True History of The United States

The speaker is not a professional presenter, but is trying to deliver information about the true history of the country. They urge listeners to do their own research and not blindly believe what they are shown. They discuss the reasons for the Civil War, stating that it was about states' rights and not slavery. They mention the Libra Code, which established martial law during the war and is still in effect today, affecting personal and property rights. They also mention a document from 1933 that suggests that individuals do not truly own property, as the ultimate ownership is in the state. They discuss the removal of the original 13th Amendment from history books and the refusal of some states, including North Carolina, to ratify the 14th Amendment. I'm not a professional speaker or presenter. I'm just someone trying to deliver you information. What you do with this information is up to you. I'm also not advocating any kind of violence. Every problem in the world can be solved by who you see when you look into the mirror. This is not to be construed to be as legal advice of any kind. I put this presentation together so I could show the people of this great country a true and accurate view of history about what happened to our country. The facts I'm going to show you are not republic or democratic in nature. They are documents from the Library of Congress, state archives, Supreme Court, Senate and Congressional records and reports. Anyone can go get a certified copy of any of these documents for your own research. What I'm going to show you is a small but important part of what has delivered this country into its current condition. I kindly ask you do not believe what I'm going to show you. Please do your own research and the truth will be yours. One of the reasons we are in the shape we are in as a country is because we let others tell us what the facts are. The story I'm going to tell you is about a corporate takeover that history forgot to tell you about. J. Edgar Hoover said, the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that people cannot believe that it even exists. I promise you this conspiracy exists. So some things we're going to talk about today is why did we fight the Civil War? What was the purpose? Was it to free or create slaves? And how does it affect our personal and property rights today? Facts about the South succeeding from the Union. Slavery was not an issue. It was states' rights. Lincoln even told President Davis that slavery would be intact if they came back into the Union. Davis' response was, no, because slavery is not the struggle we fight in this war. Four states that fought with the North were slave states throughout the war. President Buchanan did not wage war on the succeeded states. All of these states succeeded while he was in office. On February 28, 1861, North Carolina legislators voted on whether they wanted a convention to consider succession. The call for a convention was defeated by 651 votes. North Carolina would not even consider succession. On March 30, 1861, in an address to the people of Texas put forth by representatives of Texas, given warning that under the pretense of freeing slaves, the actual intention of the incoming Lincoln administration was to enslave a whole nation. An ominous warning of what was to come. So why did North Carolina succeed from the Union? On April 15, 1861, the Secretary of War notified Governor Ellis of North Carolina that the federal government expected North Carolina to punish two regiments of troops to make war on succeeded states. In Governor Ellis' refusal, he closed with these words, I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of this country. I can be no party to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops in North Carolina. And North Carolina succeeded from the Union. This document is known as the Libra Code or General Orders 100, done April 24, 1863. It is the rules of engagement signed by the Secretary of War for the Civil War. We are still operating underneath these rules, underneath military rule. Here are a few of the articles that affect us today. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws as far as military necessity requires the suspension, substitution, or dictation. So what this Article 3 is saying is we're going to suspend all of your laws while we are in, while you're under military rule. Article 7. Martial law extends to property and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government, or not. Basically, they're saying right there, it doesn't matter if you were against this in the war in the South, or whatever the deal was, the martial law is going to extend to your property and to the person, whether they were enemies or not. That's pretty simple. That's how this affects the North also. Article 26. Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take an oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel everyone who declines to do so. Article 31. A victorious army appropriates or seizes all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its government all revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. Title to such real property remains in abeyance or suspended during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. And the last one we're going to talk about is Article 32. The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change. There's never been a treaty of peace ending the Civil War, and we're still under these rules. You own no property. Article 31 still applies to you today. Article 26 that we're going to talk about shows where they forced several governors and legislators out of office three years after the war was over because they didn't want to go underneath military rule. They wanted to stay underneath constitutional rule, where the states were the sovereigns. This document is from the nps.gov website, National Park Service, and the question here is where was the treaty signed, and they're talking about the treaty of peace to ending the Civil War. And their answer is there was no treaty signed to end the Civil War. This document is titled Contracts Payable in Gold, known as Senate Report 43 or Senate Resolution 62. It was done in 1933, 60 years after the Libra Code or General Orders 100 was written. The discussion on the floor here is we have three types of money, paper that represents gold, gold and silver, the actual physical substance, and we have fiat currency, which is worthless paper, which we use today. The comment here is that I have highlighted in yellow, says the ultimate ownership of all property is in the state. Individual so-called ownership is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user and must be in accordance with the law and subordinate to the necessities of the state. If you look at your deed, it says you're a tenant. Look up the definition of what a tenant is, you're a renter. So basically what happened or what this proves, one of the ways, is that you own no property. You pay mortgages on property that you own. You pay property taxes on property that you don't own. Your car you don't own. You own nothing. And when they say the ultimate ownership of all property is in the state, they mean that. That's how they can seize your property anytime they want to. It's really theirs and you're just using it. Fourth Amendment, the Constitution ratified in 1791, says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. Clearly, they took everybody's property in 1863 and this includes the North, the population of the North, and they did not notify anybody that this