Rape of Justice - Eustace Mullins

Mullins on Equity

The law merchant exists primarily to assure equitable dealings in commerce. Or so we are told. In fact, the law merchant exists to subvert all other legal systems in the world, and all governments. It is primarily an instrumentality of plunder.

Frederic Bastiat writes, in "The Law,"

"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it. Tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the right to employment, the progressive income, tax, free education, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc. etc. And it is the aggregate of all these plans in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of SOCIALISM."

Communism's offer to "redistribute the wealth" is the ultimate in political demogoguery. In "The World Order," the present writer traced the origin of Communism to international bankers who were embarked upon a universal program of "levelling," that is, of reducing all things to a single manageable standard. Former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon writes that "The redistribution of wealth from the productive citizen has become the principal government activity." Of course the "redistribution" of wealth means taking it from producers and giving it to non-producers, in order to buy the political support of the nonproductive element of society. Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, wrote:

"The utopian scheme of leveling, and a community of goods, are . . . in our government, unconstitutional."

Adams pinpoints the fundamental problem in America today, that the law merchant and its communistic program of redistribution and leveling are forbidden by our Constitution; the syndicalists are therefore dedicated to removing and destroying the Constitution as the principal obstacle in their path. This is why the battle now comes to a head in American courts; the law merchant has insidiously wreaked its will for many years, and it is finally exposed as an alien fraud and the final subverter of the legal system which was guaranteed to the American people by our Constitution.

In the Oxford English Dictionary, we find the law merchant defined under "1856 H.Broome. Common Eaw. Ford Campbell remarks that the general lien of bankers is part of the law merchant, (lex mercatoria)."

Now, this seems innocuous enough. A banker may be justified in obtaining a lien to protect his loan, or his interest. In practice, however, this means that the ability of the central bank to issue and create money creates a maelstrom which inevitably draws all property and all persons into its suction; it creates a lien on everything within the state. It is now widely believed that our central bank, the Federal Reserve System, holds at the present time a lien on all property in the United States. This means that there really is no personal property, and that therefore we have arrived at the Communist ideal, in which private individuals own nothing.

Black's Law Dictionary defines lex mercatoria, the law merchant, as part of the common law. It may be present in our courts, but not as the common law. It is the antithesis of the common law, because it is the vehicle of equity. The pernicious presence of equity in our legal system is a hoary relic of Oriental despotism, of autarchy, and of the abuses of unbridled power and the loss of individual rights. Equity is the Star Chamber of the Middle Ages, and the legal system of Babylonian absolute power; it is also the cult of Baal, the legacy of Nimrod, and the personification of the stealthy Masonic power. It is not accidental that the law merchant is enshrined in the Masonic rites; in the Ancient and Accepted Rite, the 31st degree is closely associated with equity; as is the 16th degree, the Princes of Jerusalem. It also is accepted as the Grand Defender, the 31st degree of the Ancient and Primitive Rite.

To the average citizen, the law merchant simply means the original principles of commerce, the law of negotiable instruments, contracts, partnership and trademarks. There is nothing sinister in these precepts. The law merchant contemplates good faith and credit among those dealing in commerce; again, there is no quarrel with such precepts. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a contract as:

"To enter mutual obligations, from Latin contractus, or agreement; an agreement enforceable by law, an agreement which affects a transfer of property, a conveyance. . . 1588. A.King tr. Canisius Catech 39, All unlauchful. . . usurping of othir mens geir be theft. . . usurie, inust winning, decept and other contracts."

The law merchant upholds agreements between contracting parties. This too is acceptable; if a disagreement over the terms develops, it can be settled in a court. However, Blackstone developed the theory that court judgments themselves become "Specialties," contracts of the highest sort. The judgment of the court itself, in issuing an Order of Execution for the forcible payment of a judgment, creates a special "contract" which then must be fulfilled. It has been said that law looks to the past, but equity looks for the future. What this means is that law is that fixed understanding, developed by our traditions, which guides us, while equity looks to the future and a managed economy which is actually a return to the darkest period of man's history, the era of absolute despotism. Equity, or chancery, as it was known in the Middle Ages, stems from the duties of the secretaries (that is, secret emissaries), of the emperor. To give them authority to carry out his wishes, the emperor made them chancellors, that is, cancellors of sins to those who were favored by the emperor, from whence came the designation, chancery, and chancery court.

From its inception, chancery court proceedings were shrouded in secrecy and overshadowed by conspiratorial forces. Because of their dictatorial nature, they were also known as "Star Chamber" courts, a term which originated after William the Conqueror invaded England. From J. R. Green's "Short History of England," we learn that

"A royal justiciary secured law to the Jewish merchant, who had no standing ground in the local courts; his bonds were deposited for safety in a chamber of the royal palace at Westminster, which from their Hebrew name of 'starrs' gained the title of the Star-Chamber. The famous Star-Chamber court system of England came from this arrangement."

Corporations vs. Free Citizens

Under the Federal Reserve System and its collection agency, the Internal Revenue System, the United States has now returned to a feudal system of the Middle Ages. The IRS originated in Italy as the Black Hand, which carried out demands for extortion for the Princes of the Black Nobility. Under our present feudal system, we live on the "lord's land" as "villeins," having title to nothing, and remaining as tenants at the lord's pleasure. The "lord," of course, is the central banker, who exercise control through the Federal Reserve System. It was not accidental that the secret conclave which drafted the Federal Reserve Act met clandestinely at Jekyl Island Ga., a millionaires retreat, whose members at that time controlled one-fourth of all the wealth of the world (Secrets of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace Mullins). The IRS maintains an Inquisition which was originally developed by the Jesuits in Spain; this inquisition pays a tithe to informants, and is seldom countermanded by the legal system, which exists merely to enforce its demands.

The central bank itself is the ultimate corporation, the final weapon of the conspiratorial Black Nobility and their World Order. Chief Justice Marshall noted in the famous case of Dartmouth v. Woodward:

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisibly intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confer upon it."

Corporations were well known in Roman law, and were copied from the laws of Solon. They were private companies which were entitled to function as long as they did nothing contrary to the public law. The fundamental problem presented by corporations is that corporations and free persons cannot coexist in the same nation. The Constitution was written for free individuals, each being one person; the corporation cannot be one person, but is an aggregate person. The corporation is something which has attained immortality, something which is denied to all free individuals. The corporation ordains perpetual succession; it can be sued and it can sue; it can purchase gold, lands, and chattels; it can have a common seal; and it can make bylaws and appoint or remove members.

Because a corporation is not a person, it cannot have citizenship in a nation, or exhibit loyalty to a nation. A corporation therefore has no national loyalties, or any allegiance to national boundaries. However, the fundamental problem of the corporation is that because it is not a person and because it can go to court to sue or to be sued, this creates a situation in which legal positivism develops as a logical outgrowth of social activism, the Holmesian concept of law. As Roscoe Pound wrote, "There are no objective, God-given standards of law; since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be men." This is the dominant theory of our legal system— God has nothing to do with the law—the Ten Commandments were never delivered—and the law is no longer concerned with persons, except as they come into conflict with the non-person of the international law merchant—the corporation.

When an American citizen goes into court, he arrives there as a creature of God and as a beneficiary of the Constitution. He is met by the mercenaries of the law merchant, who function solely to enforce the admiralty court procedures of the nonperson, the corporation, as epitomized by the ultimate corporation, the world central bank, against that American person. It is this fundamental conflict which has never been stated in the court. The corporation's legal representatives, the judges and the lawyers, are aware of who they represent, but they never inform the citizen that they are functioning on the principles of the law merchant, while the citizen expects to be defended under the principles of the Constitution. The respected legal scholar, Bruce Fein, states, "It is very disturbing if you have a secret law that is known only to the judge or the government." Washington Post, April 18,1989. The entire purpose of this work is to inform you, the American citizen, of the existence of this secret law. Thus it is no longer a secret, and you can mount an adequate defense.

