Part VIII: Taxpayer? Contract?
What's Going on!?
This information is more of a lead-in to Part IX than it is anything else. However, you will find leads to some excellent sources here, and a much fuller, detailed look at the depth of the research that is going on in America, away from the "professional politicians".
If you follow this thread thoroughly, you will really begin to understand how little the average American understands, and you will become much more effective in explaining the Truth to your fellow Americans.
Taxpayer for what purpose? I pay gasoline and cigarette tax, which may or may not be legitimate, grocery tax, etc. Therefore, I'm a taxpayer. But am I a taxpayer, or more appropriately, am I required to pay tax prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code?
You might want to take a little journey: At 26 U.S.C. 7321, you will find that Congress has vested the President with authority to establish internal revenue districts. When you consult the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules in the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, you will find that there are no general application regulations listed for the section. However, if you will look at 26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1, you will find that the President has delegated authority to establish internal revenue districts via Executive Order No. 10289. Statutory authority which prescribes how the President must delegate authority by Executive Order is at 3 U.S.C. 301; E.O. No. 10289 is published following this section, and you will find that the bulk of it pertains to tariffs, the Anti-Smuggling Act (maritime), and related matters. The original was amended to delegate authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to establish revenue districts.
By once again consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, we find that E.O. No. 10289 is listed, but the only authority is 19 CFR, Part 101, which is general authority for the United States Customs Service. The U.S. Customs Service has established ports of entry for import-export purposes in most States of the Union, but not internal revenue districts that extend into any of the several States.
Our conclusion, then, is that there are no internal revenue districts in the several States, per requirement of 27 U.S.C. 7621.
This might seem strange, but the research community has long known that the only delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who presides over IRS & BATF, is T.D.O. No. 150-42 (1956), as amended by T.D.O. No. 150-01 (1986). The original delegated authority in Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, etc., and removed authority over customs in insular possessions of the United States from district and regional offices in Florida, Georgia, and New York.
If you didn't know, IRS & BATF are successors of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, created by the provisional government of Puerto Rico in about 1900 to administer collection of internal revenue taxes in Puerto Rico, deposited in the Puerto Rico Special Fund (Internal Revenue), in 1934 redesignated Puerto Rico Trust No. 62 (Internal Revenue). Internal revenue districts under IRS administrative jurisdiction were established in accordance with T.D.O. No. 150-42 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in insular possessions of the United States.
The Internal Revenue Code is municipal law in territory subject to sovereignty of the United States under the territorial clause at Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 of the Constitution.
We might visit the question again: Are you a taxpayer as defined in the Internal Revenue Code?
The antecedent question is obviously this: Are you are a citizen or resident of an internal revenue district? Do you own taxable articles, conduct taxable trade or business, draw royalties, or have any other taxable enterprise in an internal revenue district? If so, the district director located in whatever State of the Union you have abode in should have a complete listing for your information. You might inquire.
/s/ Dan Meador
This is interesting information, but it leaves out the important part, which is covered in Part IX. Believe this, the people, by and large, who enforce the IRS Code "believe" they are correct, and the judges who rule for the IRS, understand the terms and conditions under which the Code can be applied. As I have said, there is an answer for everything, and much of the story will be revealed in Part IX.
What should be becoming obvious to you by now is the absolute level of fraud and corruption present in the "system." But then, any system is designed so that fraud and corruption is an integral part, or it would not be a "system"!
This next section reveals the real nonsense being talked about on the national level.
Governor Elect Mr. Jesse Ventura,
I heard your comments on meet the press, Sunday morning. When you gave the example that when you were mayor of Brooklyn Park, and the city council wanted to raise taxes by $360,000 saying they had a short fall on their "city budget for schools" and you looked into the "revenue structure of the city" and found $48,000,000 of investment funds in which the $360,000 could be satisfied from, when I heard you say that, I jumped in the air and stomped my feet on the ground, yelling out "good man, good man".
You are the first individual that I have heard in my lifetime, give a clear example within a show, produced by the syndicated national news media, as to the difference between the "budget" and the investment funds held separate from the budget.
After your comments went out across the country that morning, my phone began ringing five minutes after your comments until 2 in the afternoon from people across the land asking me if you had been speaking to me.
I would hope to have a phone conversation with you this upcoming week. What I proposed to Arkansas from a little radio station in Hot Springs, Arkansas may be the perfect plan at THIS TIME in Minnesota as the model for the rest of the country to follow. Please confirm your receipt of this E-mail by return E- mail and call me by phone as soon as soon as convenient to you at 520 445-3532 ....
The following is sent FYI.
Walter J. Burien, Jr.
Dear Mr. Burien,
Interesting that I would receive this e-mail tonight. I had a phone call just this evening about this CAFR thing. Can't say that the guy who called explained it very well, and after reading your e-mail, I still don't really understand what this is all about. Any "primer" on the subject available? I feel like I just walked in to a 3rd year Spanish class and I don't speak a lick of Spanish!
I am with the U.S. Taxpayers Party and am working on a number of political campaigns. I would certainly like to be able to pass on useful and pertinent information to the candidates.
Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Well ... The foxes have been writing the laws on how many chickens they can eat from the hen house. At first, out of our 3000 chickens, we gave them 100 per year. They ate them and said they need 200. So we gave them 200. They ate them and then said they needed 400. So we gave them 400 but we started complaining saying enough is enough. So the foxes said they needed 440, justifying 440 with any logic available to them but realizing we were complaining about giving them 100, then 200, then 400, they, in their wisdom, started to put 150 aside each year in their own hen house held by them and undisclosed to us. Well after many a year, in the foxes own hen house they have collected 6500 chickens (total available revenue not tied in directly with the publicly known operating budget) as they continue to collect the now 510 (the disclosed operating Budget) as they cry to us saying they are barely getting by on the 510, but since we are complaining about the 510 they will cut back the annual take to 490 at great sacrifice to themselves, the foxes ....
VERY IMPORTANT Read the Notes in your Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
They should break down the allocations for investments. You may also find investments that are not disclosed and kept separate from the balance sheet on the same report. Make sure to have several other citizens learn with you, making the discovery along with you.
Guess what ... Most States are funding their own bond issuances, tagging the taxpayer for repayment of the bonds that are funded with their own stateís investment funds .... This being done under irrevocable trusts with the funds being taken off the balance sheets until maturity of the bonds. Look for the bond dividend yield which is mandatory for disclosure within the notes of the CAFR ....
Lee Tibler, who hosts a radio program out of Hot Springs, Arkansas, had a guest on 9/18/98, 9AM-11AM, show, Walter Burien, of Citizens Economic Victory Initiative (C.E.V.I.) of Prescott, Arizona.
BACKGROUND IN ARKANSAS
Recently the citizens of Arkansas had developed an initiative calling for the abolishment of property taxes. The power structure of Arkansas government utilizing their leverage, moved through the courts to invalidate and block the initiative stating that they would have to shut down schools if the initiative was effected.
Several weeks ago, comes along Walter Burien on Mr. Tibler's show with disclosure as to the existence of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which showed within Arkansas, with a population of 2.5 million people who had a TOTAL assessed Property value of 18.3 Billion (1996), THAT just the state government CAFR report showed of in excess of 16 Billion in combined total liquid investment funds, verging on being equal to the total hard assets and wealth of the citizens of the state of Arkansas as determined by their property value. Teachers pension funds = to 5.7 Billion (how many teachers are there in Arkansas for the children of 2.5 M people ? ). State investment funds (Arkansas Development Finance Authority-ADFA, for issuance of bonds back to themselves or the local government = to 1.4 Billion. Total cash intake for the year 1.9 Billion NOTE: these figures are just for the state, not adding on for composite investment totals of Cities and Counties within Arkansas which would bring the total up to 26-28 Billion.
THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD
As of September 18th, 1998, on Mr. Tibler's radio show, Walter Burien called for the citizens of Arkansas to determine if the Citizen's owned the government or if the government owned the citizens. What was proposed by Mr. Burien was that the citizens of Arkansas unify and put through for an emergency special initiative that would change the principle of operation of Arkansas government, City, County and State, whereby the initiative would call for and enact by law the following:
(1.) For the immediate down sizing by 25% of Arkansas state and local governments "revenue" structure for re-appropriation, annually, into the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. Whereby the citizen after 8-12 years participation in the "system", based on his or her interest and dividend yield from the Citizen's Trust Investment Account, would have no tax liability. After 12 years participation, the citizen, on top of having no tax liability would start receiving a dividend check which would increase throughout the remainder of his or her life. The last year of the citizen's life they would receive the biggest check. Citizen's who have already participated dearly for many a year in the "system" will be first line beneficiaries as of year one for full payment of interest and dividend yield from the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. With this structure in place the Citizen's Trust Investment Account becomes the largest investment fund in the state, of no equal, with the citizen being the " Beneficiary", not the inner circle of the "Boys" from government and their special interests. NOTE: the large investment banking and brokerage conglomerates, after examination of the Citizen's Trust Investment Account, should be all for it. They do not take a loss but in fact are offered by the citizen the largest investment account to manage, which if this becomes the standard across the country, will make the Citizen's Trust Investment Account the largest investment account on the face of this planet .... They now don't have to hide the revenue, but now perform the management in the open for public viewing of performance, growth and return to the citizen.
(2.) Under the initiative, The creation of a Citizens Appointed Review Panel (lawyers and politicians shall not be on the panel but only act as consultants, the panel will be made up of: the electrician, the plumber, the school teacher, the police officer, the sheriff, etc.. 250 individual citizens, with none having an income exceeding $75K / year) being empowered with full international discovery, disclosure and indictment rights with a small team of accountants that they select, for recommendation and direction capabilities for the re-appropriation of the 25% annual revenue into the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. NOTE: When the politicians say; we will have to close down the little old ladies home and shut down the schools, the Citizens Appointed Review Panel will say, no youíre not, the revenue will come FROM HERE!!!