happened. They're very patient. So everything was settled after the war, right? What happened? In 1865, North Carolina was admitted back into the Union as the 12th state. On December 4th, 1865, North Carolina even ratified a new 13th Amendment, proving the state was back into the Union. The old 13th Amendment that was ratified in 1819 was removed from the history books in the Constitution, unlawfully of course. It said, if any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title, nobility, or honor, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office or trust, profit, under them or either of them. An example here is Esquire. Let's look at the original archive certified copy of the 13th Amendment. This came from the Texas State Library in 2009 and this is actually a certified copy of Virginia's Constitution along with the Constitution of the United States and on this page right here, you can see Article 13, which says exactly what I just read you. So, let's look at what an Esquire is, which is an attorney. Beauvier's Law Dictionary, 1856. Esquire, a title applied by courtesy to officers of almost every description, to members of the bar, and to others. It is a title next above that of a gentleman and below a knight. Now most of you don't really understand this because we just weren't taught it properly in school, but there are no titles in this country because everybody was a king, that's what a sovereign is, we were kings on the land. Only law could rule man, not man. That's why our Constitution, our Founding Fathers set up our Constitution, set up our Republic. Let's go down here to four. Esquires by virtue of their office as justices of the peace and others who bear an office of trust under the crown. Now you guys, I'm just going to go into this a little bit. You're going to need to do your own research and see why are we still under the crown. I'll show you some evidence of that, but really this alone could take a week. But just understand, an attorney, whether they know it or not, having the title Esquire is an agent for the crown. But North Carolina, along with other states, refused to ratify the 14th Amendment. Why? That's the one that says we're all U.S. citizens, what's wrong with that? March 2nd, 1867, faced with ratification failure, Congress passed over President Johnson's vetoes, three Reconstruction Acts, from March 2nd, 1867 to July 19th, 1867, declaring the southern state governments to be illegal, following our excerpts from President Johnson's veto message to Congress regarding its first Reconstruction Act. The military is being used to coerce the people into adopting principles and measures that they are opposed to, in which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment. The bills, without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the Constitution and utterly destructive to those principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure. The purpose and object of this bill is to change the entire structure and character of these states' governments, and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws and regulations, which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves. If they do not form a Constitution with prescribed articles in it, and afterwards elect a legislator which will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way through subjugation, neither blacks nor whites can be relieved from the slavery which the bill imposes upon them. So what President Johnson is telling you, that this 14th Amendment bill was going to make both blacks and whites slaves? Pretty strong language. What other evidence do we have of that? So the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction Acts went before the Supreme Court on four different occasions. First time, the court dismissed on technical ground that the court had no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his duties. That couldn't make him do his job. Second time, the court declined jurisdiction by holding that the case concerned purely political matters, instead of personal and property rights, which at one time was the only way you could get a case in front of a court if there was an injured party, a real injured party, and that gave him standing. The court held that a bill to restrain the defendants who represent the executive authority of government from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress inasmuch as such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing state governments of Georgia is not within the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, the court said it could not stop the federal government from completely annihilating or abolishing the state of Georgia. That's exactly what happened. It abolished every state. The third time, the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act and were argued before the Supreme Court. But before the Supreme Court could enter a judgment, the Republicans in control of Congress rushed through a bill repealing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Act of 1867, prohibiting the Supreme Court from proceeding on any appeal already before it. The court waited until the bill was passed and then postponed for further consideration of the matter until the next term. In the biggest battle between Congress and the Supreme Court in the nation's history, for the first time, Congress removed the court's jurisdiction to hear a case. The last attempt to obtain a ruling on the Reconstruction Act was made in Ex Parte v. Yeager. The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and this action was immediately answered by the introduction of a bill in the Senate explicitly prohibiting the Supreme Court from considering any case which involved the validity of the Reconstruction Act, followed by another prohibiting the judicial review of any Act of Congress. Congress made themselves, in the laws and bills they passed, untouchable, so much for the three equal-powered branches of government. The Tulane Law Review, Volume 28 of 1953, in an article entitled, The Dubious Origin of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Walter J. Sutton, Jr., former president of Louisiana State Bar, states, The most extreme and amazing feature of the Act is the requirement that each excluded State must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to again enjoy the status and rights of a State, including representation in Congress. Section 3 of the Act sets forth this compulsive coercion disimposed on Southern States. The most apt characterization of this compulsive provision, placing these States under military authority there to remain until they comply and to rely with this requirement of ratifying the rejected Fourteenth Amendment, is found in a speech of Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, a Northerner, a conservative Republican. During a floor debate on the bill, he said, My friend has said, what has been said all around me, and what is said every day, the people of the South have rejected the Constitutional Amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of a bayonet, and establish military rule over them until they do adopt it. And you can see the source there. So obviously, our founding fathers, you know, which the Constitution guarantees every State the right of republic, the right to have a republic. Our founding fathers never thought that they were going to get the States to ratify something at the point of a bayonet. That's not their intention. So what has Congress said about the Fourteenth Amendment? On June 13, 1967, United States Representative Rarick of