The basic problem of the law merchant is that the free born individual, as a creature of God, comes into court to defy the corporation, a non-person which has been artificially created by the Black Nobility as a creature of Satan, and as upheld by ancient Oriental despotism, typified by the Babylonian monetary and court system. Sanford Levinson's book, "Constitutional Faith" treads gingerly around this problem. As a present day advocate of the latest version of Holmesian social activism in the legal system, Levinson treats the concept of "post-modernist thought. " As described by Levinson, postmodernist legal thought is inspired by the anti-rationalist philosophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger, and by more recent "deconstructionist" epigones, Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, de Man and Richard Rorty. "Constitutional Faith" is intended as the final epitaph for constitutional traditions in our legal system, as Levinson intones:

"The death of 'constitutionalism' may be the central event of our time, just as the death of God was that of the past century (and for much the same reason)."

In fact, the "death of God" was the desperate philosophical attempt of the corporationists to deny a God which had played no part in the creation of their corporation; the "death of the Constitution" will prove to be as much of a shibboleth. Levinson defines constitutionalism as a misguided faith in "timeless moral norms"; that is, law as a fixed force as it is defined in its most ancient understanding, and law as a moral force emanating from the Presence and Power of God. Levinson tells us that:

"Popular sovereignty as a motif emphasizing the energy and moral authority of will (and willful desire) rather than the constraints of a common moral order to which the will was bound to submit, has become the view emphasized today at most major law schools."

Is this surprising? The law schools train students to uphold the law merchant, and to subvert the Constitution. "Popular sovereignty" represents the sovereignty of the individual as a creature of God; it will always be the enemy of the corporation. Levinson tells us that:

"Law is stripped of any moral anchoring. . . political institutions thus become the forum for the triumph of the will."

Levinson evokes "political visions of a civil religious persuasion" in which "it is doubtful that logical argumentation plays a crucial role." He creates new philosophical substantiation for the Harvard School of "deconstructionism" which maintains the view of legalism as a Marxist weapon to combat "bourgeois society and its oppression of the masses." Levinson apparently believes in the nineteenth century concept of Communism as a great wind which will blow away all the outmoded trappings of the old bourgeois society, leaving in its place a community lacking in ornamentation, with clean bright buildings which have little or no furnishings, in short, a hospital room or a jail cell, as the ideal home of the future. Levinson declares that "Social life as we know it is being challenged and may even be dissolving in an ever greater Heraclitean flux." Levinson paints a scenario of the Supreme Court's participation in a "constitutional abolition of private property in the name of a proletarian dictatorship" as an imaginary development; in fact, he describes just what the Supreme Court has been doing for years, gradually expropriating the private property of the American people, and turning it over to the world corporation through our Federal Reserve System. This program can be overturned; we have the weapons; we can go into court and challenge the law merchant because we are individual creatures of God who are protected by the Constitution as our inheritance of God's law.

Not only is the corporation against God, as a non-person created to subvert God's Presence on this earth; it is also the antithesis of God's law as the national will. The corporation is international, and functions throughout the world as admiralty or maritime law. Admiralty jurisdiction extends over land and sea, beyond all national boundaries. The corporation itself is a violation of the Constitution, because each corporation in practice becomes a New State. An entity which exercises authority in more than one state, the corporation itself becomes a state. As chartered by the government, the corporation becomes an arm of the government which is not only multi-state; it is also multi-national. Thus, a New York corporation exercises authority in Virginia, or in China. It also creates money, which is a function of state sovereignty. Art. IV sec 3 of the Constitution says, "no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State." The corporation sets up new States as "Districts" or federal operations of the admiralty courts. Thus the Federal Reserve System divides the United States into Federal Reserve Districts; the Internal Revenue Service divides the United States into Districts; the legal system divides the United States into areas of "U.S. District Courts"; and each corporation divides the United States into its own sales districts, manufacturing districts, and districts of opportunity.

Because of the existence of the corporations, the law merchant, or marine law, is not part of the law of any particular country, but is part of the law of all nations. A bottomry bond may be issued in London, as a loan on a ship and its freight, or as a respondentia bonsus, a loan on pledge of the cargo. This itself is not only a security, or adhesion, contract; the loan or mortgage becomes a security in itself, or new money, which may be traded, discounted, or sold as a "security"; hence our bonds and shares sold on Wall Street. The Constitution, Art. VI, states that "the Constitution. . . shall be the supreme law of the land," but Statute 1, Sec. 9, p. 77, line 26, 1st Session of Congress Sept. 24, 1789, says, "And the trial of issues in fact in the district courts, in all causes except in civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury."

Thus we are to have jury trial, except in admiralty cases. How does this square with the fact that we now have admiralty procedures in our courts? Quite easily. We can still have a jury, but the jury is nullified by the judge's instructions to the jury, which are straight from the law merchant. Thus the common law meets the maritime-admiralty law in our courts and is soundly defeated. Admiralty comes into the nation by the power of contract. We find that

"The Admiralty court is a maritime court instituted for the purpose of the laws of the seas. There seems to be ground, therefore, for restraining jurisdiction, in some measure, within the limit of the grant of the commercial power; which would confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concerning navigation and trade of the country upon the high seas and tide-waters with foreign countries. . . ." New Jersey Steam Nav Co v. Merchants Bank, 6 How 392 (1848).

It is known that most insurance is a tontine scheme, and is therefore forbidden by law. Although insurance is basically a private enterprise rather than government, when the government became a corporation (National Recovery Act etc. in the FDR administration), the government then became involved in private and commercial enterprise. The commerce clause Art I. sec. 8, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the States, also invokes admiralty law as "the Law of Nations. . . . on Land and Water." Yet the 1st Continental Congress itself had entered a complaint against England "which. . . extend the powers of the Admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits." When the government embarked on its nationwide tontine scheme, the Social Security Administration and its accompanying "insurance policies," the courts of the nation were thereby converted into Admiralty courts. "A policy of insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of admiralty jurisdiction." De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fcd.Chs. No 3.7766 (1815).

Title 28, USC sec 1333, "Admiralty, maritime and prize cases; The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the United States, of: (i). Any civil case or admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." And what are these remedies? The Fed. Statutes Anno, v 9, p. 88, says, ". . . saving to suitors in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where common law is competent to give it" Home Ins Co v. North Packet Co., 31 la.242 (1871).

However, an American citizen's claim to common law citizenship is thought by some authorities to be compromised by Social Security (FICA) subjecting of said citizen's persona to the maritime jurisdiction of the U.S. District courts through an insurance claim: "The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Gt Falls Mfg Co v. Atty Gen. 124 U.S. 581. Thus the citizen who seeks common law remedy may be forced against his will into an equity jurisdiction through the "contract" of the Social Security Ponzi scheme, on the grounds that equity law carries out the law of contract, or the law merchant. What, then, is its effect on the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed a citizen by the protection of the Constitution of the United States? Many persons have been stating their belief that anyone participating in this equity contract or a similar government Ponzi scheme thereby loses those rights, privileges and immunities. In so stating, they are merely echoing the claims of the equity courts themselves.

However, it is only natural to claim that your brand is right, because this is your claim to power, and your claim to your share of the market. The Federal Laws of Civil Procedure themselves are merely codes of equity.