(3.) Under the initiative, the government employee, City, County, and State will be offered 1/3 of 1% as a finders fee for pointing out and redirecting revenue which is "not directly benefiting the citizens" for re-appropriation into the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. NOTE: If that government employee, finds and recommends re-appropriation of say 150 Million which is not directly benefiting the citizen, 1/3 of 1% as a finders fee is a pretty nice check.. Any employee coming forward with a proposal who is retaliated upon, can report to the Citizens Appointed Review Panel, and the panel will take the appropriate action to protect that employee and hold those accountable for their unjust and criminal retaliation against both that employee and the citizens of the state ....
(4.) Under the initiative, No Further Debt Enacted, cash and carry. Existing debt will be enhanced for offset, until canceled, from 15% of the interest and dividend allocation from the Citizen's Trust Investment Account.
(5.) Under the initiative, criminal prosecution, with effective sharp teeth, towards any organization, governmental agency or department in whereby they intentionally try to, or in effect do circumvent disclosure to the Citizens Appointed Review Panel, of revenues, investment funds or cash controlled or maintained by the governmental bodies of the State, Counties or Cities.
In effect, we are changing the Principle of operation of the government. We are not changing a leaf or a branch or a tree in the forest, we are changing the forest of which will affect every leaf in the forest to make "We The People" the beneficiaries of the wealth of this country, which is truly ours, NOT the politicians who spend millions to get elected into their $60 K / year jobs to continue the inner circle ... of special interests and inflating their own pockets for doing so ....
I think the founding fathers of this country would be smiling in their graves right about now ....
The corruption, graft and payoffs disappear overnight. Its a little hard for the "Boys" to continue "Business as Usual" with 280 Million Americans watching over their shoulders as to where every $1 is spent, invested, moved or has been moved in the past, because "We The People" are now the beneficiaries of the wealth within the greatest country on Earth ....
Well, as I said in the beginning, we are about to find out if the citizen's own this country or if the government "THINKS" they own the citizens ....
The chains will be broken, and the citizens will be free and prosperous beyond their expectations. Woe to those who try to re-attach the chains. Call your neighbors, friends and business associates and pass the word.. Focus your eyes on Arkansas, for there is the start of the new beginning for the rest of us.
When the initiative goes for the vote of the citizens, I will be there. It will be a new Woodstock or Boston tea party. People will camp out five days in advance to be the first through the door to cast their vote. Citizens who have never voted before will register to cast their vote for the first time. It will be the largest voter turnout in that states history.
Have a good weekend, and future life ....
Walter J. Burien, Jr.
P.O. Box 11444
Prescott, Arizona 86304
For print coverage of the CAFR, Check out The Spotlight, August 17th (pages 11-14) & 24th, 1998 (pages 22 &23), October 5th, 1998 (page 19) for the CAFR report. The Contact News, American Bulletin, The AntiShyster, Media Bypass and The Free American. In the next 35 days, 30 million citizens will be reached by radio with this information ....
Get a team together and bring in a friend or two that are CPAs. Don't forget to look at other cities, counties and states CAFRs for comparison.
Add up the totals, Cities, County, State and Federal ownership within your State.
You will be learning from scratch one, I have looked at composite totals of government (States, Counties, Cities and Federal ) for 10 years now, and here is what I have totaled:
1. Stock ownership, composite totals............. = to: $32 Trillion +
2. Insurance Company equity participation.... = to: $8 Trillion +
3. Bond surety investment accounts............... = to: $5.5 Trillion +
4. Totals from all liquid investment funds....... = to: $60 Trillion +
The personal income from everyone in the USA (pre tax 1996) is = to 6.5 Trillion. In other words if every person living in this country gave every cent they made to government for 10 years, it would equal what composite government has amassed in their investment accounts, as of TODAY. Have You Gotten Your Wake Up Call...???
The corruption feeds off the revenue. Expose the revenue structure, and the beast dies of starvation. There are only a few thousand of them compared to many millions of us ....
Rip the head off the corruption, and the body dies ....
The Equivalent of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the composite totals of the majority of Federal Government agencies is called the Federal Government Combined Financial Statement.
To download the US Federal Government Combined Financial Statements for 1997, 96 & 95 go to this site:
Read the last page first. It shows what agencies are included in the combined statement and those that are excluded. You will see the ones excluded from the report as being the primary cash and investment agencies. Are they worried that if they were included that the balance sheet would show positive assets in the trillions ?? hmmm ....
To see the requirement recommendation submitted by GFOA to the Feds in 1979 of which was enacted in 1982 through transmittal letter 1, requiring local governments (City, County and States) not already having a CAFR to prepare a CAFR report go to this Internet site:
To get some of the City, County and State CAFR reports available for downloading go to this Internet site:
If your State or County is not listed, send an E-Mail to a neighboring State saying that you have their State CAFR report, and you would like to do a comparison study of your State's CAFR report, and would they please E-Mail you back with the department, telephone number and contact name in YOUR State + Counties + large Cities to get their CAFR report. The States all share each otherís CAFR reports for comparison.
The foundation of the Corruption is starting to quiver based on the fact that the word is getting out quickly ... as to "The biggest game in town" ....
Both the News Media and Governments dilemma here, that will clearly expose them, is that the citizens are not looking for the needle in the haystack but the haystack sitting on the needle. Qualify what the forest is, and stop looking at the leaves in the forest. What is important here is understanding the principle of operation that has lead to this financial takeover. When seen you will understand the motives and propaganda that is rammed down your throat by the News Media and Government which keeps you looking in right field as they conduct their criminal business as usual activities in left field.
The "CAFRs" shows the created through restriction by statute revenue structure which allows the wolves to walk among the sheep in obscurity, as they devour the sheep, fulfilling their appetite in a orgy of neo-capitalistic gluttony. With the surviving sheep saying "what happened", "who were they", "is something wrong", "there is a problem here, but we just can't put our finger in it" ....
To date, I have been contacted by many from across the Land who now have been unified through disclosure for one common purpose " making the citizen the beneficiary of the wealth" not those "Sharp Little Crackers".
I have received phone calls from across the country and have briefed; 15 running for congress, 7 running for senate, 5 running for governor of their state, 4 running for sheriff. All were not aware of the composite structure. The now have their own Wake Up Call ....
Walter J. Burien, Jr.
As seen in the "CAFR" which show the pension funds is that: State and Federal Judges are guaranteed to be in the millionaire boys retirement club, being guaranteed from 3 to 8 million dollars after serving from 1 to 2 years tenure. (Now you know why the laws are as they are throughout the country) ... (Author's Note: What this does not tell you is where the funds in these retirement trusts come from, which is the pay-offs given to each judge. For instance, the IRS pays into this trust 1/3 of every dollar of judgment the "judge" enters in their favor against "taxpayers" and 1/3 of every fine the judges issue from their "court" goes into the funds as well.)
Wake up and smell the roses ... or should I say skunk weed ... Disclosure of the "CAFR" for viewing and comprehension by the public will end their game Cold in its Tracks ... When you see the total moneys, you can backtrack to see where they came from and where they are currently are being used ....
I guess the public can't see the trees through the forest, or is it they can't see the forest through the trees. Or is it they can't see the mountain in front of them as the rocks from the mountain fall on them .... Don t feel bad, the Boys controlling this multi trillion dollar syndicated national financial takeover have spent billions to keep you in the dark and to distract your attention elsewhere .... They are smart and have accomplished their goal.
The "Budget Report" of which the media and government intentionally focuses the publicís attention on shows and is the expense side of traditional governmental services WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF, while the "CAFR contains the profit side of Government (Author's Note: Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the problem: what he is calling "government" are CORPORATIONS designed to replace the lawful governments of the several states and to operate at a PROFIT, just as Washington, D.C., was designed to create a profit for the King. This is what happens when you donít have all of the information.) owned businesses/Agencies and "Investments" which outside of the "budgetary Agencies" are restricted by statute for no tie or direct revenue accountability to the "Budgetary Basis".
(Author's Note: Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the problem: what he is calling "government" are CORPORATIONS designed to replace the lawful governments of the several states and to operate at a PROFIT, just as Washington, D.C., was designed to create a profit for the King. This is what happens when you donít have all of the information.)
(WAKE UP) ... The revenues I speak of are NOT off budget funds but revenues masterfully controlled and developed by the Boys outside of the publicís awareness and view.
THE INTENTIONAL REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND "THEIR PARTNER" THE MEDIA (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and national News Papers) TO MAKE SIMPLE AND CONSPICUOUS MENTION OF THIS REPORT AND THE COMBINED REVENUE BEHIND IT COULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE RICO ACT AS PERPETUATING AND ASSISTING A CRIMINAL SYNDICATE.. SOME CASE LAW FROM ARIZONA WHICH SHOWS LAW PERTAINING TO DISCLOSURE AND EVIDENCES SILENCE FOR NONDISCLOSURE AS BEING FRAUDULENT MISCONDUCT IS AS FOLLOWS;
A. "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. vs Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021, U.S. vs Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300.
B. "Fraud may be committed by failure to speak, but a duty to speak must be imposed." Dunahay v. Struzik, 393 P.2d 930, 96 Ariz. 246 (1964).
C. "Fraud" may be committed by a failure to speak when the duty of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely." Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57 Ariz. 239. (1941).
D. "When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth." State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155, 135 Ariz. 480. (Ariz. App. 1983). (Many more law sites not included for brevity.)
