[BOBT12]

I cannot see any reason that this theory of the UCC should work. Most of this stuff seems to be based on the idea that private people can create fiat currency, and related issues too voluminous to sift through. Often, the proponents will point to HJR 192 (1933), as a basis for their views. However, this only documents government corruption, i.e., ex post facto law, and other unconstitutional, criminal, activity.

Quote:

Most of the operative part of so-called HJR 192 was replaced in 1935 by a statute formally taking the US off the gold standard. Then in 1977 that was at least partly undone by a new statute making contracts for payment of gold which had been made either before HJR 192 had been enacted or after the 1977 enactment effective for payment in gold.

The only part of HJR 192 still on the books is an innocuous definition of “obligation” in 31 USC ? 5118(d). –Shoonra, suijuris.net

Quote:

“We make money the old fashioned way. We print it.”

— Art Rolnick, former Chief Economist, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank

Bing wrote:

He was supposedly paying off people's mortgages. Not sure how though?

Don?t worry, no one is sure how this is suppose to work, however, some have gone to jail, for not getting it right.

Bing wrote:

He also told me that the fine folks in the U.S. Treasury Dept bend over backwords to help him and to process his paperwork, because he helps put more money in circulation (I thought banks created money out of thin air???) while also enriching the USG.

This, I would like to see! In other words, when the story is printed, who will be left holding the bag, an individual, or the USG?

It?s all elaborate nonsense, in my humble opinion.

[BOBT12]

Quote:

I think they're making a big mistake, like another church did a few years ago. (I have it in my records somewhere on an old computer so I'm going from memory here.) They stopped withholding from the paychecks of the members who worked directly for the church…on the grounds that they, the church elders, were not agents of the state but agents of God. The members paid the taxes due to the tune of a few million dollars over a period of years. The IRS refused to validate the payments, sent them back, and said the employer had to withhold the money and submit it, not the employee. The IRS threatened to seize the church building.

With all due respect, franklin, I am sad to hear this. However, it is a pretty good bet the courts are creating legislation from the bench, which is prohibited by supreme governmental law, the Constitution! Thus, it is merely Court Corruption.

As the Admin. Has posted, there is no law which requires witholding by anybody. In fact, it unjustly confiscates workers earnings without cause; and it is theft by deception, or duress, where workers are forced to volunteer. The same is true with the 501c3 issue, where force and deception were employed. Although, the church should take step to untangled themselves from such a condition.

Quote:

The WHOLE stick of EEOC is in making sure employers “reasonably accommodate” employees for religion, disabilities, etc. Here is an example on how employers are to “reasonably accommodate” religious beliefs:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/best_practices_religion.pdf

[…]

Ultimately? We need a BUNCH of others to send this in?.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1659&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index…&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index….&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index….&hl= So://http://famguardian.org/forums/index….&hl= So as you see, to force workers to volunteer is an infringement upon their rights, 501c3, or not!

Under the First Amendment, the federal government shouldn't interfere with church matters. These are issues of CONSCIENCE!

Quote:

“An act is voluntary when it is done according to a man's own power and with knowledge…Everything that is done by reason of ignorance is not voluntary.” -Aristotle

Quote:

I think they're going to lose…getting self-righteous with the king usually gets nowhere.

Only because the true sovereigns have forgotten who they are, as well as their RIGHTS (from the Creator) and RESPONSIBILIES (Do unto to others…)!

Moreover, the people wrongly view the modern Federal Mafia as king. This is a source of enormous harm! In effect, this allows MISCHIEVOUS government employees to, become your conscience, and tell you: who you should murder (drafts/war slaves), who you should rob, or who robs you (taxes, as currently enforced), what you can talk about (commercial speech), what is private (FISA says nothing is private), who must confess (failure to file), and what must be contained in the confession (1040, ect. Under Penalty of Perjury), the people must spend 10 billion hours on tax matters (slavery), so on and so forth.

Quote:

“If we obey out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, he who can give greatest punishment or reward will become law-giver.? “[L] Sidney, Discourses, c. 3, ? 11, p. 380-1

Quote:

“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.” –supreme Court Decision, Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356

Emphasis added.