Thus we are told that a citizen of the United States, that is to say, of a State of the United States (without getting into the present inquiry as to whether there are not actually two separate United States at this time), who handles a Federal Reserve note, or has a driver's license, or has a Social Security number, has thereby entered into an equity contract with the government, and have thereby lost the rights, privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States. Certainly this is a most pernicious doctrine. Not only does it ignore the law of contract itself—a contract must stipulate an offering, a consideration and an acceptance of the parties, whereas those who teach this doctrine merely focus on the acceptance— the acceptance of a number, or of a stipend from the insurance scheme—but where is the offering? Where is the consideration of the parties detailed? Such a claim could be substantiated only if the citizen has executed a form and signed it, as follows,

"I,_______________, born a citizen of the United States and presently enjoying the rights, privileges and immunities thereby, do, in order to obtain a Social Security number (or birth certificate, or driver's license), knowingly and willingly renounce said rights, privileges and immunities."

This is a contract. Anything less is not a contract. To claim that there are hidden codes, secret agreements and carefully disguised meanings, none of which are spelled out, in the act of obtaining a Social Security number etc. is to offend the law of contract.

As for the handling of a Federal Reserve note, a promise to pay, or promissory note against the citizens of the United States, the handling of such a note actually opens the door for the citizen to sue the Federal Reserve System for conspiracy. The Federal Reserve Act was written as a conspiracy, enacted into law as a conspiracy, and still functions today as a secret conspiracy whose deliberations are forbidden to the public, and to the Congress of the United States! (Secrets of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace Mullins).

We do not wish to gloss over the fact that thousands of American citizens are presently languishing in our government concentration camps, having been convicted of some equity violation of said alleged contracts. However, these prisoners were convicted of having challenged the totality of equity jurisdiction, which is assigned the duty of protecting every aspect of the corporation central bank's operations; these prisoners have challenged Marxism, the supreme authority of the state as commissioned by the corporation. These prisoners, as we have previously stated, were convicted on an "information" of having violated a court injunctive order as an overt act. They were convicted and sentenced in violation of the Constitution, and can be freed only by a Constitutional Revolution.

Equity law cannot challenge or supersede Constitutional law; it does bypass it, refusing to confront what began as God's law, His Covenant or contract, codified in the Bible as an Affidavit from God, that is, with the three and a half million Israelites, from Jacob only, and continued in the Twelve Tables of Roman Eaw. By 900 B.C., as the Canaanites, who now called themselves Phoenicians (later Venetians, which developed into the Black Nobility), a second form of law, set up by the Phoenician international traders for their own convenience and purposes, appeared on the Isle of Rhodes. This second form of law became known as the law merchant, our present law of contract. This form of law constitutes the statutory civil law of the United States. Meanwhile, God's Covenant persisted as the English common law, which Alfred the Great codified as Alfred's Dooms, in 872 A.D., the continuation of His Contract with the people of Jacob, or Israel. It was known as the common law of England, not because it was a law for the common people, but because it was common to all people, rich and poor alike.

William Avery correctly states that the first defense of an American citizen who is charged with a violation of equity law is "inability to perform." You are charged with failure to deliver when you were never informed that you should deliver. In fact, the charge is "stand and deliver," the ancient cry of the English highwayman. If a policeman tells you he is going to give you a ticket for parking in a No Parking Zone, and you reply that you didn't see the sign, he charges you anyway, because you are pleading a failure of vision. When the state charges you with failure to perform under equity law, such as failure to pay a "tax," your response is that you are unable to perform because you were not informed of the obligation. Some citizens have been requesting that the IRS send them "a letter of delegation of authority," that is, a letter from their superior delegating to them the authority to conduct an audit or to investigate you. Usually, the agents either refuse to produce such a letter or are unable to obtain one from their superior. Should they actually produce such a letter, the next step would be to demand a copy of the contract under whose provisions you are being charged with failure to perform, with itemized claims of whatever you have failed to deliver. The conventional response of the IRS agent has been to cite some provision of the IRS code. However, this does not itemize what you have failed to deliver, nor does your 1040 form, if you have filed one, itemize such information, since it contains what you have declared, not what they claim you didn't declare. The 1040 form itself is really an estimate; in equity, it is difficult to hold anyone to the amounts of an estimate, and under Constitutional law, it is absolutely inadequate.

The 1040 form itself is a listing of promissory notes, that is, of promises to pay, the Federal Reserve notes. This is interest-bearing currency which is only paper, and which is backed only by paper bonds, even though it claims to be backed by the faith and credit of the Government of the United States, or the people of the United States. This is paper issued against interest bearing "government" bonds held by the privately owned Federal Reserve System. This System, like many other economic entities which have been created under express authority of equity jurisdiction rather than under Constitutional law, is actually a criminal syndicalist operation. As such, it works closely with other criminal syndicalist operations in the United States, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the other major tax-exempt foundations, and other monetary schemes chartered under equity law.

American citizens who are charged with "violations" in our equity courts are usually faced with the uphill task of defending themselves against vague claims that they have "failed" to cooperate in one or more of these criminal syndicalist operations. Because the IRS is merely a collection agency for the Federal Reserve System, an IRS charge is based on your "inability to perform" some task allotted to you by the Federal Reserve System. The proper defense here is that no American citizen who is a law abiding person can fulfill any performance demanded by a criminal syndicalist operation without becoming a criminal himself. Thus, tax analysts have stated for years that no American can file a 1040 form without committing a criminal act. Also, our citizens are often charged, under equity, with "willful failure" to become a criminal. A criminal syndicalist operation is always disturbed by any person existing within its sphere of operations who has not yet become a criminal himself. The goal of any criminal system is that everyone must become a criminal. The very nature of "majority rule" demands that a small minority of non-criminals residing within an area which has a large, active majority of criminals is willfully failing to conform, and that they must give in to the majority and join in the criminal operations. However, the principle of majority rule applies only to a lawful government, not to a criminal one. If the citizens residing within a criminal sphere of influence refuse to collaborate with "the system," they must rely upon common law principles to protect them from the exigencies of equity law.

The real purpose of equity law is to convert equities or financial assets into debt, and to deprive holders of real property of their lawful possessions through the principle of legal plunder, by forcing them to accept a less valuable or worthless substitute in exchange for their real property. At its inception, the law of contract was developed to protect the interests of parties engaged in trading endeavours, so as to make certain that they would receive proper payment. Each party was informed of the offering and the consideration, and accepted the requirements. Because of the international nature of trade, the traders often verged upon piracy, or upon some form of government "cooperation" to carry on their trading activities. This might be as temporary as the bribery of officials, or it might engage other government powers, such as the deployment of armies or navies, and most particularly, the use of the courts to implement their programs. Thus equity became synonymous, early on, with crime, particularly as it applied to international operations.

This seems antithetical, because the original meaning of "equity" was fairness. An equitable contract was one which was equally fair to both parties. Equity in law was intended to mean absolute equality under the law. In practice, equity, as the outgrowth of chancery, or the emperor's chancellors, became the vehicle for the wielding of influence and power, as well as legalized theft. The worldwide tendency towards socialism would not have been possible without the illegal profits conferred by equity decisions. The criminal syndicalism of such operations as the Federal Reserve System and the Rockefeller Foundation has always demanded more and more government controls, and a corresponding decrease in individual liberties.

Thus we find that criminal syndicalism never considers itself safe until it has converted the government into the vehicle for its criminal syndicalist operations; that is, the government becomes the Great Satan, the focus and the center of criminal operations. How does this work in actual practice? You may have a small business which you wish to expand. You advertise for workers, and you hire the most likely applicant. However, the government notifies you that its regulations require that you hire a handicapped lesbian mulatto whose origins should be defined as being one-third black, one-third Hispanic, and one-third Jewish. The government then notifies you that you have failed to fulfill this requirement, which means that you must now undergo a lengthy prosecution, you must hire a person fulfilling the requirements of the government regulation, and you must also pay her a penalty of $200,000, plus fines and other penalties. You are now bankrupt, and your business is closed. Such travesties are inevitable because the government has set up conditions which no one can meet and still stay in business. Second, your bankruptcy means that your business has been stolen from you by anyone with funds, a bank or a broker. Third, the government ensures that no individual will be able to open and operate an independent business under the conditions which have been set up.