Gods Speed and a wake up call to you ....
Walter J. Burien, Jr.
Now, Time For Some Reality ....
It is very frustrating watching people with just a little information work up a lather about something they can not change.
The simple truth of the matter is that as United States citizens (hint: the only ones who can "vote" in this "system"), they have no standing to change what is going on. Now, they may manage here and there to put "the issue" on some ballot, but even if they pass the measure they will see it thrown out. Why -- because the treaties behind the Constitution and the Constitution itself will not allow any interference in the collection of "debt."
And, as United States citizen, they are instrumentalities of the United States, thus they have no power to sue themselves, so action in court to change what is -- to them -- fraud, is not possible. Also, as United States citizens, they are responsible for the national debt, and any attempt to interfere with the collection on that debt brands them as "tax protesters." I think you will understand much better when you finish Part IX.
In all, what this information should show you is that everyone wants a piece of the Kingís debt! That is all we are talking about here. Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States government, and evidence of the debt of the Federal Reserve, which is guaranteed by the United States government. That means, since the United States is a Crown Colony, that they are guaranteed by the King, and now everyone wants to fight over something which has no reality -- the trust funds denominated in Federal Reserve Notes. How silly!
But, by participating they do prove they are subject to the Kingís jurisdiction, and give more weight and authority to the actions of his minions. And as they do so, they still have not caught on -- "they" are not the problem! WE are the problem!
"We has met the enemy, and HE IS US!" Pogo
LAW, or NOT?
The primary purpose of this transmission is to provide notice that my research treatise pertaining to what we know as the United States Code is complete, but because it has expanded to 26 printed pages, it is posted on the Kay County Patriots web site on the "Dan Meador," page: http://idt.net/~tmccrory/HOTITEM.HTM
For those wishing to understand the Federal side of what is today known as Cooperative Federalism, download the first two pieces: "United States Code Isn't Law in the Several States" (26 pages), and "Institutionalized Tyranny: The Character & Color of Authority" (112pages).
Thanks to Ralph Winterrowd of Anchorage, we presently have the rare 1934 edition of the "Code of Laws of the United States of America", and the Revised Statutes of 1878. The 1878 revision provided the foundation for the United States Code, first published in 1926. These and other books will be on display at the meeting, so those who attend will have the opportunity to see firsthand how key statutes were tracked in both directions from the 1934 Code to prove that what we know as the United States Code is actually the Code of Laws of the United States of America. The Code is municipal law in the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States. It is not law in the Union of several States party to the Constitution, and for the most part, isn't even legal evidence of laws of the United States in lawful courts of the several States.
The 26-page treatise on the United States Code is a stand-alone effort which is supplemental to the longer work. Conclusions in Institutionalized Tyranny remain valid. The second, shorter work reinforces and clarifies conclusions in the first.
A few of the documented conclusions are as follows: The "United States of America" designated as principal of interest in Federal civil and criminal prosecution is a political coalition or compact of Federal territories, and as such, is a government foreign to the United States and the several States. This entity, formalized some time after 1909, is defined as an agency of the United States. It does not have constitutional or statutory standing in the several States party to the Constitution, or in Article III district courts of the United States.
United States District Courts situated in the several States are private courts, they are not Article III courts (Author's Note: Actually, there exists today nothing in America which is an Article III court; control of the "court system" in America by The Inns of the Court [from London] shows that these "courts" are the private courts of the King.) of the United States or territorial courts created by Act of Congress. (Author's Note: Actually, there exists today nothing in America which is an Article III court; control of the "court system" in America by The Inns of the Court [from London] shows that these "courts" are the private courts of the King.) In or after 1948, those responsible for this system of private courts, disguised under the name of territorial courts, usurped power of Article III district courts of the United States.
The "Code of Laws of the United States of America" is not law of the United States. No section of the Code can be given legislative construction, so sections of the Code do not vest franchises of authority in any office, department or court of the United States, and do not create liabilities for or impose penalties on anyone. (Author's Note: Try arguing this point as they slap the cuffs on!) I recommend reading "United States Code Isn't Law in the Several States" first. In some respects, it is probably more difficult in that it is replete with cites from various editions of the United States Code, the Statutes at Large, and other reference material, but because of the way the treatise evolved, I had to establish perspective before getting to the meat of matters. After Ralph sent the 1934 edition of "The Code of Laws of the United States of America", I wrote a preliminary piece sent out via my e-mail list on Nov. 5. In response, Lowell H. "Larry" Becraft, Jr. sent a memorandum he wrote on the United States Code. Larry is a well-known attorney who makes significant contributions to the constitutionalist dialogue, so I felt the need to anchor the treatise to the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States. The constitutional perspective is developed through three questions that have obvious answers, what American founders described as "self-evident truth."
Both discourses must be read from this perspective: Government (Author's Note: This is true, IF it were a "government".) of the United States exists by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. Government of the United States may exercise only powers enumerated in the Constitution. Exercise of any power not delegated by the Constitution is usurpation of power, and amounts to treason against the Constitution and the sovereign American people.
Addressing law so people who aren't versed in legalese is quite a task. For the two months I was in a Tulsa halfway house prior to release from Bureau of Prisons custody (Oct. 2, 1998), I worked for Dale Pond, doing research under his supervision. The first portions of Institutionalized Tyranny were written with Dale's continuing editorial assistance, so the effort is considerably more "humanized" than many works of the same nature. It can be difficult not to assume readers know principles of law and legal jargon. Others, including Tim McCrory, Bobby Jenkins, Steve Pond, Paul Mitchell, and my wife, made editing corrections and otherwise provided constructive criticism prior to the current version being posted. People from across the country made editing contributions after the original of the current revision was posted.
With posting of "United States Code Isn't Law in the Several States", I've staked out ground: I challenge the nation's leading researchers, whether attorneys, non-attorneys, law professors, or government officials, to attack the work to break it down. Very probably the effort will be enlarged so far as particulars of historical event and the evolution of Cooperative Federalism are concerned, and details of law will probably be refined, but I am convinced that the body of the work and all significant conclusions will stand.
Anyone who wishes is welcome to access these two discourses, post them wherever they want, quote from, paraphrase or otherwise utilize the material in any given forum. However, in order to preserve integrity of the work, editing and critical commentary should be sent to me so I can make necessary revisions and text corrections. We can link files to e-mail transmissions in Word for Windows or Lotus Word Pro, but would prefer that the material be downloaded from the web site. Revisions that incorporate significant correction or expansion will be announced when posted.
Tim has posted several of my memorandums, pleadings, and letters written prior to June 1997, and some constructed while I was in prison. I haven't gone through the material so those who access it should realize that research in nearly all areas addressed in older compositions has been advanced since original documents were written. The constitutionalist research community is making strides at a pace probably more rapid than the advent of new computer technology. Elements and underlying principles of dated material may still be valid, but every effort should be made to access current research on any given subject.
Several people have engaged the dialogue from the perspective of war and emergency powers and implications of martial law rule. I will attempt to briefly explain my current position relative to this subject.
In Institutionalized Tyranny, I used the five essential authorities identified in that work to break down Federal drug and tax laws, proper jurisdiction of the United States Marshals Service (Author's Note: The problem here is the Federal Marshallís Service is an incorporated agency dating from 1969.), and jurisdiction of the Federal Law Enforcement Community. In the reasonably near future, I will probably write a section dealing with war and emergency powers, using the five essential authorities to break them down. However, at this juncture, I haven't engaged in debate of how these powers are carried out as my primary objective is to establish a foundation of law and fact as a platform for the research community.
I have specifically identified the umbrella conspiracy that encompasses State and Federal governments: In the 1960's, the Supreme Court coined the term "Cooperative Federalism" to describe its workings. Governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions, including county and city governments, school districts, offices of district attorneys, etc., operate as instrumentalitys of the United States subject to sovereignty of the United States in the same sense the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc., are subject to Congress' plenary power in territory belonging to the United States.
The unique thing about the scheme is this: Not only is Cooperative Federalism unconstitutional, there is no State or Federal law facilitating it. It operates somewhat the way a pregnant woman feeds and vacates waste from the unborn baby in her womb. While the mother's blood system delivers oxygen and nutrition to the baby's blood system, the two blood systems never mix. Therefore, those who cross the line to deprive the sovereign people of life, liberty or property do so at considerable risk. The only protection they respectively have is unified political will, they do not have protection of law. They can be held accountable in civil and criminal forums.
(Author's Note: True, IF you can find a competent civil or criminal forum.)
In our system, tyranny never stands on one leg. It requires perpetrators by intent and perpetrators by consent. The perpetrator by intent is obvious -- he or she is fully aware of the workings and objectives of Cooperative Federalism. The perpetrator by consent is a functionary or uninformed principal. When the functionary and uninformed principal cease accommodating the perpetrator by intent, Cooperative Federalism will fall on its face. I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand people understand the workings, objectives, and effects of Cooperative Federalism, so we must construct a sound platform of law and fact to inform the rest. Only after they are informed can those who accommodate by consent reasonably be held accountable for their respective actions even though the letter of the law says ignorance of the law is no excuse.
My perspective is governed by certain givens. The first is good faith. The Cooperative Federalism scheme is so convoluted that it is nearly impossible for people of ordinary intelligence to figure out. The scheme evolved and matured in the hundred years following the Civil War, so we have no living memory of how and when it began. Most people in active public service are blinded and conditioned by what amounts to ritual magic, and even independent professionals are educationally and practically dysfunctional. Collectively, those who accommodate tyranny by consent are decent people who carry out their respective roles without evil or malicious intent. Only after they are provided good faith notice of law, and they subsequently elect not to comply with law, am I willing to pursue prosecution for evil and malicious intent.