Did you get that my friend? The people are the KINGS in this nation, NOT government employees (judges, congress, or presidents, et al.).

Quote:

“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” –VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 2 Dall. 304 (1795)

Emphasis added. Many thanks to mrg, for special assistance.

Furthermore, the people must learn to exercise their power as jurors.

Quote:

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” -Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. supreme Court, 1941

Quote:

“The Only sensible reason for entering into political society is to protect natural rights.” [L] Cato's Letters, #62

I am honored to have you on the forum, franklin.

Sincerely,

BOBT

P.S.

Quote:

“We can have justice whenever those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it as those who have been.” — Solon (594 B.C.)

[BOBT12]

Good work, Admin.

As for the government:

Quote:

Government that seeks its own preservation, looks upon the strength and bravery of the people as the root of its greatest danger; and desires to render them weak, base, corrupt, and unfaithful to each other, that they may neither dare to attempt the breaking of the yoke laid upon them, nor trust one another in any generous design for the recovery of their liberty ? West, ed., Algernon Sidney, ch2, ? 19, 185.

[BOBT12]

Thank you, Bing! You are Da Man.

[BOBT12]

lambskin wrote on Aug 31 2008, 05:00 AM:

Hey all,

Couldn't have put it, or hoped for, better myself.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/…nmentdying.html

G&P,

Lambskin

[post=”5191″][/post]

Quote:

Bush wants a war to save the present government. And by supporting his war with our money and the blood of our children, all we buy is more of that same government.

Is it really worth the price?

No! Unjust war produce negative results, it endangers freedom, rather then enlarge it.

Quote:

“We've witnessed a fire sale of American liberties at bargain basement prices, in return for the false promise of more security… The America being designed right now won't resemble the America we've been defending… The danger isn't that Big Brother may storm the castle gates. The danger is that Americans don't realize that he is already inside the castle walls.”

— Wayne LaPierre

[BOBT12]

“Also, Washington suppressed the Whiskey Tax Rebellion because there was a threat of rebellion within the union in which he had a constitutional right to repel.” –Sonik Fury

I felt this was pretty interesting.

The Whiskey Rebellion

by Murray N. Rothbard

This article appeared in The Free Market, September 1994.

In recent years, Americans have been subjected to a concerted assault upon their national symbols, holidays, and anniversaries. Washington's Birthday has been forgotten, and Christopher Columbus has been denigrated as an evil Euro-White male, while new and obscure anniversary celebrations have been foisted upon us. New heroes have been manufactured to represent “oppressed groups” and paraded before us for our titillation.

There is nothing wrong, however, with the process of uncovering important and buried facts about our past. In particular, there is one widespread group of the oppressed that are still and increasingly denigrated and scorned: the hapless American taxpayer.

This year is the bicentenary of an important American event: the rising up of American taxpayers to refuse payment of a hated tax: in this case, an excise tax on whiskey. The Whiskey Rebellion has long been known to historians, but recent studies have shown that its true nature and importance have been distorted by friend and foe alike.

The Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion is that four counties of western Pennsylvania refused to pay an excise tax on whiskey that had been levied by proposal of the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the Spring of 1791, as part of his excise tax proposal for federal assumption of the public debts of the several states.

Western Pennsylvanians failed to pay the tax, this view says, until protests, demonstrations, and some roughing up of tax collectors in western Pennsylvania caused President Washington to call up a 13,000-man army in the summer and fall of 1794 to suppress the insurrection. A localized but dramatic challenge to federal tax-levying authority had been met and defeated. The forces of federal law and order were safe.

This Official View turns out to be dead wrong. In the first place, we must realize the depth of hatred of Americans for what was called “internal taxation” (in contrast to an “external tax” such as a tariff). Internal taxes meant that the hated tax man would be in your face and on your property, searching, examining your records and your life, and looting and destroying.

The most hated tax imposed by the British had been the Stamp Tax of 1765, on all internal documents and transactions; if the British had kept this detested tax, the American Revolution would have occurred a decade earlier, and enjoyed far greater support than it eventually received.