These conditions originated because of Congressional concerns for "compassion" and "caring," showing a commendable dedication to the handicapped, the minorities and the deprived. In effect, government socialism as dictated by government social activists now lays down the conditions, and the only conditions, under which an American business can operate. Then we hear recriminations because we can no longer compete in the world economy with nations such as Japan, and Korea, which do not have such restrictions on their business operations. A welcome development for the international bankers was that the United States, because it could not compete, began to accrue an enormous deficit and an unpayable debt, on which it now pays huge interest. Japan now owns one -third of our national debt, and is collecting the interest. Does anyone believe it is accidental that our economy has been destroyed, and that we are now at the mercy of Japan, a nation which we defeated in World War II, and which may now be exacting its revenge? Whether Japan has devised this program or not, the fact is that it could not have taken place without the dictates of equity law.

As James J. Kilpatrick wrote in the Washington Post, Jan. 14, 1989, commenting on "the right to vote freely for legislators,"

"Over the past thirty or forty years both Congress and the federal courts hundreds of times have ordered legislators to vote in particular ways or suffer the consequences. Congress has conditioned the grant of federal funds upon the enactment of specific state or local legislation. These conditions center on coercion to pass bills concerning speed limits, rights of homosexuals, AIDS patients, minority rights etc."

Under the color of "a law," that is, the legal enforcement of equity contracts in favor of minorities or other special interest groups who are pawns in the drive for world socialist power, equity, originally the fairness doctrine, has been converted into an instrument of debt creation, legalized monopoly, financial theft, and the imposition of tyrannical strictures upon all citizens of the United States.

Consider the claims that are now made by equity law; that a check is a maritime contract, and that its use either as a writer or recipient places you under the jurisdiction of admiralty law; that a marriage license or a birth certificate gives title of your life to the state; that the Social Security number establishes an irrevocable contract with the state to pay income tax; that a debt can be paid, but not discharged, under equity law. Who is secretly responsible for the fastening of such dictatorial manifestoes upon the people of the United States? We have already mentioned the crucial dates, 1688, 1694, and 1714. When King George III, spurred on by the demands of the stockholders of the Bank of England, began to lay unconscionable additional taxes upon the American colonists, they responded with the Declaration of the First Continental Congress, May 14, 1774, "the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the American people by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts expressly imposed taxes upon them, and in others, under various pretexts but in fact for the purpose of raising revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies. . . which. . . extend the powers of the Admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subjects of trial by jury. . . and are subversive of American rights."

Note that the Continental Congress still referred to the colonists as "subjects," and, in a sentiment common to most Americans of that time, maintained that they were still loyal subjects of the Crown, who were finding it difficult to exist under the stringent conditions being imposed by the King. It is important to remember that the British people, despite the great profits which were being raked in by the stockholders of the Bank of England, did not themselves benefit from these profits. The lot of the average Briton, prior to the Revolutionary War, was much worse than that of the average colonist. Nor were the Britons greatly disposed to fight the Americans; King George III had to make a deal with a German prince, the Elector of Hesse, to obtain mercenary soldiers who would fight the colonists, a contract which became the basis of the Rothschild fortune.

Much of the world's commerce has been conducted on the principle of a fair trade, that is, the exchange of a substance for a substance. If the party had no substance to trade, then he had to make payment in coin. The sale itself is commerce, which is public business in motion through negotiable instruments of exchange, rather than a common law transaction. It was this existence of trade itself as an entity which was not covered by the common law, which gave rise to the body of the law merchant, as an instrument for governing trade. Those engaged in trade found that debts were extinguished by the delivery of goods and services, or by paper representing such goods and services.

It was found that extinguishing debt deprived the debt holder of the power and appertinent influence which accompanied the continued holding of the debt. Consequently, for centuries the law merchant has moved continuously towards the creation of inextinguishable debt, which, in turn, confers inextinguishable power, a goal of the Canaanites or Black Nobility. Thus the Federal Reserve System issues a currency which is based upon government bonds, using the money and credit of the people of the United States, and creating debt or monetizing debt as a private corporation. As the owner of the negotiable instrument of exchange, the Federal Reserve becomes the "owner" of all property in any transactions in which negotiable instruments of exchange are used. However, the Federal Reserve wisely does not take actual possession, allowing the purchaser to use the property, in the mistaken belief that he is now the actual owner. The Federal Reserve reserves the power to call in its property whenever it wishes to do so, as a final measure of control, or as a step in the carrying out of other programs.

The equity courts function to administer "a law" as instrumentalities of the criminal syndicates which operate under their jurisdiction within the United States. This is defined in sec. 9. "The district courts (federal courts) as courts of admiralty and as courts of equity, shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing and any pleading, of issuing and returning mesne and final process, and of making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders, rules and other proceedings preparatory to the hearing, upon their merits, of all cases pending therein." 36 Stat. 1088 (1911).

Under the equity, or admiralty law, a citizen of the United States who has received any "benefit" from a government program thereby is said to "lose" his constitutional rights! Legal precedent for this equity ruling is found in the decision of Great Falls Mfg Co. v. Atty Gen. 124 U.S. 581, "The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Also cited by Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co. 244 U.S. 407, 411-12; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Constr. Co. 260 U.S. 469; Alexander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288,346 (1935).

Thus, anyone who has "benefitted from such government program" not only is denied the right to challenge it in court, but also loses his Constitutional right to defend himself from further government action. This is the basis for imprisoning numerous American citizens who have "failed" to handle the Federal Reserve scrip as prescribed by equity law.

The ratification of the Constitution of the United States meant that the people chose this instrument to defend their rights. Admiralty law, like the King's writ, ended at the saltwater mark; the land was under the jurisdiction of Constitutional principles. However, this principle was overthrown in 1838.

"When the doctrine was held that the admiralty jurisdiction in cases purely dependent upon the locality of the act done was limited to the sea and to tide waters as far as the tide flows, and that it did not reach beyond the high water mark, it was said that mixed cases do arise, and indeed do often arise, where the acts and services are of a mixed nature, as where salvage services are performed partly on tide waters, and partly on the shore, for the preservation of the property saved, in which the admiralty jurisdiction has been constantly exercised to the extent of decreeing salvage."

U.S. v. Combs, 12 Pet 75 (1838). The performance of mixed services was eventually interpreted in equity that the Federal Reserve System could "salvage" its flood of paper money, backed by nothing more than paper bonds, with which it had inundated the United States! This salvage operation had to be continuous, as the flood of "new" money was continuous, in order for the System to maintain its profits and its influence over the economy. Consequently, when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted into law by Congress in 1913, during that same year, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted to legally authorize the Federal Reserve's salvage operation, in which a new unit of the criminal syndicate, the Internal Revenue Service, was created as an essential salvage service to enforce the admiralty principles of salvage upon all the people of the United States.

The equity court remains the linchpin of the criminal syndicalist movement throughout the United States, because the equity court is the court of conspiracy; it is the court of legalized theft and plunder; and it is the court of monopoly. In 1890, the monopolists enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to protect their monopolies by establishing conditions which made it illegal for anyone to set up a competing business. The Act states that

"Every contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal."

Henceforth, anyone whose business operations presented a threat to the monopolists could be convicted of "illegal restraint of trade." The monopolists had now enshrined their monopolies as creatures of the state, or state trusts, as in their later creation, Soviet Russia. The created corporations had now taken over their creator, the State.