How do we define evil? Ironically, the Federal judge who sentenced me, H. Dale Cook, gave the best definition of evil I've heard: Evil is simply lawlessness. (Author's Note: Now, define lawlessness; Whose law? The King has a completely different perspective, which begs the question: Which King?). Given that definition, we can employ a functional definition of maliciousness: Malicious intent is knowing, intentional lawlessness. Once someone is given notice of law, any further act contrary to law is evil, with malicious intent. Malicious intent invariably pursues self-serving ends.
We addressed these matters in the Nuremberg trials following World War II. In the trials, German judges who imposed Nazi law after 1935 were prosecuted, and civil authorities such as prison camp guards were tried, convicted and prosecuted for their respective roles in dismantling the German domestic population, the Holocaust, and war crimes. The reason principals and functionaries were both prosecuted is this: There are certain indispensable principles necessary to maintain free peoples and nations. Any law contrary to these principles, real or imagined, or any law which attacks the basic dignity of man, is by nature evil and of no effect.
This takes us to the motive of the functionary: Why does he act? If and when he knows the law, he can act contrary to the law for only one of two reasons. He either fears reprisal, or he acts for self-serving ends. When prison camp guards and other functionaries in the German system defended themselves with claims they had to carry out orders or risk reprisal, the defense was rejected. We cannot accept claims that one or another might lose his or her job, suffer administrative discipline, was advised that he or she isn't bound by the required oath to uphold and defend applicable constitutions, etc., as to do so would be to accept government by the capricious rule of man rather than law. Those who know but fail to comply with law will have no defense when prosecuted in appropriate forums. (Author's Note: As you can see, he doesnít get the Constitution. They are defending the Constitution and extending the Kingís rule as is proper. You will understand much better after Part IX.)
The second given is this: We are at the brink of an economic crucible that will drive political events. In retrospect, the coming collapse will make the 1930's great depression seem like little more than a dress rehearsal for the real thing. We will be able to pull the fat from the fire, and salvage the constitutional republic, only if we are soundly secured in law and historical fact and can objectively demonstrate how and why the collapse occurred. Even if lawful remedies aren't immediately available, they will be in the reasonably near future if the constitutionalist community will construct a solid foundation today.
War and emergency powers? Martial law? There is no doubt in my mind, or the mind of anyone else who has studied the subject, that the American people are being subjected to institutionalized tyranny. However, both the perpetrator by intent and the perpetrator by consent act without force of law. Therefore, they act independently and privately even if individual actions are in concert and thereby have the appearance of legitimacy. Beyond the wall of political will, none enjoys the cloak of government immunity. They must and will be prosecuted individually as the choice of lawlessness always incurs personal liability.
A few have difficulty with my attitude toward the subject, but I refuse to dignify tyranny with the illusion of legitimacy. Pirates have no authority other than self-will and personal gain. Those who knowingly and willingly plunder countryman and kin cannot be dignified with even the connotation of character other than that of the reprobate. Emergency powers, martial law ... these terms have the faint ring of legitimacy. They sound formal, official -- that which is necessary in the course of some great cause. But those who perpetrate and knowingly accommodate Cooperative Federalism have no great cause other than transient, self-serving ends. They are individually and collectively in rebellion against man, nature and God, and in due course, should be prosecuted as common criminals.
Time to get an account offshore, eh!
Author's Note: Again, "Save The Constitution!!" At all costs, rather than going back to the Law and to the form of government used in America correctly. But, the above does show very well how the minions of the bankers and the King are extending his rule over the States united, as originally intended -- and they are doing this with our help and assistance.
Thomas Edison biographers claim that he made 10,000 light bulbs before getting what he wanted. Several of the earlier versions worked, in that they gave light, but Edison's goal was to be able to read newspaper print by the light his light bulb gave at a distance comparable to the width of a normal room.
I don't disagree with versions of the early "Federalism" initiative accounted for in this discussion. In fact, the incursion commenced before the Civil War. Crop failures in 1857 created a food panic -- there were flour riots in New York City and Canadian cities. This general broadside set a seven-year economic depression in motion, and the congressional delegations in the North, under influence of the major financial institutions, trade interests, and industrial magnates, pushed legislation that did considerable injury to the South, which was primarily agrarian and otherwise relied on natural resource production. If you will read Jefferson Davis' farewell speech delivered as Southern Congressional Delegations departed, you will see that "Federalism" economic incursions were the primary cause of Southern secession -- Davis barely made mention of the slave issue.
With this in mind, there is no doubt that research pertaining to West Virginia, etc., is correct. The admission of West Virginia was under convoluted terms. After 1871, Congress began retaining lands set aside for Indian reservations, and unappropriated public lands -- national parks and forests. But the Supreme Court continued to hold ground, so was a persisting thorn in the side of those who wanted a general Federal takeover. The key platform was this: Once the Constitution has been extended to any territory, whether a State of the Union, the District of Columbia, a territory of the United States, or whatever, it cannot be withdrawn. In other words, to argue that constitutionally secured rights, privileges and benefits can be derogated or otherwise compromised once Congress has extended authority of the Constitution to a territory is absurd. Either territory is under constitutional rule or it isn't. It's like the pregnancy test -- either she is or she isn't.
This changed with cession of the Spanish provinces of Puerto Rico and the Philippines following the Spanish-American war in 1898. The cession treaty did not extend the Constitution to these newly acquired insular possessions, or the people. That's what the insular tax cases were about. In many respects, the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and subsequently the Virgin Islands, Guam, etc., were construed as being "foreign" to the Union of several States as they were "unincorporated" territories of the United States. They were of a completely different class from the several States, territories of the United States where the Constitution was extended, and the District of Columbia.
It is this "unincorporated territory" concept which ultimately prevailed as the foundation of Cooperative Federalism. It was the "light bulb" bright enough to read by. And it is under this auspices that the "United States of America" entity, now defined as an agency of the United States (see notes following 18 U.S.C. 1001 & 18 U.S.C. 6), came into being.
Look on the face of any Federal Reserve Note you have in your pocket: It is legal tender for payment of debt, and is identified as currency of the "United States of America".
If you read Article I, Sec. 10, cl. 1 of the Constitution, you see clearly that governments of the several States are prohibited from making anything a tender for payment of debt other than gold and silver coin. Consequently, it is impossible for the FRN to be legal tender for payment of debt in the original "United States of America" formally established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation, and mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. It is part of the grand Cooperative Federalism deception.
Certainly I don't dispute that admission of all States to the Union since the Civil War has been convoluted, but let's look at the axiom from the opposite end: Do any of the original thirteen States act different, or are they treated different than States admitted to the Union since? No, they are equal -- governments of each of the several States, regardless of when they were admitted to the Union, are acting in concert to undermine sovereignty and solvency of the nation. Is IRS less a tyrant in New York? Pennsylvania? Georgia? Maine? Tell me where those folks aren't a pain in the butt.
We might turn to a historical page in the 1790's. It seems that Thomas Jefferson constructed a document styled, "The Kentucky Resolutions" that led the charge to turn back Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. Then we can go to 1803: Thomas Jefferson argued that there must be a constitutional amendment in order to incorporate the Louisiana Purchase into the constitutional scheme. But Congress ignored clear intent of the Constitution, and left it to Chief Justice John Marshall to rationalize in Am. Ins. Co. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton in 1828.
We aren't dealing with a new or unique problem -- Congress has been corrupt and corruptible from the beginning. (Author's Note: What this ignores is Article I, Section 8, Clause 17; When you give a group of men the "privilege" to write law under a provision of "exclusive jurisdiction", the one thing you can be sure of is unlimited corruption. If you do not understand this, simply go back and study the Bourbon Kings and their brethren in the kingship business. And I assure you, being a king is simply a business, not a government.) Ben Franklin's grandson exposed the Jay Treaty, in which the Senate agreed to pay British expense for the American Revolution. It's been one damned thing after another throughout our history. Andrew Jackson knocked the second national bank in the head in 1836; a U.S. commissioner led Navy forces to overthrow the Hawaiian royal house in 1893 ... the president, whoever he was, raised thunder, but Congress ignored him, waited for a more accommodating president, then in 1898, incorporated Hawaii as a territory of the United States.
What I am attempting to do here is focus you on things as they are -- what current statutes and regulations of the United States portray as facts of law. There is continuum in the Cooperative Federalism scheme dating from about 1898. We can look back to the Revised Statutes of 1878 and see early elements of it, but the constitutional coup de grace was in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, in 1933 with the Roosevelt New Deal, in 1938 with Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins, and ultimately in 1948 when private United States District Courts were instituted in the several States. These are known, documentable events along a continuing course that doesn't have to be constructively discerned and hypothecated.
Are particulars of war and emergency powers, martial law, etc., relevant? Certainly they are, but only in the sense that we have judicially orchestrated tyranny. (Author's Note: The actual basis of the Constitution and the early Supreme Court decisions about it are much more relevant.)
Jay Rutledge wrote:
It was Hobbes who said, I think, that Force and Fraud are cardinal in War. Fraud is a species of Deception and if the researchers into statute have proved anything unanimously, it is the intent of the lawmakers to deceive. How could the grantors, the states, become instumentalities of the power created by grant, the federal?(Author's Note: by contract!) The ultimate origin of Cooperative Federalism is in the creation and admission of West Virginia. West Virginia and all states after West Virginia were admitted to representation in Congress on the same basis as West Virginia. The Reconstructed States were likewise admitted to representation in Congress on a footing inferior to the original thirteen. The inferiority is that Congress, not the sovereign power of the people of the State, ultimately defined republican form of government and the State's Constitution. Now, these states are not territories of the United States nor are they constitutional states in the same sense as the original thirteen were constitutional states.