Americans, furthermore, had inherited hatred of the excise tax from the British opposition; for two centuries, excise taxes in Britain, in particular the hated tax on cider, had provoked riots and demonstrations upholding the slogan, “liberty, property, and no excise!” To the average American, the federal government's assumption of the power to impose excise taxes did not look very different from the levies of the British crown.

The main distortion of the Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion was its alleged confinement to four counties of western Pennsylvania. From recent research, we now know that no one paid the tax on whiskey throughout the American “back-country”: that is, the frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky.

President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was a cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes. Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.

The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whisky production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions. Furthermore, in keeping with Hamilton's program, the tax bore more heavily on the smaller distilleries. As a result, many large distilleries supported the tax as a means of crippling their smaller and more numerous competitors.

Western Pennsylvania, then, was only the tip of the iceberg. The point is that, in all the other back-country areas, the whiskey tax was never paid. Opposition to the federal excise tax program was one of the causes of the emerging Democrat-Republican Party, and of the Jeffersonian “Revolution” of 1800. Indeed, one of the accomplishments of the first Jefferson term as president was to repeal the entire Federalist excise tax program. In Kentucky, whiskey tax delinquents only paid up when it was clear that the tax itself was going to be repealed.

Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax.

Except during the War of 1812, the federal government never again dared to impose an internal excise tax, until the North transformed the American Constitution by centralizing the nation during the War Between the States. One of the evil fruits of this war was the permanent federal “sin” tax on liquor and tobacco, to say nothing of the federal income tax, an abomination and a tyranny even more oppressive than an excise.

Why didn't previous historians know about this widespread non-violent rebellion? Because both sides engaged in an “open conspiracy” to cover up the facts. Obviously, the rebels didn't want to call a lot of attention to their being in a state of illegality.

Washington, Hamilton, and the Cabinet covered up the extent of the revolution because they didn't want to advertise the extent of their failure. They knew very well that if they tried to enforce, or send an army into, the rest of the back-country, they would have failed. Kentucky and perhaps the other areas would have seceded from the Union then and there. Both contemporary sides were happy to cover up the truth, and historians fell for the deception.

The Whiskey Rebellion, then, considered properly, was a victory for liberty and property rather than for federal taxation. Perhaps this lesson will inspire a later generation of American taxpayers who are so harried and downtrodden as to make the whiskey or stamp taxes of old seem like Paradise.

Note: Those interested in the Whiskey Rebellion should consult Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Steven R. Boyd, ed., The Whiskey Rebellion (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). Professor Slaughter notes that some of the opponents of the Hamilton excise in Congress charged that the tax would “let loose a swarm of harpies who, under the denominations of revenue offices, will range through the country, prying into every man's house and affairs, and like Macedonia phalanx bear down all before them.” Soon, the opposition predicted, “the time will come when a shirt will not be washed without an excise.”

Murray N. Rothbard (1926?1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor ? with Lew Rockwell ? of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright ? 2005 Ludwig von Mises Institute

All rights reserved.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard1.html

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Aug 26 2008, 11:12 AM:

This executive order about the use of biometric data to prevent “terrorism” appears to cancel it's own objectives:

Quote:

3)? This directive provides a Federal framework for applying existing and emerging biometric technologies to the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of data in identification and screening processes employed by agencies to enhance national security, consistent with applicable law, including information privacy and other legal rights under United States law. (emphasis added).

(5)? This directive does not impose requirements on State, local, or tribal authorities or on the private sector.? It does not provide new authority to agencies for collection, retention, or dissemination of information or for identification and screening activities (emphasis added).

What does this EO do if it doesn't impose requirements on State, local or tribal authorities or the private sector? And if it does not provide new authority for any of the activities it wants to implement?

These people probably drank fluoridated water.

[post=”5164″][/post]

It appears to set up a legal fiction, in order to get the people to accept the insane premise it proposes. Later, the president will likely demand this authority from the docile, vapid, Congress.