The Sherman Act also extended greater controls over every citizen, by making every citizen a merchant, because it established controls making citizens liable for illegal restraint of trade for engaging in any transaction which was not controlled by the manufacturing monopolies. Citizens are also considered merchants under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

The 1842 decision in Swift v. Tyson declared that mercantile law is now the common law of the United States. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 extended the power of the monopolies to pervert the processes of government to their private purposes, as was later finalized in the Sherman Act. Justice Story declared in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 19,

"The law respecting negotiable instruments may be truly declared in the language of Cicero, adopted by Lord Mansfield in Luke v. Lyde, (2 Burr R. 883-887) to be in great measure not the law of a single country only, but of the commercial world. . . It is observable that the law merchant and the maritime law are not generally distinguished from each other, but are frequently used indiscriminately. The only real difference is in the sanction. When viewed as a part of the municipal law the rules are called the law merchant; when regarded from the standpoint of international law, the same rules are the law maritime."

It was necessary to impose the admiralty law on the citizens of the United States, because the income tax cannot exist under common law; income tax assessments and judgments are enforced upon statutes in equity by summary judgments of the executive, or writs of assistance. The income tax is enforced as a tax on a franchise for doing business under the law merchant. A general income tax would be a direct tax on property. The 16th Amendment establishes a tax on a franchise, the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, as well as the privilege of perpetual existence, perpetual succession, and limited liability for debts under the law; that is, the 16th Amendment converts private citizens of the United States into corporations. A natural person, who is not a corporation, cannot be subjected to the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service, nor can they be made to inform upon themselves by the IRS.

In Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters 659, we find that "It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. . . The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective states, must determine how far the common law has been adopted and sanctioned in each."

The FRS and IRS tax scheme was grounded in the commerce clause, Art. 1, Sec 1.C13, which allows Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Supreme Court then held, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, that commerce "comprehends traffic, trade, navigation, communications, the transit of persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph—indeed, every species of commercial intercourse."

This was later expanded by the United Nations Treaty of 1945, under which every human on earth has become a "merchant" by partaking in any commercial transaction under the law merchant, a strictly voluntary law and unwritten, as well as the law of negotiable instruments, insurance, sales, etc. The person becomes a "merchant" by accepting bills of exchange as "money." The Federal Reserve notes issues of 1963, and 1969, were then legalized as "lawful tender" on March 18, 1968, as well as promissory notes or irredeemable perpetual annuity bonds for government securities, and for checks.

Sir Edward Coke stated that "A corporation is a body politic established by prescription, by letter of patent, or by Act of Parliament:" In the U.S., this became "by Act of Congress in the United States, such as the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. However, such corporations were created in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, such as Osborn v. the U.S. Bank, 9 Wheaton, 859, 860, in which the Supreme Court admitted that Congress could not create a corporation for its own sake, "or for private purposes." The Federal Reserve System was created for private stockholders, but was disguised by a "quasi-public" intent. Its "profits" were to be paid to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, the owners of Federal Reserve bank stock were less interested in the sums earned by the System than in the control which the Act conferred upon those stockholders, the control of the money and credit of the American people. They now exercise control of the daily quantity of money and the price of money throughout the United States. This power gives them the opportunity to make enormous profits in stock issues, market operations, and other monetary operations.

Thomas Jefferson foresaw these abuses in his powerful argument raised against the first Bank of the United States. As a sleeper agent of the Bank of England and the Rothschild interests, Alexander Hamilton had delivered an extensive argument on Feb. 23,1791, declaring that:

". . . the right of erecting corporations is one inherent in, and inseparable from, the idea of sovereign power. . . that the power to erect corporations is not to be considered an independent or substantive power, but as an incidental and auxiliary one, and was therefore more properly left to implication than expressly granted. . . that the incorporation of a bank is a constitutional measure."

However, Jefferson had delivered a more detailed argument on Feb. 16, 1791:

"The bill for establishing a national bank in 1791, undertakes, among other things—1. To form the subscribers into a corporation. 2. To enable them, in their corporate capacities, to receive grants of land; and so far, is against the laws of mortmain. 3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of alienage. 4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and, so far, changes the course of descents. 5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture, or escheat; and so far, is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat. 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far, is against the laws of distribution. 7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking, under the national authority; and, so far, is against the laws of monopoly. 8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the states; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the state legislatures; and so probably they will be construed. . . . The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

The struggle to foist upon the people of the United States a national, or central, bank, to be operated for the benefit of alien interests, is the untold story of the 19th century. In 1913, the financiers finally achieved their goal by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. The central bank, a machine to create perpetual and inextinguishable debt, was now in place. Today, 12 U.S. Code 412 allows currency to come into circulation on the basis of U.S. debt obligations, that is, government bonds which have been issued by the private stockholders of the Federal Reserve System. This law was scheduled to sunset on July 30, 1945, during World War II at the close of the business day. Just before that hour, a measure was passed to allow the United States to assume U.S. debt obligations in perpetuity. However, in their haste, the manipulators overlooked the loophole which allows alternative means of issuing currency, including 12 USC 347c. This establishes the legal basis for issuing credit cards, for redeemable coupons, food stamps, and such currency as the American Express Co. notes, and other company notes. Under the Federal Reserve monopoly, fractional pieces of credit are turned into circulating media.

Since 1913, the Federal Reserve System and the IRS have formed a universal debt-credit franchise, in which private individuals are compelled to inform upon themselves as "merchants." Forced withholding from wages began on July 1, 1943. In 1945, the United Nations Treaty turned all U.S. courts into trading pits, and courts of the staple, because of the merchant practice. Under the courts of the staple, merchants had met under the protection of the crown to implement their nown law among their own members. The Magna Carta had given merchants, in Article 48, the right "to buy and sell, according to their ancient customs, among themselves." Every private individual has the right to contract upon his services, talents, labor and endeavours, and to profit therefrom; he can then be assessed a direct tax, but he cannot be compelled to inform on himself, under the protection of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. The courts of the staple, as the District of Columbia equity courts are now known and positioned throughout the United States, enforce the merchants' law on all private citizens. The conspirators then enacted the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in order to set up the presidency of the United States as a chancellorship in executive equity, controlled by the corporation America, and its directors.

HJR 192 further legitimized the Federal Reserve monopoly by making Federal Reserve bank credit legal tender. A Treasury note of 1890, before the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, read "This note is legal tender at its face value in payment of debts public and private except when otherwise stipulated in the contract." This was phrased to include the possibility that the contract might stipulate payment in gold, silver, or other payment. The Federal Reserve note now reads, "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private." This establishes its function to pay the United States debt owed to the bankers, which makes all such notes promissory notes intended to continue payments on the bank-created and inextinguishable debt. However, it is made clear that the Federal Reserve notes are only for the payment of debt, and thus can be superseded by money intended for any other purpose.

Harvard professor Barry Fell wrote a book, "America B.C." which contains a picture of the Bourne Stone, found in Massachusetts, which in effect annexes the land to Hanno, a Suffete of Carthage. A similar stone was found in South America. As was pointed out in "The Curse of Canaan" by Eustace Mullins, the Carthaginians were the Phoenicians, who had changed their name from Canaanites, and who became the Black Nobility which has foisted their monetary schemes upon the world. Thus the Bourne Stone may be the secret deed by which the Canaanites have laid claim to the title of all property in the Americas, and which the equity courts are now acting to uphold. Law is grounded in or derived from guaranteed allodial land titles. Equity is the enforcement of "natural rights" not necessarily found in common law. Law deals in substance; equity deals in the potentiality of the substance. If an existing title is the basis for the present practice of equity law, then the person not informed of such allodial title cannot obtain a fair and impartial hearing.

Until 1913, "lawful money" was based on whatever comprised the reserves of a National Bank, gold, silver, gold or silver certificates, Treasury Notes, and U.S. Notes. The Federal Reserve Act allowed banks to count commercial paper as bank reserves, and thereby changed the basis of our monetary system. HJR 192 legitimized the process by making Federal Reserve bank credit legal tender, and by substituting the language governing payment of debt. "Payment of debt" was altered into a new phrase, "discharge of obligation." Henceforth, debts could be paid, but they could not be discharged. They could not be legally held to be paid, because they had not; they were merely exchanged for other forms of debt. One banker exposed the scheme by stating, "If one bill of exchange goes through and in fact is paid with a cashier's check, the ball game is over for Federal-type banking." Such a payment would put the lenders of credit out of business. A specter is indeed haunting American business, but it is not the famed specter of Communism; it is the specter that someone may someday pay a debt.

