull it and read
it, especially all of you charged with 18 USC 371, which is listed
in Benedict On Admiralty, as specifically a maritime (commercial
Crime), look at 27 CFR 72.11. This Title continues to state;
CROSS REFERENCES
Conspiracy to defraud United States, see section 371 of Title
18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Payment of taxes and expenses
by Alien Property Custodian, see section 23 of this Appendix.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in sections 4, 12, 25, 26, 29, 30,
32, 33, 35, 36, 44 of this Appendix; title 28 section 2680.
Is this Statute stating that those having this property of yours are
committing a 371 crime if it is not reported? Does the Statutes
apply to the corporate government officials, employees and the like,
and NOT you, the slave to the system? Does this affect the IRS agent
and those above him in command, all the way to the "Secretary"
defined in 26 USC 6301? Could you go to the GAO and have them do an
accounting of the property taken from you to see that it was
reported and given to the Alien Property Custodian and the Treasurer
of the United States? Think, people, think and use the brain the
Lord Almighty gave you. Do you still want to be robbed again and
again by a de facto congress and state legislators, the same as if a
thief demanded money from you to only steal a little from you each
year? And if you didn't he would seize your property as "booty" and
sell it? That's exactly the type of usurpers you are living under
and you give them your blessings to do it by voting for them as
"your representatives." Read my New History of America and see what
I mean. Your vote doesn't count one iota. The Electorial College
votes as they see fit to protect the usurpers. What do you do to
usurpers? That's your choice. But don't continue to complain when
you do no research. I don't want to hear that you have no time or
that you are not educated enough. If I can do it, so can you.
Collectively you can form groups. Collectively you have the time to
be continually robbed, don't you? It makes me sick to hear people
whine constantly and not do anything about it and then get mad at
the researcher for trying when you love to be robbed day in and day
out for your whole life with the lame excuse, "Oh, what would we do
with out government we have to pay taxes?" Bah, Humbug! I told you I
am only scratching the surface with this short treatise.
But here is the kicker that destroys the last paragraph. What if
they come after you admitting that the USE of the private federal
reserve scrip is what they are laying a tax upon? It's their private
international bill of exchange isn't it? They flood the market with
it don't they? Don't they have to recall some of it so it won't get
out of hand so that you need two wheel barrows full of paper that
has a number of 100 on it to buy one loaf of bread? I remember when
bread was 15 cents a loaf and my dad saying that some day it will be
a dollar a loaf. Of course, we, as kids just laughed it off. Gosh,
never will it go that high, we thought, because if it did what will
we have to pay for our 7 cent coke and nickel candy bar? Someone
coined a phrase, "we came a long way baby," didn't we? In 1947
cigarettes were 20 cents a pack. What were your taxes then, compared
to now when you factor in income and inflation based on the 1939
standard. I think the dollar is worth 2 1/2 cents. So the nickel
cone is today right on the 1939 Std. at around two bucks. Of course
I never use the word "dollar" as it doesn't exist.
This is a factually correct treatise but has one failure. We have no
courts with which to take our grievance. Remember we are under
military rule of usurpers that control each and every court in this
land under treaty with the Crown to pay their debt. Do you think for
one moment that the head honcho of a mafia would allow one of his
straw bosses to get away without paying a debt when he didn't
collect enough from the people he gets protection money from? Do you
think that the people who pay protection money will be allowed to
get away without paying the straw boss? What happens to the people
when the straw boss is refused any more protection money? Beat up,
property destroyed or even killed to set an example for others to
pay so that he can pay the head honcho? What court of the mafia do
you think the one's paying protection could go to get relief? None?
That's exactly what has happened to us. They control everything.
They are the Tyrants spoken of in the 48 Hours program aired
September 3, 1997 and why there are over 800 Militia Groups forming.
But let me tell you the truth. The mass of asses don't give a damn
and the federal mafia knows it and plows right on knowing a dumbed
down populace will believe and fear the mafia and still believing
they are free and the constitution will protect them. Not until
enough people get trapped in a situation with the "law" that wakes
them up, will anything be done to rid the usurpers from this land.
Who ever thought that failing to sign a 1040 Form would amount to a
felony conviction when the statutes specifically shows that one is
not required to file anything unless they fit two categories of
taxable activities. In which, they receive property of the
government that is to be returned for the revenue privileged
activity, and that does not mean expending ones life force, Labor,
to only be compensated for what life diminishing force he lost. In
other words there can be no restitution to a de facto group of
tyrants that are protected by the most hated class of people known
to the Lord Almighty when he spoke of them in Matthew, the lawyers,
pharisees and scribes, for without them we would all live with
justice and in more peace than ever before. They continue to create
absurd penalties that make one a felon that only in the last century
were simple misdemeanors. Insatiable power comes from these
profligates in making people felons for non violent malum prohibita
crimes, that were reserved to Malum in se crimes. These are the bane
of mankind and why you will not win in their courts on a large
scale. For the Lord admonished us should we go to their courts.
Usurpers have their de facto courts. Why don't we have our own grand
juries and set up our own courts? Because it's been tried and they
have the power to stop us because there is not enough people hurting
enough to say STOP, we are the true sovereigns here, NOT the
Corporate State of So & So. We have not been shown where we waived
our sovereignty by any document. Allright, let them produce it so
you know how they usurped power. Think they ever will? If you said
yes you are living in la-la land of honey and spice and everything
is nice fairy tale. As the black man said "Black Power," let us get
together with "White Power" and then we would have enough "total
Power" to oust the usurpers? That is why the usurpers have created
racial strife. Divide and conquer. They have done a pretty good job,
wouldn't you say? How many know enough of the real truth to turn
their own laws against them? Has it been done yet? I rest my case on
Lysander Spooner's statements which I will not restate as I have
done over and over till I'm blue in the face and only a few will
read it and understand. For those of you that want the endnote cites
send a self addressed stamped envelope and 5 bucks, cash only to; A
bar C, c/o 7055 Mountain Rd., Oxford (27565), North Carolina, U.S.A.
Voluntary use of Zip is found in 1997 Domestic Mail Manual AO 10.1.2
Part D.
The Informer
ADDENDUM
This is an addendum to the Informer's Treatise of 9/2/97. It is to
explain in more detail about the Charters and Declarations made
after the Charter betweem the Vatican and the King of England after
William the Conquerer took all the land from the English people,
forever more that they hold no land in allodium. The following is by
James Montgomery and proves my dissertation and the quote
immediately after Endnote 2.
"The two main issues as I see them in this paper are, one the 1213
Charter is still in effect. Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill
of Rights proves the following:"
"That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a
Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as
the Constitution, I'm talking about the real subject matter,
financial obligation. Title for the land could be transferred to the
states and then ceded to the federal government under trust, but the
contracted debt and obligation of the Colonial Charters, and the
1213 Charter could not be negated.
This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights would not free
the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 Charter. This is why the
United States Bank was given right of Charter in America. George
Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothchilds point man,
Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar.
Our Bill of Rights was given to us, to give us the illusion of
freedom. When the tax obligation of the Charters above marched along
un-impeded and un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the
Magna Carta again, they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215
Charter, this same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where
England and Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back
his land, because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the
barons presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215
Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the
grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it was
recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, wherein
you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void unless the
relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties
to the Charter will never cease to be born, an heir can always be
found. To prove this, again what did the new king Charles I do, even
though the previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did
not, this is why he had to included paragraph III, a clause to
protect the other parties of an earlier Charter."