Quote:

“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” –Mark Twain

[BOBT12]

Bing wrote on Aug 25 2008, 04:43 PM:

Great article on REAL ID.

Thank you.

Bing

[post=”5158″][/post]

I agree, this is a very good article. I will write the legislature, both state and federal, again regarding this issue. DownsizeDC.com has a good campaign around this issue.

[BOBT12]

Yet another outrage, by the OUT OF CONTROL government. And this is more evidence of Court Corruption.

This is why there needs to be a public outcry, I think that such support exist, yet, it is spread out over a thousand different directions. In the end, I believe the government (Income Tax, Courts, Congress, President, et.) is tyranny personified, and must be fought on this basis. The equation looks something like this 300,000,000 (We the People) against 3,000,000 (Unjust Gov.).

Quote:

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it… Where do you stand Citizen?” –Judge Learned Hand (1961)

I will send them a donation today.

[BOBT12]

snw4931 wrote on Aug 20 2008, 11:28 PM:

Please someone help!? I am a developer in Georgia who entered a JV agreement to build condos or apartments with two other partners.? I was to be paid via a pre-development budget for work performed to complete pre-development.? I was to finance the construction budget.? The partners halted project without my permission because I refused to agree to allow partners to control construction budget once I get it financed.? I also have testimonies that partners attempted to make “side deals” with builder, and other vendors, which resulted in an inflated construction budget, which increased difficulty to attain financing.? Financing could not be attain until predevelopment was completed and this was stopped against my will by partners.? They have intentions to dishonor the contract because they feel I will not be able to “afford” legal counsel.? I have prepared 3 affidavits but I need them reviewed before I submit them to court.? I also need LAW references to support each claim in my affidavit.? I tried downloading the (FLA) but no success.? I also need documents to file the suit and a chapter 13 bankruptcy doc to save my home which is in foreclosure as a result of this whole thing.? Please offer your advice and references to where I can go to help myself.

Business owner in distress

[post=”5133″][/post]

You might want to consider getting to a law library. They can provide instruction on finding the cases you are looking for, I.e., cases from your state.

Also, you should get the Rules of Proceedure for your jurisdiction. This will show the process that the court requires in order for you to file a Complaint.

[BOBT12]

dmiladin wrote on Aug 18 2008, 11:14 AM:

Hmmm…is the gold medal made of solid gold?

[post=”5126″][/post]

They are fake.

Quote:

Dear pcventures-ga;

Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting question.

Right or wrong, many people share your opinion. Winning an Olympic

event should, perhaps, earn the winner a reward commensurate with the

achievement. However, the Olympic committee?s position on this issue

is, and always has been, that the honor of winning an event is more

prestigious than any award given to the winner.

The original Olympic Charter, written by French educational reformer,

Pierre de Coubertin, and the 1896 International Olympic Committee,

listed only four general goals in the offering and presentation of the

Olympic games (note that none of them involve rewards or recognition

of any kind):

?1. To promote the development of those physical and moral qualities

that are the basis of sport.

2. To educate young people through sport in a spirit of better

understanding between each other and of friendship, thereby helping to

build a better and more peaceful world.

3. To spread the Olympic principles throughout the world, thereby

creating international goodwill; and

4. To bring together the athletes of the world for sports festival

every four years: the Olympic Games.?

THE OLYMPIC GAMES, EDUCATION AND CRISIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/express…s.cfm?p_ID=1915

The issue of rewarding athletes was (and still is) secondary to the

games themselves. When the Charter was first drafted, of course,

billions of dollars were not being expended on the Olympics. The

Charter as it reads today is much the same as it was then. With regard

to awards, in Chapter 5, Rule 70, paragraph 2 of the Charter, which is

entitled “Medals and Diplomas”, it states:

?2.1  For the individual events, the first prize shall be a silver

gilt medal and a diploma, the second prize a silver medal and a

diploma, and the third prize a bronze medal and a diploma. The medals

must mention the sport and the event for which they are awarded, and

be fastened to a detachable chain or ribbon so as to be placed around

the athlete?s neck. Competitors who will have placed fourth, fifth,

sixth, seventh and eighth shall also receive a diploma, but no medal.