American citizens remain uninformed of the difference between the payment at law, and discharge at Equity, and, even more important, the difference between voluntary payment at Law, and compelled performance in Equity. Payment at Law means meeting the requirements of the rights, privileges and immunities accruing to a citizen of the United States as guaranteed by the Constitution. Discharge at Equity, or compelled performance in Equity means that court orders are issued for compelled performance in equity against citizens of the United States by judges and lawyers, who maintain an active alliance with the limited liability corporations through the American Bar Association. The fractional reserve banking corporations thus grant Titles of Nobility, in violation of the Constitution, by ordering Bills of Attainders against U.S. citizens, which is also forbidden by the Constitution. This unholy alliance has resulted in the looting of the American people by international interests, through mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, and management buyouts. This process was made possible by the ascension of Lord Mansfield as Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in 1756. Lord Mansfield transformed the Civil Law by allowing it to supersede the common law. Actions of assumpsit for debt now became equitable action. Lord Mansfield began denying trial by jury on writs of assistance, a procedure which forced the colonists into open rebellion.

The investment banking house which launched the present tidal wave of buyouts is Drexel, Burnham Lambert of New York. This firm, now known as the king of junk bonds, is the New York representative of the Rothschild Bank, Banque Bruxelles Lambert of Brussels. The Lambert of this firm, Baron Lambert, is the Belgian branch of the Rothschild family. Because of this firm's influence, Brussels is now the capital of the world. NATO is headquartered there, as is the World Computer Network, another Rothschild enterprise. Lord Carrington, the head of NATO, is also a member of the Rothschild family. The first Lord Carrington was Archibald Primrose; his son, Viscount Rosebery, married Hannah Rothschild, daughter of Mayer Rothschild. The present Lord Carrington is not only director of Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the three firms which comprise the base of the Rothschild fortune; he is also a director of Hambros Bank. During World War II, Sir Charles Hambro was the director of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service; in that capacity, he supervised the organization of its American branch, the OSS, which is now known as the CIA.

In 1982, Lord Carrington merged his business interests with those of Henry Kissinger, in Kissinger Associates. Lord Carrington's cousin, David Colville, became the first partner of N. M. Rothschilds Sons, London, who was not an immediate member of the Rothschild family. Kissinger Associates furnished the backbone of the Reagan and Bush cabinets. President Bush has named Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, of Kissinger Associates, to the critical National Security Council, and Lawrence Eagleburger, president of Kissinger Associates, to the post of Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Because of Bush's close ties with the Bank of England through his family banking house, Brown Bros. Harriman, Bush was named head of the CIA. The recent imbroglio over the appointment of Sen. John Tower as Secretary of Defense, for which he was defeated, hinged upon the fear that Kissinger Associates might not be able to control Tower. They envisioned a scenario in which Tower would spend his time in night clubs, living up to Dryden's dictum that "None but the brave deserve the fair," but at the last minute changed their minds in favor of a more malleable choice.

Drexel Burnham Lambert waged a three year battle to take over the major American corporations for the Rothschild interests from 1985 to 1988, when a $650 million fine was levied against the firm for illegal activities in stock trading. During this period, some $300 billion in stock was retired through mergers. During the same period, corporate debt in the United States increased by $360 billion, meaning that these firms must be paying some $36 billion a year to the creators of inextinguishable debt in interest payments, which effectively removes them from the burden of paying taxes on their corporate income. Such Rothschild operations have produced huge government deficits, reduced the status of the United States to that of a Balkan republic, and ranked the nation as a Third World Banana Republic in the international order. Now the United States faces a bleak future as a bankrupt nation, whose people are being informed they must "make sacrifices," while they face increased taxation, inflation, and food and fuel crises. These pressures will result in (and are probably intended to) force a rebellion, with military dictatorship and civil war in the United States before the criminal syndicalists are finally brought to justice.

These developments are inherent in the nature of the problems which we face. The Erie Railroad decision of 1938 took the law merchant out of the common law (nullifying the 7th Amendment) and put it into Equity to be "judicially noticed" in any jurisdiction. The Law Merchant is Summary Judgment, whereas the Law of Nature is, in the final analysis, the law of tooth and claw. "Law" means the Law of the State; the Rules of Equity are the Law Merchant. The Federal Reserve notes are intended to, and are so doing, confiscate in equity, through summary judgment, all private landed property by the agents of the international commercial interests. Although no federal law can outlaw the cash basis of the law imposed on the States by Art. I, sec. 10, and the federal government cannot touch allodial land titles in the states, this is being circumvented by the inherent profit in the Federal Reserve notes; they discriminate against real property, because real property is not personalty—(chose-in-action). They discriminate against holders of allodial land titles in favor of the merchants and merchant bankers because of the ten to one, to sixteen to one, return on bank deposits. Thus equitable paper is worth from ten to sixteen times as much as real property or substance, and in time will swallow up, or "buy" all allodial land. Thus our law, which is grounded in or derived from allodial land titles, is thereby subverted by the financiers and their international conspiracy, as executed through equity courts, the courts of conspiracy.

American citizens are brought before these courts of conspiracy, their rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them by the Constitution are duly denied, and they are tried and sentenced as Artificial Persons, or corporations. When they claim to be real, when they claim to exist, they affront the equity court, and face further imprisonment for their "contempt." Although the court sentences the Artificial Person, it is the real American citizen who is subsequently carted off to prison.

Because equity law has as its goal the creation of inextinguishable debt, and the subsequent transferring of all real property from its legal allodial possessors to Artificial Entities, which have been created by the state, who are primarily banking corporations, debt has assumed a major role in equity law. Thus we find in the 14th Amendment not merely the enshrinement of public debt, as an entity whose very existence cannot be questioned, but also the defining of "unacceptable debt," that is, debt incurred by any entity which has not been chartered by the state, or which is seen as inimical to the state. The 14th Amendment states, in that capacity,

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Thus the public debt of the United States is placed on a pedestal, beyond attack, but the obligations of the southern states, incurred as the result of the states battling for their rights against the international power of the criminal syndicalists, "shall be held illegal and void."

The public debt today consists of bookkeeping entries in the ledgers of the Federal Reserve System; those who purchase Treasury bills do not receive so much as a flimsy piece of paper; instead, the purchase exists only as a blip on a computer screen. The 14th Amendment thus requires that the blip on the computer screen shall not be questioned, nor the right of the Federal Reserve System to issue government bonds as Lord Rothschild's magical money-making machine. Because the 14th Amendment was enacted under martial law, it has had no validity since 1878, when martial law was ended in the southern states, and Federal troops were withdrawn. Martial law is supreme, and overrides all state and local governments, but only during the period of military occupation. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, ten years before martial law was ended in the southern states. The 14th Amendment can only be valid if it is maintained that the entire United States is still under martial law. This is not legal pettifogging; it is a serious legal question, which must be resolved in the courts. The federal, or equity, district courts might have little difficulty with this problem; they could simply declare that the states are only legal fictions, which exist at the pleasure of the federal entity, just as the citizens of the several states, through Social Security law and income tax regulations, have been transformed into Artificial Persons.

