 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
It was George Washington, not the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution that has made today’s federal income tax possible. The Congress of the United States has always had the proprietary power to make laws respecting any income made on the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. Only Washington had sufficient power, authority and prestige to overcome the vigorous opposition of a certain segment of the American public living in Western Pennsylvania. These farmers had a general opposition to taxation of what they knew to be an unalienable right. Converting their grain crop to alcohol to solve a storage problem created income on their property not on property belonging to the United States of America. Only by pretending to be President under the newly ratified Constitution could Washington force compliance with the first revenue statutes that would eventually result in the dreaded federal income tax.
I am returning to this point because this is a significant point.
While I am connected to The National Liberty Alliance, connected to e-mail, connected by Internet Meetup Conferences, I am finding the name Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera repeated.
Just today I have seen the following links offered in e-mail:
THE MORNING SHOW with Patrick Timpone
You Have Found The Knowledge You Need To Limit Government.
What is this Thing Called "Freedom" in America.
The point is understood that Criminals took over voluntary government.
I found that out myself, independently, and just now I am connected to Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera's work.
I found out how the Criminals took over voluntary government through a series of books that include the following:
Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle
Quote Page 67,68
THUS, THROUGHOUT THE backcountry, “regulation” had been common for decades. It was not always successful and sometimes resulted in humiliating defeat. But there was tradition that whenever distant authorities got out of hand, our whenever outsiders threatened a bona fide settler’s landholdings, the people had an obligation to rise up and restore communal order. This way of thinking, moreover, had been strengthened by the actions and the rhetoric of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence, especially, was unequivocal:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide ne Guards for their future Security.”
Washington, Knox, and Bowdoin may not have taken these words seriously. But others did. To them, the people’s obligation to “throw off” destructive and tyrannical government not only was clear, but it had been further sanctified by the thousands who fought and died for the Revolution. It had become a sacred trust, a moral imperative, and “indispensable duty” as Judge William Whiting put it.
Page 178 Footnote 9
9. Dr. William Whiting, "Some Brief Remarks on the Present State of Publick Affairs," in Stephen Riley, "Doctor William Whiting and Shays' Rebellion," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 66 (January 1965) 131-32
So the idea that:
Only Washington had sufficient power, authority and prestige to overcome the vigorous opposition of a certain segment of the American public living in Western Pennsylvania.
So that idea is narrow minded?
Next book is:
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution
Picking up my copy again: I can see value in reading it one more time.
Chapter 5
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE WESTERN COUNTRY
Page 89:
Washington's attitude alone does not explain the single largest armed confrontation among American citizens between the Revolution and the Civil War, or comprehend the range of issues that provoked resistance to federal law in the frontier region of every state from Pennsylvania south to Georgia.
Note: Shays's Rebellion CRUSHED "resistance" in Massachusetts BEFORE the so called "Constitution" which "authorized" the conscription of an army to CRUSH resistance on a "Federal" level of "law."
Chapter 7
ASSEMBLY AND PROCLAMATION
Page 117:
Perhaps if the western Pennsylvanians had been alone in their resistance to the tax, protests would have seemed less threatening to the government. During 1791 and 1792, however, the petitions, assemblies, and violence against the excise were widespread. The frontier of every state south of New York experienced unrest. In the degree and kind of protest there was little to mark Pennsylvania as unique.
The law as a dead letter in Kentucky, where no one would pay, no one would dare collect, and no sheriff wold try to enforce the excise.
Page 118, 119:
The plan to single out western Pennsylvania as the unique seat of excise resistance did not emerge immediately. It was not the obvious response to widespread opposition to the tax. Initially, Hamilton considered armed repression of tax resisters in western North Carolina. Edward Carrington reported to Hamilton on anti-excise violence in that region during the summer of 1792. "What you remark," Hamilton wrote back, "concerning the non-execution of the excise law in N[orth]Carolina is very interesting. The probable effect of a continuance of the affair in the same posture is obvious.... If process should be violently resisted in the part of N. Carolina bordering on your state[i.e. Virginia], how much could be hoped from the aid of militia in your state?"25
President Washington's response to the same information was far less bellicose. This should surprise no one since it marked a well-known personality difference between the two men. Hamilton seemed often to "wish there was a war." Washington, on the other hand, felt more deeply the horrors of military engagement, was generally slow to anger, and more measured in his responses to trying circumstances.