In the case of a tie for a first, second or third place, each

competitor is entitled to a medal and a diploma.?

?2.2  The medals shall be at least 60mm in diameter and 3mm thick. The

medals for first and second places shall be of silver of at least

925-1000 grade; the medal for first place shall be gilded with at

least 6g of pure gold.?

?2.4  For team sports, and for team events in other sports, each

member of the winning team having taken part in at least one match or

competition during the Olympic Games is entitled to a silver gilt

medal and a diploma, each member of the second team to a silver medal

and a diploma, and each member of the third team to a bronze medal and

a diploma. The other members of these teams are entitled only to a

diploma. The members of a team placed fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh

and eighth shall receive a diploma.?

OLYMPIC CHARTER ? FULL TEXT

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf

This practice has not changed. We should recall that in previous time

the winners and placeholders were merely presented a laurel for his

efforts. Conversely, in today?s society where achievement is often

equated with monetary value, the focus on the medal itself is a

relatively new phenomenon. As I?m sure any Olympian will agree, even

if the metal WERE solid gold, it could never equal the value of the

experience and the achievement it represents ? therefore the issue is

a moot point. Likewise, the Olympic Committee recognizes this and

believes that to offer substantially valuable rewards could undermine

the true honor and spirit of the games (competing for pay rather than

honor), thus the term ?gold medal? refers to the color and

representation of the medal as opposed to its precious metal content.

Having said that, had the medal been made of wood, the line of those

with lifelong dreams of being a world class Olympian would be just as

long.

I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you

have any questions about my research please post a clarification

request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating

and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again

in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;

Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher

INFORMATION SOURCES

THE TRUE OLYMPIC SCANDAL

http://www.loebner.net/OlympicF/PantsOnFir…lEditorial.html

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/ioc/index_uk.asp

OLYMPIC CHARTER ? FULL TEXT

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf

OLYMPIC CHARTER RULE 70

http://home.arcor.de/kj.wagner/charter/charter70.html

[BOBT12]

BOBT12 wrote on Aug 7 2008, 03:06 AM:

I will be sending a letter out soon. Why should the people be forced to do the government's dirty work?

Quote:

? Caution employers who choose to operate under statutory law that they are to ?reasonably accommodate? the beliefs of all employees.

? Caution employers who choose to operate under statutory law that they are not to adversely affect employment status when they could so simply reasonably-accommodate beliefs.

? Not confuse the employer into ?doing the work of government….

“P.S. My specific reasons for not using an SSN might not be the same as another?s reasons or beliefs for not using the number. Some cite quite appropriately ?mark of the beast.?

[post=”5087″][/post]

Emphasis added.

Well here?s the reply:

U.S. EEOC wrote:

Thank you for your letter of August 7, 2008. I regret that I am unable to assist you with your request. The policy statement you seek falls outside the statutory authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is limited to addressing workplace discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age and disability.

I wish you good luck with your endeavors.

Sincerely yours,

Constance S. Baker

Commissioner

Emphasis added.

[BOBT12]

I agree, franklin. If we want get rid of the Federal Reserve, we need to “just do it”, much like Old Hickory (Andrew Jackson) abolished the central bank of that day (circa 1830s). Ron Paul has a bill on this issue, you can view, and support it at http://www.DownsizeDC.org.

Quote:

Ron Paul's “Honest Money Act”