The scrip issued by the privately owned Federal Reserve Banks, functioning as colonial banks under the aegis of the Bank of England, has been variously described as "Communist slave scrip," "beggar's alms," or as stock certificates in a joint stock company. It may be all three. "Scrip," in Old French dialect, meant the bag for alms which was publicly carried by pilgrims or beggars. Scrip, in its general derivations, is usually a derogatory term, carrying a connotation of scoffing or jeering. In 1676, C. Hatton wrote, in Hatton's Chronicles, "I punish myself yet I may revenge myself upon you for your little scrips of paper." By 1820, scrip had become a term for a stock certificate, when G. Carey wrote in his "Guide to Public Funds," "When the loan is in progress. . . . the separate parts are called Scrip." In its 1828 edition, Webster's Dictionary defines scrip as "A certificate of stock subscribed to buy a bank or other company. . . or of a share of other joint property, is called in America a scrip."

The Federal Reserve notes issued by the private stockholders of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks were used to finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, and were further used to maintain the Soviet Government since that time. In 1918, at a time when the Bolshevik government was already bankrupt, three directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York came to their rescue; George Foster Peabody, William Boyce Thompson, and William Laurence Sanders. Sanders was also the chairman of the business equipment firm, Ingersoll Rand. Thompson had also pledged one million dollars of his personal funds to spread Bolshevik propaganda in the United States. Because Federal Reserve notes have served as the mainstay of the Soviet Government since 1918, it is proper to term them "Communist slave scrip"; it is also issued to the slaves in the United States.

Walt Mann has written of the 14th Amendment that it is the legal basis of the injunctive power which the government has used against our citizens since 1868. It lays down an injunction against questioning the validity of the public debt. Our citizens are then sentenced for violating injunctive orders which stem from this as a basic injunction. This sentencing power also stems from the admiralty court procedure. Because the 14th Amendment stems from martial law, and admiralty procedures also are based upon martial law, the power of the captain to command a military ship of the line while it is at sea, the judge of the equity court functions as a military commander, exercising the power of martial law over citizens of the United States.

It is this power which brings into question the claim that participating in a contract volunteers oneself into admiralty jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction violates the right, privileges and immunities which are guaranteed us by the Constitution. Martial law may be the pretext by which these guarantees have been suspended. We find the Admiralty Court defined as follows:

"The Admiralty Court is a maritime court instituted for the purpose of administering the law of the seas. There seems to be grounds, therefore, for restraining jurisdiction, in some measure, within the limit of the grant of the commercial power, which would confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concerning trade and navigation of the country upon the high seas and tide-waters with foreign countries. N.J. Steam Nav Co v. Mchts Bank, 6 How 392 (1848)."

The fixing of Admiralty jurisdiction in the United States is said to lie in the commerce clause, Art. I, sec. 8,

"The Congress shall have Power. . . . To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

In effect, this separates Admiralty jurisdiction from internal jurisdiction. The federal courts overcame that distinction by becoming courts of equity. The problem with the Social Security system is that it poses as an insurance policy, but collects its premiums through the compulsory taxing process. The forced payment of said insurance premium violates the following precept:

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state, but the individual's right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an Excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, p. 819 (1930).

Construction of the term "natural right" as opposed to the employment of the Law Merchant against citizens of the United States may be clarified by the following excerpt from Colin Blackburn's "Contract of Sale," published by T & W Johnson, Phil. 1847:

"There is no part of the history or English law more obscure than that connected with the common maxim that the Law Merchant is part of the law of the land. In the earlier times it was not a part of the common law as it is now, but administered in its own courts in the staple, or else in the Star Chamber. The Chancellor, in the 13 Edw. 4, 9, declares his view of the law thus:

"'This suit is brought by an alien merchant who is come by safe conduct here, and he is not bound to sue by the law of the land, to abide the trial of twelve men, and other forms of the law of the land; but he ought to sue here (in the Star Chamber) and it shall be determined by the law of nature in Chancery, and he may sue from hour to hour for the dispatch of merchants; and he said further that a merchant is not bound by statutes, where the statutes are introductiva novae legis; but if they are declamtiva antiqui juris (that is to say of nature etc.). And since they have come into the kingdom, the king has jurisdiction over them to administer justice, but that shall be secundum legem naturae, which is called by some the Law Merchant, which is the law universal of the world.'

"And the justices being called on, certified that the goods of this plaintiff were not forfeited to the crown as a waif (though those of a subject would have been) because he was an alien merchant. It is obvious that at that time the law merchant was a thing distinct from the common law. This accounts for the very remarkable fact that there is no mention whatever of bills of exchange, or other mercantile customs in our early books; not that they did not exist, but that they were tried in the staple, and therefore were not mentioned in the books of the common law; just as the matters over which the Courts of Admiralty, or Ecclesiastical Courts, have exclusive jurisdiction, are at this day never treated as part of the common law. But as the courts of the staple decayed away, and the foreign merchants ceased to live subject to a peculiar law, those parts of the law merchant which differed from the common law either fell into disuse, or were adopted into the common law as the custom of merchants, and after a time began to appear in the books of common law. How this great change was brought about does not appear; but though bills of exchange were in common use among merchants in the 13th century; the first mention of one in an English report is in Cro. Jac., in the beginning of the 17th century; and though the right of rei vindicatio must have prevailed in the continent from the time of the revival of the Civil Law, the first mention of it in our books is as late as 1690. It seems quite impossible that such matters should not have been the subject of litigation in some shape or other in England for centuries before those times.

"Blackstone, whom internationalists prefer to quote over Lord Coke, classified the Law Merchant as one of the "customs" of England, and so a part of the common law; but it is not properly a custom, as it is not restricted to a single community, and is not the municipal law of a single country, but regulated commercial contracts in all civilized countries. The body of mercantile usages which compose this branch of law, having no dependence upon locality, does not need to be established by witnesses, but judges are bound to take official notice of it. The principal branches of the law merchant are the law of shipping, the law of marine insurance, the law of sales, and the law of bills and notes. The feudal law, which grew up in a time when property consisted chiefly of land upon whose alienation great restraints were laid, was found inadequate for the needs of the mercantile classes who were coming into prominence. The courts, when commercial contracts were brought before them, adopted from merchants the rules which regulated their business dealings and made them rules of law. Many of these rules were in direct contradiction to the common law.

Magna Charta contained a special provision guaranteeing to merchants, among other things, the right "to buy and sell according to their ancient customs," and many later statutes were enacted for their special protection. As the custom of merchants began to encroach upon the common law, there was a determined effort on the part of lawyers to resist it. It was attempted to make the custom of merchants a particular custom, peculiar to a single community, and not a part of the law of the land. It was finally decided in the reign of James I (1603-1625) to be a part of the law of the realm. An attempt was then made to restrict the application of the law merchant to persons who were actually merchants, but the courts, after considerable variance, held that it applied to the same contracts between parties and merchants.

We quote further from The American Universal Cyclopaedia, on Mercantile Law, v. IX NY 1884, S. W. Green's Son:

"Mercantile law is the only branch of municipal law which, from the necessity of the case, is similar, and in many respects identical, in all the civilized and trading countries of the world. In determining the relations of the family, the church, and the state, each nation is guided by its own peculiarities of race, of historical tradition, of climate, and numberless other circumstances which are almost wholly unaffected by the conditions of society in the neighboring states.