The original thirteen were Free and Independent States before Union. From West Virginia onward, states are made from territories of the United States and do not enter the Union from a Free and Independent status. This New States Union is made upon the military power of the federal government and the states admitted to representation in this Union are provisional instrumentalityís. Any explanation of our condition which does not explain the regional organization of the federal and New States Union and the military power or war or emergency power need of a regional venue is partial. Congress has exclusive power to legislate for the District of Columbia and exclusive veto over the legislation of the governing body in the District. It seems to me this is the clause, applied by war power and combined with the clause guaranteeing a republican form of government and supplemented by the new legislative power in the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments and by treaty, by which Congress extended the jurisdiction of its Acts into the States. The United States District Courts are simply Congressional tribunals exercising judicial power under Congressional regulation. Note that Puerto Rico and other insular possessions also have been admitted to representation in Congress.
The Union into which they have been admitted of representation is yet another Union. If the Acts of Congress that have extended jurisdiction are municipal law, then it seems to follow that the United States District Courts are municipal courts, not territorial courts. Municipal courts are created by legislative, not constitutional power, and have only such judicial power as the legislature grants. These legislative tribunal "courts" sit in New States and take jurisdiction and cognizance of matters arising under Acts of Congress. They do so in a venue called to order under a war flag. They do so under rules which are distinguished from the rules for territorial courts such as that for the Virgin Islands. In Cooperative Federalism the federal and New States federal instrumentalitys are in a state of war with the other sovereign on this continent, the people. Their statutes have the effect of alienating the people from the land. A resident is an alien who is allowed to domicile in a place for commerce that inures to the benefit of the permitting Sovereign. An alien has not the right to title of land. Their statutes also have the effect of alienating the people from their natural rights and constituted rights. Any explanation of our condition which does not explain the role of artificial persons in the Cooperative Federalist scheme of statutory governance is partial. Dan Meador
Subject: Re: ComLaw LOPEZ decision and IRS/FDA/Motor Vehicles
I've watched this discussion with interest, and would like to make a small contribution: Under the Cooperative Federalism scheme, formerly known as Corporatism, Congress moved virtually all Federal government under the territorial clause. Definitions of interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18 of the U.S.C. are among the keys to verification of this. See the definition of "United States" in Title 18, and the definition of "State" and "Act of Congress" in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Where taxes are concerned, the Supreme Court tacitly told us this in a case where the Sixteenth Amendment was brought into question, and the justice who wrote the opinion said that the Sixteenth Amendment is a moot issue (Author's Note: I suggest you read this part very carefully.). In other words, in territory of the United States, Congress can tax anything in any fashion. Likewise, under the territorial clause, Congress can regulate commerce pretty well as they want. Read the Insular Tax Cases (1901-1904), and Downes v. Bidwell (1901) in particular. Via the act of Nov. 23, 1921, Congress repealed virtually all taxes issued under Article I & Sixteenth Amendment taxing authority, retaining only the "normal tax" against officers and employees of the United States, what most people know as income tax. When the various excise taxes were reinstated, they were enacted under the territorial clause, not general powers under Article I authority. Quite an interesting batch of legislation in 1921, then another bevy after enactment of the Social Security Act of 1935. That set up the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which was rolled into the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, replaced by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large), amended in 1986. Dan.
Jay Rutledge wrote:
The power granted in the interstate commerce clause was a power over the state power of regulation. To prevent state power from interfering with commerce. Not to regulate commerce itself with positive law. How we have come to our apparent present condition is beyond my understanding except that the states using emergency power did in the 1935 Declaration of Governmental Interdependence make grants of power beyond those in the original grant of 1787. This Declaration and all pendent legislation is all extra constitutional (Author's Note: I beg to differ -- not if the people contract into the "exclusive jurisdiction" of Congress. And, of course, this is what the lawyers are doing -- making the contracts available.), however, having no other foundation than martial or emergency powers rule by necessity. In other words, law martial rule.
Subject: Re: ComLaw> LOPEZ decision and IRS/FDA/Motor Vehicles
There is some misunderstanding in this message. In Art. I Sec. 8 Congress is delegated power to regulate only interstate commerce, but it was also delegated power to tax all commerce, both interstate and intrastate. There is some error in this statement. First a seemingly minor, but possibly significant point. The Power to regulate was precisely to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; The point I wish to make here is difficult to grasp if the point is valid. It seems regulating interstate commerce would include setting load limits, hours of work without sleep, etc., while regulating commerce among the several States would be more limited to the interchange of merchandise. Proper regulation of commerce would result in fair trade. Other provisions add to understanding the function and purpose of the power delegated. Article I. Section 9, Clause 5: No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given for any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. The power to tax all commerce was not delegated. Taxing exports from a State was forbidden. I would like to hear some other opinions but It seems the only way to tax without taxing exports from a State would be to tax only foreign imports.
A key distinction that needs to be understood is that in the original Constitution (before the dubious income tax amendment), excise taxes, duties, tariffs, etc, could only be indirect taxes. That is, only taxes on a business which can pass on the tax to a customer as a higher price. A tax which cannot be passed on, but which is borne by an individual taxpayer, is a direct tax, and it must be apportioned by the population of a state. I cannot say authoritatively that a direct tax is not what is alleged here, but I believe it is not. Before I get into this question I would like to know of an example of a direct tax that was by apportionment. If there has never in the history of the United States been an apportioned direct tax, I will insist the Constitution was not followed, and the meaning of direct tax subverted. Can any one give me a historic example? The original concept of a direct tax only contemplated an ad valorem property tax and a head tax, that is, a flat tax of so much per person. Of course, a tax on the value of property could be on land not used to produce a product for sale, but a tax on the product sold of land used as a business would be taxable. Not constitutionally if the product was an export from a State.
By this distinction, there can be excise taxes on the income of a sole proprietary business, such as on its rents, dividends, interest, or capital gains (which is the decision in the Brushaber case), but not on wages for labor, because the former is indirect and the latter direct. Of course, the prohibition of a direct tax not apportioned by population seems meaningless as no power to impose a direct tax was delegated. It seems to be a way of saying that excise taxes, duties, tariffs, etc, could only be on the sales or income of businesses, and not on the value of things or on persons or their wages.
There are two other issues related to the commerce clause. One is whether the power to regulate something implies, under the necessary and proper clause, the power to prohibit something, or the power to impose criminal penalties (disablement of life or liberty) or only civil penalties (disablement of property). One of the Principles of '98, set forth in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, was that it did not include criminal penalties. Other sources show that the power to regulate is not the power to completely prohibit something in some form, under some conditions. In other words, to regulate means being able to legitimately prescribe the form, manner, route, timing, condition, measure, labeling, etc., but anything has to eventually be allowed in some form, in some manner, along some route, on some schedule, in some condition, in some measure, with some labeling, etc. Fair trade among individual States being the purpose of the power granted I would think proper regulations would give those who suffered loss due to violations of the regulations, grounds for suits in law and equity, against the violators. It is not reasonable to believe the United States was delegated authority to create new crimes that were not crimes before, when the United States was not even delegated authority to try criminal cases. Only cases in law and equity extending to specified parties. Constitution Society
More than anything, the preceding and following sections were included here to show you the real work being done to correct America. The "political process" has nothing to do with the real Americans involved in this work. I have also included much of this to show you that there are different opinions around about the "problem", and I do not want you to think my opinion, and the opinion of the men I work with, is the only one around.
There are a great many men who are still convinced that the Constitution is the greatest document ever written by man, and it is nearly impossible to change most of those minds. But even those who do not accept the work on the Constitution showing the direct connection to Britain (the archival work by a number of men shows this conclusively), do accept the "exclusive jurisdiction" information. The problem with many of them is they do not grasp the absolute criminal aspect of such power being given to men.
Much of the work shown in this paper was developed during the third quarter of 1998, so you should understand that information like this is a work in progress, not something complete. Understand; this is the real work, not some rally for the republicans or democrats, and the libertarians have nothing to do with the real America either. You can not vote -- you can not exercise the franchise issued from Washington, D.C. -- without becoming subject to the "exclusive jurisdiction" of Congress, and without losing all Rights. You should find the following very interesting -- especially those of you who believe that the problem starts with the FEDS!!!
SUBJECT: Compact of States Underlying Cooperative Federalism
Greetings to another excellent researcher who is among the many coming on line in the effort to put a historical and factual base under the constitutionalist movement: John R. Prukof, who bills himself as a legal researcher and serves as Executive Director of the Citizens For A Constitutional Washington, Puyallup, Washington. I need to acknowledge John in particular as he has done research by way of "The Book of the States" and connection of the National Governor's Conference and other such organizations that participate on the State side of Cooperative Federalism. "The Book of the States" is published every other year by The Council of State Governments, which has headquarters at Lexington, Kentucky.
To demonstrate the import of this research, I will reproduce a paragraph John quoted in a November 17, 1998 composition on the subject he transmitted to people in his communications circle. This paragraph comes from Volume 2, Book 2 of "The Book of the States", as reported from the Third General Assembly, the Thursday evening session held January 21, 1937:
"The call of our day is for a union of the States more perfect than the formal Union we have inherited. That Union must and shall be achieved through the further enhancement of federal power ... We meet to further this [process] across State lines through the extension of voluntary cooperation. Efficiency of centralized power (Author's Note: Now, tell me this does not sound exactly like the centralized planning done in the Soviet Union!) must itself depend upon this spirit in the states for any full measure of success ... The balance of power may swing from time to time between Nation and State. That swing we may abide cheerfully, however it goes, if only we can give it the cooperative setting furnished by the Council of State Governments. To furnish the form of Federalism, then, with the spirit of State cooperation is our fate and fortune. As "Royalty" said to "Romance": "This is the way we can 'abdicake' and eat it too" ... The noble spirit necessary to our present cause -- the spirit of intrepidity working its wonders in creating opportunity for cooperation."