Categories: Wealth & Poverty Today's Downsizer Dispatch . . . Recruit others to pass this bill. Forward this message. Quote of the Day: “There are no hopeless situations; There are only men who have grown hopeless about them.” — Clare Boothe Luce Media Announcement: Jim Babka will be on the air with Gary Nolan today. See below the details for information about how you can listen over the Internet. Subject: Ron Paul's “Honest Money Act” Imagine living in a world without inflation, recessions, bubbles, booms, or busts, and where your money buys more and more instead of less and less. Congressman Ron Paul's “Honest Money Act” (HR 2756) could be a big step in that direction. The “Honest Money Act” (HR 2756) would repeal the legal tender law. If you're well versed in economics and already know why this would be a good thing, ask your elected representatives to cosponsor HR 2756 here. If you don't know the significance of repealing the legal tender law an explanation follows . . . The Legal Tender Law Creates a Monopoly Every paper dollar you own carries the words “Federal Reserve Note” (FRN). This means they were issued by the Federal Reserve System (Fed), a national bank created by Congress. The legal tender law gives the Fed monopoly control over what you use for money. When a currency is legal tender you are legally compelled to accept it in payment for debts, even if you've made a contract to be paid in some other currency or commodity, such as gold. Repealing the legal tender law would free you to use other currencies, gold, silver, or all of them at the same time, including FRNs. If this seems like a strange new world to you, please realize that you already live in this world to a certain extent. When you check-out at a store you can already pay using cash, check, debit card, or credit card, and you probably also have a number of different accounts you use for various purposes. Repealing the legal tender monopoly would simply give you more choices. How the FRN Monopoly Works Choice is good because it allows competition. Monopoly is bad because it leads to price fixing. Monopoly control over what people use for money provides the greatest price-fixing power of all, because it impacts ALL of your economic transactions. The Fed can manipulate the price of absolutely everything, by increasing the number of circulating dollars (inflation), or by decreasing them (deflation). You already know what it means when counterfeiters inflate the money supply. They use their fake money to get something for nothing, taking wealth from others without creating any wealth of their own. It's a form of stealing. But the long-term consequences of counterfeiting are even worse than the initial theft . . . If the counterfeit dollars were allowed to stay in the economy, instead of gradually being removed from circulation, the result would be an ever-growing inflation of the money supply. This inflation would trick businesses into making a disastrous mistake. If you were a widget maker you would see an increased demand for your widgets because of the extra dollars pumped into the economy by the counterfeiters. This sense of increased demand and increased wealth would be the “bubble” (or “boom”) that always follows an inflation of the money supply. Your widgets would start to fly off the shelves faster than you could make them. You would have to increase prices to maintain inventories and invest in new production to meet the increased demand. But this increased demand would be an illusion, because . . . Everyone else would raise their prices too, for the same reasons. Rising prices would remove the perception of increased wealth, and soak up the extra spending power created by the counterfeit dollars. This would cause the demand for your widgets to shrink back to its old level, but with a wicked twist . . . The increased inventories and expanded production capacity you created in response to the inflationary boom would turn out not to be needed. Your widgets would start to gather dust on the shelf and you would have trouble paying your bills. The result? You would lay-off recently hired employees and close your recently expanded production facilities. First came the inflationary boom, or bubble, and then the bust, or recession. Extra FRNs created by the Fed work exactly the same as extra FRNs created by counterfeiters. They allow those who get the dollars first to get something for nothing, followed by a boom, and then a bust. The Fed has numerous ways to create new FRNs out of thin air. Economists cloud these methods in complicated jargon, and the talking heads on TV make it all sound perfectly normal and even necessary, but the result is exactly the same as with illegal counterfeiting. The government uses new Fed-created dollars to get something for nothing, paying some of its bills with the new money before the monetary inflation has time to raise prices. You pay the bill later through the resulting price increases and the economic recession that follows. Monetary inflation is simply a hidden tax. Given the above explanation it should come as no surprise that the greatest boom and bust in American history happened immediately following the Fed's birth in 1913. Fed inflation put the inflationary “roar” in the “Roaring Twenties” followed by the biggest bust ever, the Great Depression. All past inflations, booms, and busts were created through essentially the same process, including the recent stock market and housing bubbles. The Fed is simply the government's latest-and-greatest tool for legalized counterfeiting. How You Can End This Con-game Imagine what would happen if FRNs had to compete with gold, a form of money that can't be significantly inflated or deflated because of its scarcity and durability. . . * People would begin to have gold accounts that they would use to buy and sell. The ownership of the gold would be transferred back and forth using checks, debit cards, paper certificates (currency), and a few coins, just like with FRNs. * When you went shopping you would start to see two prices, one in FRNs and one in a certain weight of gold. * If the Fed inflated the number of FRNs you would see the FRN prices rise while the gold price would stay roughly the same. * You would begin to prefer the gold price, so you would want to be paid in gold too. * How could the Fed stop the flight to gold? Only one way. Stop inflating the number of FRNs. Congressman Paul has hit upon the easiest way to end inflation, and the booms and busts that follow in its wake. Simply repeal the legal tender monopoly enjoyed by FRNs, and allow monetary competition. Not only would this help to end inflation and recessions, it would also limit the ability of politicians to hide the true cost of government through the inflation tax. But that's not all . . . Forcing FRNs to compete with gold would also confer one other benefit. Over time the prices you pay would tend to fall as increases in economic efficiency (for example, technological improvements) lower the cost of production and increase the supply of goods and services. A stable money supply tends to become more valuable over time, unlike an inflationary currency that constantly loses value. To gain the benefits of monetary competition please use the form at DownsizeDC.org to urge your elected representatives to co-sponsor “The Honest Money Act.”