"But when the arrangements for buying, selling, and transmitting commodities from state to state alone are in question, all men are very much in the same position. The single object of all is that the transaction may be effected in such a manner as to avoid what in every case must be sources of loss to somebody, and by which no one is ultimately a gainer—viz., disputes and delay. At a very early period in the trading history of modem Europe, it was found that the only method by which these objects could be attained as by establishing a common understanding on all the leading points of mercantile, and more particularly of maritime law. This was effected by the establishment of those maritime codes, of which the most famous, though not the earliest, was the Consolato del Mare. It is sometimes spoken of as a collection of maritime laws of Barcelona, but it would seem rather to have been a compilation of the laws and trading customs of various Italian cities—Venice, Pisa, Genoa, and Amalfi, together with those of the cities with which they chiefly traded—Barcelona, Marseilles, and the like. That it was published at Barcelona towards the end of the 13th century, or the beginning of the 14th, in the Catalonian dialect, is no proof that it originated in Spain, and the probability is that it is of Italian origin. "As commerce extended itself to the northwestern coasts of Europe, similar codes appeared. There was the Guidon de la Mer, the Roles d'Oleron, the Usages de Damme, and most important of all the ordinances of the great Hanseatic League (Deutsche Hansabund). As the central people of Europe, the French early became distinguished as cultivators of maritime law, and one of the most important contributions that ever was made to it was the famous ordonnance of 1681, which formed part of the ambitious and in many respects successful legislation and codification of Louis XIV. All these earlier attempts at general mercantile legislation were founded, as a matter of course, on the Roman Civil Law, or rather on what that system had borrowed from the laws which regulated the intercourse of the trading communities of Greece, perhaps Phoenicia and Carthage, and which had been reduced to a system by the Rhodians.

"From the intimate relations which subsisted between Scotland and the continent of Europe, the lawyers of Scotland became early acquainted with the commercial arrangements of the continental states; and to this cause is said to be ascribed the fact that down to the period when the affairs of Scotland were thrown into confusion by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, mercantile law was cultivated in Scotland with much care and success.

"The work of Lord Stair, the greatest of all the legal writers of Scotland, is particularly valuable in this department."

The role of the government in functioning with the individual is proscribed by the principle of joint tenancy, according to the following excerpt from John William Smith's "Mercantile Law":

"For the most distinguishing incident of joint tenancy is the jus accrescendi, by which, when one joint tenant dies, his interest is not transmitted to his heirs, in the case of descendible property, nor to his personal representatives, in the case of personal effects or chattels, but vests in the survivor or survivors; this right of survivorship being admitted equally in regard to personal chattels, as in estates of every denomination. Now if stock in trade were subject to the same claim, one of two evels might ensue: either the family of a deceased partner might be left destitute; or men's fear of employing a considerable part of their property in these undertakings might check the spirit of commerce.

"It is therefore, the established law of merchants, that among them joint tenancy and survivorship do not prevail. (Co. Li. 182a; Snon. 2 Browne. 99; Anon. Noy. 55; Hall v. Huffam, 2 Lev. 188; Annand v. Honiwood, 2 Ch. C. 129).

"This right of survivorship Sir William Blackstone apprehends to be the reason why neither the king nor any corporation can be a joint tenant with a private person. (2 Comm. 184). But the rule is more extensive: for two corporations cannot be joint tenants together (Litt. s. 296; Co. Li. 189b, 190a).

The citizen's defense in an admiralty court begins with his denial that he is under martial law, or that the punitive injunctive power of the 14th Amendment, which is founded on martial law, can be applied to him. Because the admiralty court powers derive from the captain of the ship being given the power of an admiral (there not being enough admirals to place one on every ship), the captain then functions under the military power of the King of England. The captain's authority extends to the passing and imposition of a death sentence, as was frequently carried out in death by keelhauling. The offending sailor was dragged under the ship until he had been drowned or tom into pieces by the knife-like barnacles growing on the ship's bottom.

Why U.S. Taxes are subject to 'International' Law

There are only two criminal jurisdictions: common law jurisdiction and international jurisdiction. How did it come to pass that the citizen of the United States could be held to appear under an international jurisdiction? In 1938, because of the enormous debt which President Franklin D. Roosevelt had borrowed from international bankers, to finance his New Deal, the common law, which does not compel performance, was merged with equity procedures, which do compel performance. However, the criminal syndicalists discovered that equity compelled performance has no criminal penalty, but only civil. No jail sentence can be handed down. This was remedied by bringing in the admiralty court procedures, with their power of life or death sentencing. This was made possible by the claim that the debt, owed to international bankers, thus became an international contract. A contract made under the law of nations brings the nation under international law. Because of this development, since 1938, the Congress could pass no more "Public Laws." Instead, they now pass "Public Policy Statutes," which are measures designed to bring relief to the nation's international creditors. Because Congress no longer passes "Public Laws," they have done away with the common law; all laws passed by Congress are now in equity, and conferring equity jurisdiction. Thus the federal district courts function only as equity courts under equity Rules of Procedure, which are nevertheless published under the title, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Congress, prior to 1939, had also passed private laws, as opposed to Public Laws. In 1913, the income tax amendment and the Federal Reserve Act were passed as private laws. The federal agents are aware of the difference, although they usually refuse to inform the citizen of this significant factor. Title 28 USC is public law, but the IRS operates under Title 26, which is private law, a contract between you and the United States. The corporation excise tax of 1909 became the income tax law of 1913 under the commerce clause of the Constitution, maintaining that the citizen was using corporate paper in an equitable manner, creating a contract consideration. However, no constitutional right is applicable to the filing of an income tax. In tax matters and other government prosecutions, the federal judges are informed that the defendant is a juristic person bankrupt under the terms of the international contractual obligations, and take silent judicial notice of this fact. Citizens are held and charged because of the default on an international contract and its incumbent obligations.

The citizen's defense in this equity procedure, in which he faces admiralty court punishment, is that he must state at his arraignment, after the court asks, "Do you understand the charge?" The defendant then answers "No." Under the 6th Amendment he now has the right to ask both the nature and the cause of the accusation. The defendant then states, "Let the record of this court show that this is a criminal action." The defendant must make this plain, because the defense of a civil action is different from defense of a criminal charge. If the court does not respond fully, the defendant then states, "Let the record of this court show that the defendant asked the nature and the cause of the accusation under his right as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, and that the court has failed to inform the defendant of secret jurisdiction which is known only to licensed attorneys."

The defendant must make this point because of the fact that both the state and local chapters of the American Bar Association and the International Bar Association are under the direction and control of the international bankers. They must maintain this control in order to continue to use equity jurisdiction to enforce the collection of their international debts.

The judge will then state that the defendant is to be tried under statutory jurisdiction. The defendant will then request that he be furnished a copy of the rules of criminal procedure under statutory jurisdiction. The court cannot comply, because there are no such rules.

Having made this point, the defendant will then request the court to state whether it is operating under admiralty jurisdiction. Because no American court will admit that it is actually operating under admiralty jurisdiction, this should be sufficient to win a dismissal, because the court cannot proceed until an admission is made, or a denial, that the court is operating under admiralty procedures. The defendant should then state, "Let the record of this court show that it is a criminal court which is operating under an admiralty judge."

American courts cannot convict under admiralty jurisdiction unless a valid international contract is in existence, and unless a copy of said contract can be brought into the court. The court faces the task of proving whether the defendant is a party obligated under such contract. The court must prove jurisdiction by proving an interest in the debt, and must prove it is a valid contract. No court can enforce an invalid contract, which means that the validity of the contract must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defendant must challenge the validity of the contract, because the law merchant code establishes the difference between a valid and an invalid contract; the invalid contract cannot be enforced. The defendant is actually being charged under the terms of a debt which was created by a bank and which therefore has no substance. Law is concerned with substance. To be convicted at law, the defendant must be shown to have been concerned with a matter of substance. The bank now has no interest in substance, and substance must be proved if the contract is to be enforced. The admiralty jurisdiction under which American courts try defendants is maintained by silent judicial notice. Once the issue of admiralty jurisdiction is brought into the open, it is no longer a secret, and the judge can no longer operate under the secret code which he maintains with his fellow members of the bar association, the prosecutor as well as the defense attorneys, licensed members of the bar, who appear before him. Because he is participating in a secret jurisdiction, the judge assumes judicial immunity to protect himself in the admiralty court. Under the Constitution, he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which is binding upon him in a common law court, but which is not binding in the admiralty court; hence the doctrine of judicial immunity behind which the judges exercise their equity and admiralty procedures.