Page 120
Hamilton had other reasons, however, for singling out western Pennsylvania. He favored testing the mettle of national law enforcement on the Pennsylvania frontier rather than in the Carolinas because "the government, from several obvious considerations, will be left in condition to do it." He apparently calculated that suppression of the excise resistance in western Pennsylvania would be less costly and more predictably successful for tactical reasons than Kentucky or the Carolinas. "Decisions successfully exerted in one place will, it is presumable, be efficacious everywhere," Hamilton predicted. Crush resistance at the most vulernable point and the more remote regions will fall into line. 30
Page 256 (footnotes)
25. A. H. to Edward Carrington, July 25, 1792, Papers of A. H., XII, 84.
29. A.H. to G.W., Sept.9, 1792, ibid., 344-346
30. Ibid., 344-346
And back to:
Only Washington had sufficient power, authority and prestige to overcome the vigorous opposition of a certain segment of the American public living in Western Pennsylvania.
?
Clearly the work done by DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA is missing the key points of who pulled the strings and why they were being pulled.
The order to pay taxes MUST be enforced in ORDER to maintain a Legal Money Monopoly Power. The plan MUST always be the maintenance of an idea that there is only ONE MONEY and that ONE MONEY is then controlled by the ONE DICTATORSHIP WORLD WIDE. All competition, including Whiskey as Barter Money, must be crushed out of existence.
Monopoly does not exist when competition exists; people will chose better over worse.
Next book:
Secret Proceedings
Rivera covers the concept of destroying the COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET Federal design of government so as to replace it with a MONOPOLY DESPOTISM; out with Federal Government and in with Consolidated/National Counterfeit Government.
So...I need to finish reading the Tax Man Washington Essay by Rivera.
The old Union was a confederacy, a kind of government of States, where each State retains its "sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right." The implicit purpose of the United States of America, with respect to the people of the states, was to preserve, protect and defend the sovereignty, freedom, independence and God given rights of the people in the states. The Articles of Confederation were good enough to beat Great Britain, but in the opinion of George Washington and his cronies, known as the Founding Fathers, they had to be repealed or replaced by a constitution that would allow the government to tax ordinary people. The Articles of Confederation confirmed the sovereignty of the States to be States and the inhabitants of the state to remain free. The United States, in Congress assembled could not possibly have the power to legislate for the People of the State or the inhabitants within the state, because such power would destroy the "sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right" of the States of the United States of America.
Washington knew he and his friends could never get the Articles of Confederation repealed or replaced, but he knew his friend Alexander Hamilton could make a new Constitution appear as if it had repealed and replaced the old Articles of Confederation.
The Founding Fathers, who knew the plan, did such a good job that most people today think that the Articles of Confederation were repealed and replaced by the Constitution.
So...the end of Voluntary Government, the end of Free Market Government, the end of any restraint at all, because the original lie worked, and it still works.
Any supposed authority resulting from a crime of fraud is false authority.
Is that not understandable?
Those so called Founding Fathers called themselves Federalists; which was a lie, a false front, as that group were Monopolists/Central Bankers/Nationalists/Despots/Criminals.
Why so many different words when those people were merely frauds?
The goal of the fraud is to transfer power from the mark to the fraud.
The mechanism by which the transfer of power flows is the ONE MONEY.
The TAX (which isn't a tax; it is an extortion payment) merely creates the demand for the ONE MONEY.
Why do people work for Federal Reserve Notes?
They MUST pay their taxes or be kidnapped, robbed, raped, tortured, or murdered if any resistance, or any question, is the response from the slave to the master.
There is then a demand for Federal Reserve Notes.
A Federal Reserve Note is inculpatory evidence proving the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime is in progress.
When did that crime start?
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
From:
Reclaiming Revolution
When the criminal claims that they are loaning money to the people who are being robbed, the people being robbed can easily know that the criminal is confessing their criminal mind.