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/ron_paul%27…oney_act%22_830

[BOBT12]

I want to add a little more information to this post about Court Corruption:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/14449-…ving#post138092

BOBT12 wrote:

mrg wrote:

Quote:

As of the year 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions…

Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Books, 2004. (p. 260)

Bingo! Thanks, mrg. This is the sort of thing I was looking for; this shows that it was common practice to use the Federalist Papers to look to determine the intent of the people. I am having trouble finding Madison?s quote regarding how his notes of the Constitutional Convention should be used; however, I believe that I have properly portrayed the intent of the framers below.

BOBT12 wrote:

KarenM wrote:

Since the Constitution contains absolutely no reference to either the Federalist Papers or Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention, how can you support your statement regarding the intended interpretation?

Is there something written on the back of it in invisible ink that lends authority to these intended sources for interpretation?

The ?invisible ink?, if you will, is common sense regarding what was intended. It is expected that the reader possess this quality when reading the document. With this in mind, if there is disagreement, the Federalist Papers go to the issue of what the people intended when they voted for the Constitution. Of course, Madison's Notes sheds light on what the representatives of the Constitutional Convention intended. Remember, the Constitutional framers did not want to burden the document unnecessarily, they wanted to people to read and use the document. Certainly, these were Madison's, and the framers, views.

CSPAN2 wrote:

“I don't think the Constitution is a living document…. It is enduring, it doesn't change. This use to be orthodoxy. If you told Joseph Story that the Constitution was going to change according to what the Supreme Court thought it ought to mean, he would be astounded, or John Marshall, or…any of any of the people living at the framing time….

“When I interpret the document, I know what I am looking for: what was it understood to mean by the American people when they adopted it; and everybody use to use it [in this fashion]. Consider the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920, that required all states to give women the franchise

. Why did we adopt the Nineteenth Amendment? We had an equal protection clause in 1920, but somebody didn't come after the Court and say, 'Your Honor what be a greater denial in a democracy then a denial of the franchise?' And you know that what would happen today, the Court would say, 'yes the women have the vote.' Americans did not think that way…. In the abstract that [equal protection clause] could mean anything, it could mean you have to draft women and send them into combat, it could mean that in this building you have to have unisex toilets… Nobody ever thought it meant those things… We adopted a Constitutional Amendment.

The killer argument against that approach, whereas the Originalist, that's the opposite of the Living Constitution theory, knows what he looking for: 'What did the people think it meant when they adopted it'. For the Non-Originalist, there's no criteria… Really, either you use the original meaning that people voted, ratified, or eles you essentially tell your judges, ya know, 'Write a new Constitution for us when you think it's a good idea.'… You don't want your judges to run loose like that, do you?”

–Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, With High School Students (4/9/2008)

Emphasis added.

Emphasis added.

http://www.suijurisclub.net/taxation/1615-…+Story#post7881

[BOBT12]

The above is why the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION should not be allowed to select judges for the people. It is better that the people select and correct their selection on their own.