In his research, John tracks the basic alliance as being the "Declaration of Interdependence" signed January 22, 1937, with a second such instrument issuing January 30, 1976. My research suggests that there was a predecessor signed in Denver in 1935.
The statement in the first line of the paragraph above conveys what should be self-evident: Those who participated in the compact, most of whom were elected and appointed officers of Federal, State, county, and local government units, mutually pledged to displace and subvert the Constitution of the United States in order to substitute what in their respective and collective minds is a more perfect union. To see the flavor of objectives this message conveys, read President Franklin Roosevelt's 1934 State of the Union Address -- he openly championed the Socialist agenda, and warned "partisans" who might insist on preserving the constitutional republic.
In this particular submission, we might examine how this compact came to pass. The control provision is at Article I, Sec. 10, clause 3 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty on Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit to delay."
The original enactment which authorized compacts relating to criminal enforcement was the Act of June 6, 1934, ch. 406, 48 Stat. 909. The section was originally classified as Sec. 420 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 1940 ed., but was moved to Title 4 of the United States Code by Act of May 24, 1949. The little darling, as amended several times since, is now at 4 U.S.C. ß 112:
"Sec. 112. Compacts between States for cooperation in prevention of crime; consent of Congress
"(a) The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts.
"(b) For the purpose of this section, the term "States" means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia."
The original statute did not include insular possessions of the United States, but by the 1940's, as governments of the several States increasingly moved under Congress' plenary power in territory of the United States, the amendment to what is now 4 U.S.C. ß 112(b) was expanded to include virtually all insular possessions of the United States. Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as States of the Union in 1959, of course. According to the 1991-92 edition of "The Book of the States", the following Federal possessions participate in the various compacts: District of Columbia, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Republic of Belau, and the U. S. Virgin Islands. (Author's Note: Iíll bet this is news to most of you!)
Also in the 1991-92 edition, in an article titled "Interstate Compacts and Agreements", by Benjamin J. Jones and Deborah Reuter, the following is said about compacts established under the above authority:
"A compact has both the effect of a statute in each state and the features of a binding, legal contract. Therefore, when a state adopts a compact, the state may not renounce or leave the compact except as may be provided for by compact provisions providing for withdrawal. As contracts, interstate compacts take precedence over laws that conflict with their provisions. When these characteristics are taken into consideration, it is apparent that interstate compacts are the most binding legal instruments establishing formal cooperation among states."
John cited another section from the 1991-92 edition, and it so happens that Gail, my wife, purchased that particular edition for half a dollar when the local municipal library was clearing out old books. The Federal Depository Library at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, has all editions of the "Book of the States" beginning with the 1935 edition, and other Federal Depository Libraries across the country should keep them, too. As research into Cooperative Federalism, the newly created Federal "United States of America", and other relevant subjects gets into the meat of things, this particular series of books will be invaluable for tracking sources and the corpus of social-economic engineering that has compromised sovereignty and solvency of the nation.
Over the last couple of years, my focus has been primarily on the Federal side of Cooperative Federalism, but here are a couple of threads people researching the State side might follow up: In Oklahoma, elected and appointed officers take an oath prescribed in the Oklahoma constitution, then a second statutory oath that is to the "Constitution of the United States of America" (Constitution of the United States is the law of the land in Oklahoma). Additionally, our original cession laws which authorize cession of land for purposes set out at Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, provide for ceding land to the "United States", where later laws in this category provide for lands owned by the "United States of America". State, county, and municipal employees other than elected and appointed officers take only the statutory oath.
The obvious flaw in this scheme is that Congress may not amend the Constitution of the United States by treaty, and governments of the several States may not exceed authority delegated by or amend constitutions of the several States by compact or contract. In the constitutional system, government officials may exercise only powers delegated by their respective and applicable constitutions.
One of the more obvious examples of unlawful enactmentís is the Uniform Commercial Code, which was adopted by legislatures of each of the several States by 1966: The UCC is to the best of my knowledge the only "law" on the face of the earth that acknowledges the Federal Reserve Note as a legitimate medium of exchange -- the "money or money's worth" notion. Article I, Sec. 10, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits governments of the several States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender for payment of debt. Therefore, the UCC stands contrary to the "law of the land" and can have no lawful effect. Legislatures of the several States clearly usurped power in the face of a strict constitutional prohibition, so the capacity in which they respectively acted can legitimately be described as "outlaw". The compact, contract, statute, or whatever which exceeds constitutionally enumerated powers has the same legitimacy as me signing President Clinton's name to something would. An elected or appointed public servant in our system has no authority other than authority vested in him by the sovereign people he serves. If and when he usurps power by exceeding constitutionally enumerated powers, he is in breach of the public trust, and has forfeited the cloak of governmental immunity.
In the closing paragraphs of his discourse, John states another obvious conclusion: All trails lead to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank or simply Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF or Fund). By way of their respective charters, the Bank and Fund are autonomous -- they are not subject to direction of any State or Nation. These entities were established under auspices of the United Nations in the wake of World War II, and in my opinion, they are the hinge pins to the gates of modern Babylon. /s/ Dan Meador.
(Author's Note: The last paragraph is very true. And in that vein, the next report is very important, because what is being talked about can not be done without the direct approval of the [private] banks named above. David)
This morning's news announced a plan for ALL banks to make accounts available to American's receiving ANY/ALL forms of money from the FEDERAL government (SOCIAL SECURITY, RETIREMENT ETC. ETC.), and currently do not have a bank account. They claim 10 million Americans are without bank accounts, and the FDIC is suggesting those new accounts be set up with a 3.00 monthly fee with no minimum balance for all Americans who cannot afford and do not currently to do business with a bank! They also mentioned that REGULATIONS will be available in the spring! This bit of news will REALLY strike home after you read the following article.
URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT
I have just finished analyzing a 29 page document obtained from a U. S. Congressman who, for the moment and at his request must remain anonymous.
The document is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) document and is entitled Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance.
To set the tone for the following discussion let me remind you that since January 1992, the Federal Government has set its sights on establishing federal controls over EVERY ASPECT of every individual Americanís personal life and liberties. For example:
The following is direct quote from the first page of FDIC document (6174-01) (12 CFR Part 326) Notice of proposed rule making.
SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to issue a regulation requiring insured nonmember banks to adopt and maintain Know Your Customer programs. As proposed, the regulation would require each nonmember bank to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' sources of funds; determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers; monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions; and report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FDIC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulation.
The things to be very concerned about in this case are the PROFILE PARAMETERS that in turn define the various limits that when exceeded, qualify as an exception to the norm and thus must be reported to another federal agency, as a suspicious transaction. There is virtually no limit to the number or type of profile parameters that can be established. For example, is the customer an 8 foot tall white male weighing in excess of 400 pounds or is the customer a four foot tall black female weighing less than 90 pounds. The question or questions (and there are many questions) then becomes, who will be responsible for establishing, defining and controlling the limitless number of possible profile parameters? Who will be responsible for adding, changing and deleting established profile parameters? Who will be responsible for insuring that this awesome and massive capability will not be misused and abused by the various departments of the Federal Government. In other words, is the 8 foot tall white male an exception to the norm or is the 4 foot tall black female the exception or, are both the upper limit and the lower limit considered as an exception to the norm. How about all those in between?
As noted in the quoted SUMMARY of the document identified above, the key operative statements are as follows:
1. Identify its customers.
2. Determine its customers' source of funds.
3. Determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers.
4. Monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions.
5. Report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious.
Before we briefly examine the five individual requirements noted above, and so that you will understand where I am coming from, please be aware of the fact that, in addition to being a Baptist Preacher, I have been a Data Processing Systems Analyst for some 48+ years. At least half of that time was spent working for the Federal Government, designing and installing total Data Processing Facilities, from the Presidents Battle Staff, to the Congress, to the Department of defense, to the local Church name and address data base. I have written and taught several college courses; (a) Management of Data Processing Facilities and (b) Systems Analysis. One of the first things that I always tell the new students in my Systems Analysis class is in the field of electronic data processing, your only limitation is your own imagination. If you can rationalize it in your mind, 'electronic' data processing can do it.
Now, given that background and qualifications let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, -- I know exactly what the Federal Government is up to. I know exactly what information they are looking for; I know exactly how to get that information and I know exactly how they plan to eventually use that information.
Requirement # 1: Identify its customers. I have no problem with this requirement so long as that identifying information is limited to name, mailing address and an account number generated by the local financial institution and assigned to a particular account to provide unique identification, but absolutely nothing more. (Author's Note: Yeah, and if you believe this will happen, you have no connection to reality!)
Requirement # 2: Determine its customers' source of funds. This I have a BIG problem with. Even though the government would like for you to believe that this requirement is related to identifying possible illegal money laundering by drug traffickers, that is not the only reason they want to know the source of your finances. Remember now, the ultimate objective of the vast majority of government regulations and programs are directed at controlling the individual. This item required that you advise the bank of all the sources that you will be receiving money from that you will be depositing in this particular account. We will expand this item in more detail below.
Requirement # 3. Determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers. For purposed of this discussion we will consider only four primary parameters related to deposits and withdrawals against this particular account.