If the criminal calls himself a Federalist, does it matter that the name sounds good when the fact that the criminal is a criminal remains true?
Back to Rivera:
The Constitution created a new Union comprised of the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America in and without the original thirteen States, called the "United States." The Congress of the United States was to have the power to legislate for these United States, but the States under the Articles of Confederation would remain as sovereign and independent as they had been before or so it was made to seem, until the Federalists could show the opposite.
So this is my point, please consider, offered to a candid world:
When language becomes confusing the fact that it becomes confusing is a confession of a crime in progress. The crime, in English, is called fraud. The criminal targets a MARK, or many targets are MARKED, and then a lie is told, and the lie intends to accomplish a goal, so long as the targets are led to believe in the lie.
Why would anyone aid, abet, lend moral support to, and lend material support to known liars? The answer is simple: to get a piece of the action.
Why would anyone credit, give credit to, known criminals?
Again the answer is simple: to get a piece of the action.
Why call a criminal a Federalist?
Why call a criminal a Founding Father?
Why call the inculpatory evidence that proves a crime is in progress a Constitution?
The answer is the same answer: to get a piece of the action.
What is interesting about interest payments made to people who put their Federal Reserve Notes into a Savings Account?
What is the accurate measure of "a piece of the action"?
If a deal looks too good to be true, something for nothing, does the Latin Phrase Caveat Emptor apply?
If the speaker speaks in terms that continuously result in confusion: Caveat Emptor.
The reasons why trial by jury worked all throughout human history includes the reason that no average moral person, having no vested interest in inflicting punishment upon someone, would punish someone based upon an obvious lie.
No law that caused confusion, in other words, would pass the Rat Smell test that is born into every moral human being as common sense.
If it looks like shit, and it smells like shit, there is no need to find the taste of shit.
Statutes that are very complicated among free traders who prefer to employ written contracts, so as not to allow errors in memory to alter the agreement, could not rely upon a Jury of Peers to ORDER PUNISHMENT in cases of a dispute among those traders; because language must pass the BULLSHIT test or RAT SMELL test, whereby average people can easily understand the meaning of the contract.
In other words, the so called fine print so often finding currency, and gaining currency, is a result of the obvious properties of lies: one lie requires another lie to cover the first one, then four more, then sixteen, and then no amount of Library space can store all the lies told to cover up the first one.
The good faith and credit of the American people MEANS, in plain English, that we the people produce whatever value can be BORROWED from us.
If we the people are the source of power; why are we hiring people to loan us, at interest, the money we make by our good faith and credit?
Why did the Constitution require fourteen Years and not twelve? The Constitutional Convention was the mother of all conspiracies, so the fourteen Years requirement was there to provide George Washington with an excuse for not taking an Article VI oath. The Constitution was a frame up calculated to elect George Washington to the Office of President for which he would not qualify "forcing" him to appoint himself President of the United States.
At the time of Shays's Rebellion the free people in the Constitutionally Limited Republic of Massachusetts faced a criminal organization that took over that POWER of DEFENSE knowable as government. The key feature in that struggle was DEBT based upon Fraud, or simple Fraud, with The Bank of England as the POWER forcing collections on DEBT.
Look here:
In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent.
The so called Federalist Founding Fathers were working for a piece of the action. When the free people in Massachusetts, such as Daniel Shays, lost the last battle of the Revolutionary War, against the criminals who took over the Constitutionally Limited Republic of Massachusetts, they ran to Vermont for sanctuary within the Federated Defensive government under The Articles of Federation.
There was then a president made by the fact that the criminals in Massachusetts (false authorities) demanded from the Governor in Vermont that their runaway slaves be returned; which included Daniel Shays.
The Governor of Vermont ignored the demand to return the runaway slaves.
All of the criminals seeking a piece of the slave trade were then clued in on the need to get rid of Free Market Government, government by consent, voluntary government, because people will choose not to be slaves when that option is realizable in point of fact.
The central banking monopolists, like Hamilton, tied very closely to The Bank of England, made a deal with the Slave Traders in the South, and that deal was called The Dirty Compromise. The so called Con Con (Constitutional Convention) was merely a deal to divide up the slaves among the slave traders who would eventually be LED by the Central Bankers into a so called Civil War to make sure that the victims, the MARKS, the targets, remain POWERLESS, vulnerable, and easy pickings.
The President of the United States of America and President and everyone outside the new Union, the United States, and under the protection of the Articles of Confederation, are beyond the legislative power of the Congress of the United States.
Why would anyone claim that someone must be able to figure out an elaborate puzzle in order to become a reasonable human being?
Like a shell game, where there are three shells (office of president, president of the united states of america, and president of the united states), and hidden under one shell is the prize?
Why does someone, anyone, ever, claim that there is any legitimacy at all, any credit at all, given to known frauds, or people who are victims of known frauds?
Either the person claiming legitimacy is a liar, or the person claiming legitimacy is victim to the lie: when the source of the POWER is a willful lie perpetrated by provable (beyond a reasonable doubt) liars.
On the date of enactment, September 24th, Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the new Union, the United States into thirteen districts. The division of the United States into thirteen districts, when only eleven States had ratified the Constitution, confirms that the United States, as the new Union, consists of the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. Eleven of the districts were named for the States that had ratified and the remaining two were named for Kentucky and Maine. On September 24, 1789, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States district courts for the districts of Kentucky and Maine could only be territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. The territorial jurisdiction of those two courts would not change when Kentucky was admitted into the Union on June 1, 1792 and when Maine was admitted on March 15, 1820.
Today, the modern Constitution of the United States can be recognized in Chapter 5 of Title 28 United States Code, the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. The territorial composition of the district and divisions of the federal district courts are shown in Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5. In those sections are found all names of the 50 States now in the Union created by the Constitution. We know that the districts and divisions are composed of territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, because Puerto Rico is the State identified in Section 119. Puerto Rico is a "federal" State but not a State of the United States of America. Puerto Rico has non-voting Representatives in Congress and no Senators in the Senate. Title 3 of the United States Code specifically excludes Puerto Rico as a State. Washington, D. C. is a federal State, but not a State of the United States of America.
The "one supreme Court" of Article III of the Constitution is ordained and established by the ratification of the Constitution, which provides that the holder of the Office of President shall appoint the Judges of the supreme Court. The perpetual vacancy in the Office of President caused by George Washington’s precedent setting refusal "to support this Constitution," by taking the proper oath of Office, has prevented the establishment of a real judicial court system. The courts established pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789 can only be legislative courts exercising "legislative power" derived from the proprietary authority over territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. They cannot be independent judicial courts exercising the judicial power of the United States of America, because, among other reasons, the power of appointment of the Judges of the supreme Court was granted to an Office of President that has remained vacant for almost 220 years. The President of the United States it should be noted appoints Justices not Judges to the supreme Court.
What are the possibilities of error in my analysis of the constitutional provisions presented here? My investigation can be easily confirmed by any computer word processing program. When one searches for the Office of President of the United States of America, the computer will not find the Office of President as a match and neither should the student. Similarly, the computer will not lie and tell you that a Justice is a Judge. That finding should eliminate all opinions of the federal courts. Purely legislative creations, all the federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court are without judicial authority.
The concept of due process being due to everyone without exception is easily applied to the concept of common law grand jury due process as is now being processed by those volunteers volunteering to be members of the National Liberty Alliance.
I do not agree with the decision to use the word "National," however the concept of free market government is offered and easily recognizable for as long as none of the members claim to be excepted by that same due process.
These ideas that a few people can elect themselves to be the masters of everyone else, utilizing the power of deception, threat, and aggressive violence, are merely criminals and they ought to be held to the same account as any other criminal.
Justice is not a synonym for punishment.
More than one person has offered agreeable meanings for the English word Justice.
Through all time, so far as history informs us, wherever mankind have attempted to live in peace with each other, both the natural instincts, and the collective wisdom of the human race, have acknowledged and prescribed, as an indispensable condition, obedience to this one only universal obligation: viz., that each should live honestly towards every other.
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.”
This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.