First: When you established a new checking account you will be required to identify the number of deposits you expect to make each month and the average amount of each deposit. For example (a) military retirement pay = $2,000.00, (b) Social Security Income = $400.00, (c) Rent from income property = $750.00, (d) Interest from stocks & bonds = $ 300.00, and so on.
Second: You will be required to identify the number of withdrawals you expect to make each month from this account and the estimated amount of each withdrawal. For example; (a) Mortgage payment = $800.00, (b) Car Payment = $250.00, (c) College tuition = $ 1,000.00).
Once the average number of deposits and the average amount of each deposit has been determined and the average number of withdrawals and the average amount of each withdrawal has been established, it will be very easy to identify all transactions, in and out, that exceed the established norms for this particular account. For example should you find a paper bag on the side of the highway containing 10,000 well used one dollar bills, or Aunt Sue passed away and left you 10,000 well used one dollar bills and you deposited that windfall in your checking or savings account, that would immediately be detected as exceeding the established norms for your account.
Requirement # 4. Monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions. This requirement establishes the requirement that each financial institution establish a procedure to monitor your financial accounts on a regular basis for any transactions that exceed the established norms as illustrated above.
Requirement # 5. Report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious -- -. This requirement requires that all financial institutions immediately report any and all suspicious transactions detected as a result of deposits or withdrawals that exceed the established norms for your account.
As I was reviewing the aforementioned FDIC document, as quoted above, I called a long time friend of mine who is vice president of a local bank that I do business with. I ask my vice president friend to identify the government agency(s) to which he would report such a suspicious transaction. His response was, the IRS and the FBI, at the national level.
My friends, as a long time ADP/EDP Systems Analyst I want you to pay particular attention to the following.
Whenever a good and successful Information (Data) Processing Systems Analyst designs a large scale information processing system, such as what we have been talking about above, he will ALWAYS allow for future expansion of existing applications and processing capabilities and his design work will also allow for additional applications and processing capabilities to be added with a minimum of additional effort and cost.
Based on my 48+ plus years in the business, let me tell you what you can expect in the very near future if the proposed rule making provisions as defined in the FDIC document identified above are allowed to be implemented. Please, read the following very carefully because it lays out the route our government is taking toward a cashless society as required by the design of a one world government under the United Nations.
1. PRESENTLY ALL recipients of military retirement pay MUST have a bank account into which their monthly retirement pay is electronically transferred. The government will no longer pay individual retirees directly, or send their retirement pay to a home address. This is part of an over all plan to extend more absolute control over the individual. It has absolutely nothing to do with economy as the government would have you to believe.
2. In the very near future look for legislation that will require ALL government employees, federal, state and local, to have a bank account into which their salary will also be electronically transferred, just like the retired military. In as much as most government employees already have the direct deposit option available, it requires only vary simple legislation to complete this phase of the plan.
3. Next you will see legislation that will outlaw the direct payment of all wages or salaries to any individual, by an employer. All employees who work for a wage or salary, will also be required to have a bank account into which the employer will be required to direct deposit their salary. And once again the legislation necessary to accomplish this phase of the plan is very simple and easy to implement, simply because most businesses would welcome the reduced payroll cost.
The governmentís objective here is to eventually make the local financial institution the only source of legal tender for the individual. At this point and for the purpose of this paper, legal tender is defined as dollars, debit cards or other credit cards. When objectives 2 & 3 above have been fully accomplished, it will then be a very simple matter to implement the rest of the plan. Let me explain it this way. The total plan equates to $1.00 (One dollar) When steps 2 & 3 have been fully implemented, as step 1 has already been accomplished, that will equate to $ .95 cents of that $1.00. The rest of the plan equates to only 5 cents out of that one dollar.
And just what is the rest of the plan? It's very simple.
After steps 1, 2 and 3 as noted above have been fully implemented, the only thing left to do then would be to outlaw all cash transactions and require all transactions now involving cash, be accomplished through the use of checks or smart cards followed by the eventual elimination of the checks.
At that point the federal government can then trace, track AND CONTROL ALL TRANSACTIONS, simply because all transactions will then be processed by massive computer systems controlled by the federal government. Given the above accomplishments and current electronic capabilities, the ability to exercise absolute control over individuals provided by the additional five cents noted above are absolutely mind boggling.
There are many, many more reasons that all Americans should and must oppose implementation of the five (5) requirements identified above. There are TWO things that every American should do, immediately.
First: All Americans should send a letter to the FDIC expressing their STRONG objection and opposition to the plan to PROFILE individual bank accounts for what ever purpose. The FDIC will be accepting public comments until December 27. Send your comments to:
Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Attention: Comments/OES, FDIC
550 17th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20429
Be sure to include the following information at the top of your letter:
FDIC 12 CFR 326
Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act
Notice of proposed rule making
Second: All Americans should immediately destroy ALL debit cards and credit cards and revert to using cash (dollars) in all business transactions instead of checks, debit cards and credit cards.
Please forward this alert to the maximum extent possible.
Rev. Curt Tomlin
Major USA Ret
President TCAN Inc.
Author's Note: I hope you can see the future unfolding in these reports. I strongly recommend that you move to eliminate all debt, leave the city (I really donít care how much "money" you think you are making there) and establish some type of vehicle, preferably partly off-shore, to protect your assets -- perhaps an Oversoul foundation based on the Catholic Church model in the states, or a Costa Rican Corporation off-shore, with a banking debit card connection.
I also hope, as you read this, other things are becoming clearer. The next time you attend a wedding, and you hear the words "By the power vested in me by the State of ____________ , I now pronounce you man and wife," you hear the absolute blasphemy in the statement. In all the history of the world, the vast majority of the people who have lived did not consider themselves to be pagan idolaters. They were simply doing whatever the vast majority of their fellow men were doing, and obeying the common laws of the day. But you reveal which god you follow by the laws you study and keep. Does your 501 (c)3 church offer you a tax deduction for a tax you do not owe, and for what reason? Is your 501 (c)3 church prevented -- by the same "state" which "invests the Ďlicensedí minister with the power to perform marriages," to discuss anything you are reading in these reports? Then, since you spend time "worshipping" with that minister, in that 501 (c)3 church, what godís laws are you following? And why is America being cursed, I wonder?
The Republicrats are no different from the Demopublicans, except they might increase the size of the WELFARE state only 95 percent as quickly as the other half of the "Incumbent Party," while beefing up the POLICE state about 120 percent as fast.
It's the "freedom-loving, lower-tax, smaller government" Republican Congress which has given us the new National ID cards, the so-called national "deadbeat dad" and "child immunization" tracking centers to track ALL Americans, national gun registration (coming Dec. 1), limits on how much cash you can withdraw from your own bank account without explanation to the government, new laws which will soon allow armed soldiers to patrol our airports with M-16s, looking for "drug smugglers and terrorists" (the former harmless, the latter non-existent ... so far), armed ATF agents murdering California gun store owners in their shops, armed U.S. Marines murdering little shepherd boys in Texas ... and which in its spare time has passed the Clinton-Feinstein "gun-free school zone" bill ... twice.
I have never "touted a conservative line." I'm a Libertarian, and proud of it. Libertarians are not conservatives; we seek radical change ... back to the pre-1912 free society of the Constitution. (Author's Note: But, by all means, THE CONSTITUTION!)
I did not support the socialist Democrat. I voted for the Libertarian. If a plurality of Nevadans voted socialist, it's not my responsibility. I keep shouting as loud as I can, every week. If given the choice between feeding your children to a bear or a tiger, are you telling me you would dutifully make that choice as ordered -- that it would never even occur to you to shoot the bear, the tiger, AND the guy who told you only had two choices?
It's "Democrat Lite" Republicans like you, with your "lesser of two evils" rationalizations for giving our seal of approval to tyranny, who have brought this nation to the brink of armed dictatorship, and/or violent secession. (Author's Note: Sorry, I disagree. I believe the reason is because the people of America are worshipping the false god of the state, and not godís laws.)
Which are the proud successes of four years of GOP congressional control -- in terms of restoring our lost liberties -- to which you would proudly point? Name any.
As for "trashing the Republican candidate in Nevada," my newspaper endorsed both Republican Senate candidate John Ensign, and Republican congressional candidate Don Chairez ... and I personally wrote repeatedly in favor of Don Chairez, a decent and thoughtful judge (Author's Note: It makes sense to me -- a judge is a lawyer first ... ummmm, I wonder where the problem is here?) who took on the political powers of this town to overrule an illegal eminent-domain property seizure from a widowed Greek grandmother (among others.)
In fact, I recently wrote a column on the "six brightest new faces" in Nevada politics in election 98, and not one was a Libertarian; every one was a Republican.
On Nov. 3, all but one of those six lost -- and that one got elected to the entirely ceremonial post of lieutenant governor.
Itís not my fault these Republicans decided not to run on the kind of libertarian issues (however modest and watered-down) that worked so well for them in 1994. Many of us URGED John Ensign and Don Chairez to run on issues like property rights and restoring the Second and 10th amendments. But they (or their assigned handlers from the Republican National Committee) were afraaaaid. They didn't want to be called "far-right wackos." So they ran by claiming they wanted to "protect Social Security" and "make public education better." In other words, they ran on the platform of the WRONG PARTY.
At which point, having declined to identify themselves with any popular libertarian issues (these guys weren't even willing to openly embrace medical marijuana, a "controversial" measure which Nevada voters approved by a whopping 59-to-41 percent margin), they opened themselves to being defined by their opponents as nothing but "Democrats who hate homosexuals and want to ban abortion." Oh, there's a winning formula!
As another commentator said last week, "When you hold an election between a Democrat and a Democrat, you can pretty much assume it'll be won by a Democrat."
Usually, the real one. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at email@example.com.
The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872
(Author's Note: Do you think Vin "gets it" or, possibly, only a small part of it? )
Before you investigate the following site, you should be aware of the "bill" passed by that great republican Congress several years ago called the "land for debt swap". In this bill, the authority for the following was established, and actual ownership of much of the natural wonders and natural resources of America is to be turned over to the IMF through the UN. So when you see something like the creation of a new "federal protection" area, like recently happened in Utah over the largest known deposit of high grade, low sulfur coal in the world, you can understand what is really going on. Now, the possibility of coal production in Utah does not exist, but .... In twenty of thirty years, after America has been properly reduced to third world status, in the national interest and "for the economic interest" of the now destitute American worker, these areas will be re-opened by the "correct" multi-national corporations owned by the "correct" elite.
I also wish to once again point out the research work being done by a group of men who have identified the UN as the present day existence of the old British East Indies Company.
Biosphere maps can be found on this web site. I think this is what you were asking about with the biodiversity map. UN Heritage Sites and UN Biospheres are under United Nations ownership. Any way I can help I will be happy to. Try Yahoo search engine.
(Author's Note: The following is extremely timely for America at this time. Pay close attention to it. Nothing of the sort being talked of the Y2K "bug" is possible unless somewhere the decision was made to "permit" it to happen. By "permit", I mean that someone, somewhere, made the active decision to "help" the bug along. Is it going to be as bad as portrayed? I do not know, but I would hate to bet the lives of my family on it not being this bad.)
Senator Bennett Speaks Frankly to a Local Mormon Group
I received this as an e-mail. I regard it as authentic and important. Senator Bennett is the Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. This document indicates that Senator Bennett takes y2k very seriously, and that the senior officers of the LDS take it seriously. The day that 20% of the LDS members take it this seriously, you can forget about ordering a year's supply of stored food from a specialist retailer. The supply lines will be permanently jammed. I think his question about what the LDS will do when a member has been unemployed for three months is a good one. What will churches do for their members when this happens, which will surely happen in 2000? Note: a "stake" is the local meeting place of the LDS.
"Here are some interesting comments that Senator Bennett said about the year 2,000 computer problem. He spoke at a McLean Stake Fireside in October. The following are notes taken at the fireside: Notes taken by Steve Nichols, a member of the Arlington Ward, McLean, Virginia Stake in October 1998.
On Sunday, our stake had a family preparedness fireside on the year 2000 (Y2K). The speaker was Senator Bennett of Utah who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Y2K. I went to the fireside thinking that it would be interesting, but also thinking that Y2K was not a big deal. Senator Bennett convinced me otherwise.
The Y2K problem will be an unbelievably widespread problem that we each need to start preparing for right now. Anything that is controlled by a computer or a computer chip may malfunction in dangerous and unpredictable ways at the beginning of the year 2000. Unfortunately, everything is controlled by a computer these days. To illustrate the problem, Senator Bennett told the following stories:
To test a water treatment plant, the plant management rolled the clocks ahead to 2000 to see how the computer systems of the plant would react. The computer responded by immediately dumping all the chemicals it had into the water supply instead of slowing dispensing the chemicals as it was supposed to do. The water was then poison and unusable. (Author's Note: Public drinking water is basically unusable now, due to the same chemicals mentioned above. It is just that the slow poisoning is not noticed by the people.)
At a General Motors factory, the management also rolled the clocks ahead to see what would happen. The result was that none of the robots on the assembly line would work. The factory was useless. Moreover, when the inspectors tried to leave, the security system refused to let them out of the building.
Elevators have to be inspected regularly by law. When the year 2000 hits, elevators may think they have not been inspected for 99 years. When an inspection is missed, most elevators are programmed to go immediately to the basement and close their doors until the inspector comes. Don't get in an elevator New Year's Eve 1999.
In January 2000, Senator Bennett does not think that the national power grid will fail, but thinks that some areas will inevitably experience extended brown and black-cuts. Supplies of natural gas and telephone communications could also be interrupted. Long distance telephone communications will almost certainly be interrupted.
The FAA has been unable to guarantee that its air-traffic control system will not fail in January 2000. This may reduce domestic flight by 40% and make it necessary to ration air travel. International travel will be worse. The Federal Reserve thinks that it will be able to continue to clear checks and other bank transactions for the country, but each individual bank or brokerage may be unable to continue to do business. Chairman Greenspan informed Senator Bennett that the Fed is printing an extra ten billion in paper money to handle the run on the banks that is expected as people convert their money into cash before Y2K.
Senator Bennett told of warning one of his daughters about these problems. His daughter asked if he has spoken to the Church. He thought that was good idea, so he contacted an employee at Church headquarters responsible for worrying about these kinds of problems. That employee assured Senator Bennett that the Church has, or is, upgrading all of its computer systems to deal with the problem.
Senator Bennett then asked if he could question this Church employee. The senator wanted to know how the Church is going to contact missions, temples and members around the world when the international and national phone systems won't work; how the Church is going to transfer funds around the world with the banking systems not working; how the Church will respond to members who are out of work for three months or more because the equipment at the factory or office where they are employed is malfunctioning. The Church employee had to admit that while the Church has fixed its own systems, they had never considered how they would be affected by other systems that had not been fixed. Senator Bennett was then invited to a meeting with the First Presidency, Council of the Twelve, Presiding Bishopric, etc. to brief them on the Y2K problem. Senator Bennett told the Brethren that he had been asked by someone in government when the Mormons were going to start warning their people to get ready for the year 2000. President Faust immediately responded, "We've been warning them for thirty years."
A major complication of the Y2K problem is that it will be a problem world-wide. While all the problems I have described above will happen in the U.S., we will be relatively well off. Senator Bennett said only five countries in the world including the U.S. are doing anything significant to address the Y2K problem (Japan is NOT one of the five. The five are the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Singapore and one other).
This will cause huge economic upheaval in many countries. Senator Bennett was informed that the New York Stock Exchange has been refitting and testing its computers and thinks it will be able to continue trading in the year 2000. However, the Senator expects most exchanges in foreign countries to be shut down. For this reason, he cautioned us about investing in foreign stocks. It is anticipated that the economies of some countries will be devastated for decades by the Y2K problem. This anticipated turmoil around the globe will inevitably cause a deep recession, at least, in the United States.
You may wonder why we don't just fix this problem before it's too late. The answer is, it isn't possible. Senator Bennett has been informed that there are 160 billion lines of computer code around the world that have the Y2K problem. For every four lines that are fixed another error in the program is created. Therefore, everything has to be fixed, tested and then re-fixed. There simply are not enough skilled people or time left to do the job. Moreover, that does not include checking all the embedded computer chips that run everything from your car's transmission to your thermostat to your elevators to your children's toys.
Senator Bennett illustrated the cause of the Y2K problem with the following Allegory. A new wife was making a ham for her new husband. She cut off both ends. When the husband asked why, she replied that it makes the ham taste better. "Who told you that?"' he asked. "My mother," she replied. The husband went to his mother-in-law and asked if she cut off the ends of ham. She replied that she did. When he asked why, she replied that it made the ham taste better. When asked who had told her that, she indicated that she had learned it from her mother. The husband then went to his wife's grandmother and asked if she cut the ends off a ham before cooking it. She said she did. When he asked why, she replied that it was just habit, when she was young, the family oven was too small for a whole ham, so they cut the ends off to make it fit.
When computers were first being developed, they were not powerful enough to easily process dates with a four digit year. Early programmers used a two-digit year and saved millions of dollars. The early programmers, working in the '60s assumed that their programs would be obsolete by the year 2000 and that later programmers would use four digit years. The new programmers learned from copying the old programmers, and nobody ever started using four-digit years.
Anyway, that's the problem, the question is what should you do about it. Here are Senator Bennett's suggestions:
Needless to say, after listening to Senator Bennett we are very concerned and are trying to get better prepared for this-crisis. We hope this warning may help you do the same. Cathi Darrington, Administrative Officer, School of Business Administration, The University of Montana, (406) 243-6195.
The point that should be made here is how this ties into the desire of some to eliminate the transfer of information between people, particularly over the Internet. To understand what is coming in America, simply look at China. There, access to the Internet is strictly controlled, and violators are picked up and put into prison. I am quite sure that the wide use of computers will be blamed for the coming problems and those who use them demonized eventually. Only the "state" has the "ability" and the "necessity" to use computers wisely.
Also, the firm we use off-shore has the above problem in mind, and is taking steps to avoid it.
Research page for State Law, Gov't, Legislative:
This URL has links to all states State Law - gov't - legislative.
It has a search option and I think it one that you may find helpful.
(Author's Note: This last part is just for your potential research projects. Anything that you find which is of interest, please verify and share.)
Back at the end of Part IV, I asked you to please help two others start on this work. Now, I hope you are understanding why. We need many to study and understand. Is this the only way to bring others to understanding? No, it is not. I am hoping to short-circuit the time needed for many to really start learning, and helping America. I know how long it took me, and many others, to understand. I do not believe we have that much time anymore. The fact is, for many of the people on Free Republic and other forums, if you gave them this paper, Part VIII, or PART IX or X first, they would simply dismiss it as "those radicals again". This is also why I asked to not share this information with others, but please let them start with me at the beginning and ask questions as they go along. Now, please start answering posts about this information and, if you feel strongly enough about it, asking others to start what you are so close to finishing. All my best, David
Now that you have completed Part VIII, and if you are ready, please read Part IX. Part IX will show you how we got trapped in this mess to begin with, and why the Constitution does not apply to you or any other United States citizen, and why it never has.God Bless, David
Return to Table of Contents for