Louisiana submitted to the United States Congress Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution urging the United States Congress to declare the Fourteenth Amendment to be illegal. He also entered a treaties on the illegality of the Fourteenth Amendment prepared by Louisiana Judge Lander H. Perez. You see, you guys, attorneys and judges have tried to help us. We have failed to support them. Congressional record 1967, you can get this out of any law library that you want, says the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection law or tool of usurpation, says the purported Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons. The joint resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by Constitutional Congress. Article 1, Section 3 and Article 5 of the United States Constitution says that should happen. The joint resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the states then in the Union and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the states in the Union. The unconstitutional Congress, now this document is about six or seven pages long in the Congressional record and so we're just going to go through the very first one, a little bit of it, don't want to spend all day on it. You can do your own research and see what it says for yourself. Article 1, Section 3, the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state. Article 5 provides that no state without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure two-thirds vote for adopting of the joint resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislators. The New Jersey legislator by resolution of March 27, 1868 protested as follows, the said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid. The natural and constitutional right of this state is to withdraw its assent is undeniable. That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition for the purpose of securing the assent are the requisite majority determined to and did exclude from the said two houses 80 representatives from 11 states of the Union upon the pretense that they were no such states in the Union. Now you guys got to remember this is 1867, or the Fourteenth Amendment was done in 1867. The people, the states came back into the Union in 1865, the war was over. North Carolina was back into the Union by December 1865. So they were into the Union, they voted and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, but now all of a sudden they're no longer in the Union because they weren't going to play in the same game that the White House or Washington wanted them to play. So how did the Reconstruction Act affect North Carolina? It actually affected every state in the Union at the time and it affected seven other states about the exact same way that it affected North Carolina as far as the governors being forcibly removed. So let's look into it a little bit. From 1865 until his removal in 1868, Governor Jonathan Worth fought against programs of Reconstruction emerging from Washington, D.C. He loathed the Fourteenth Amendment and the Reconstruction Act passed in early 1867, which provided for military rule, a new state constitution, and elections to replace the existing government. On June 30, 1868, General Canby of the United States Army issued General Orders 120, which states in part, to facilitate the organization of a new state government, the following appointments were made. To be Governor of North Carolina, W. W. Holden, Governor-elect, Vice Jonathan Worth removed. To take effect July 1, 1868, on the meeting of the General Assembly of North Carolina. Now remember in the Lieber Code where it says that if you don't want to take an oath to our new government, we can take you out, take you out of office, and that's exactly what they've done. And this is proof of it right here. Here is an archive-certified copy of General Orders 120. You can get it on the second floor of the State Archives of North Carolina. In response, in a letter dated July 1, 1868, Governor Jonathan Worth surrendered the government of North Carolina to W. W. Holden, under what he deemed military duress, during a time of supposed peace. The letter states in part, yesterday morning I was verbally notified by Chief Justice Pearson that in obedience to a telegram from General Canby, he would today at 10 a.m. administer to you the oaths required preliminary to entering upon the discharge of duties of the Civil Governor of the State, and that thereupon you would demand possession of my office. I intimated to the judge my opinion that such proceeding was premature, even under the Reconstruction legislation of Congress, and that I should probably decline to surrender the office to you. I do not recognize the validity of the late election under which you and those cooperating with you claim to be invested with the Civil Government of the State, and you have no evidence of your election. Save the certificate of a Major General of the United States Army. I regard all of you as, in effect, appointees of the military power of the United States, and not as deriving your powers from the consent of those you claim to govern. Knowing, however, that you are backed by a military force here, which I could not resist if I would, I do not deem it necessary to offer a futile opposition, but vacate the office without the ceremony of actual eviction, offering no further opposition than this, my protest. I would submit to actual expulsion in order to bring before the Supreme Court of the United States the question as to the constitutionality of the legislation under which you claim to be the rightful Governor of the State, if past action of that tribunal furnish any hope of a speedy trial. I surrender the office to you under what I deem military duress, without stopping as the occasion would well justify, to comment upon the singular coincidence that the present State Government is surrendered as without legality to him whose own official sanction but three years ago declared it valid. Governor Worth took the oath from Governor Holden, I'm sorry, Governor Holden took the oath from Governor Worth when he was elected in 1865 to be the Governor of North Carolina after the war was over. So it's not like, you know, he was an unlawful governor or anything like that. He was a constitutional government, and since that time we've not had in this state or many other states a constitutional government. And this is an archive certified copy of his letter. So other laws that affect the rights of the American people. Traded with the Enemy Act of 1917, this act was implemented to deal with countries we were at war with during World War I. It gave the President and the alien property custodian the right to seize the assets of an enemy or ally of an enemy, and if they wanted to do business in this country they could apply for a license to do so. In this original act, the definition of the word enemy, as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purpose of such trading of this act, the government of any nation of which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official agent, or agency thereof. Here is the original bill, and you can see the writing there. By 1921, the Federal Reserve Bank, who was the trustee for the alien property custodian, held in trust over 700 million dollars. But March 9th, 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act was amended at 48 Stat. 1 to include the United States person, because they wanted to take our gold away, so they had to make everybody in the United States who claims to be a United States citizen an enemy of the United States. Let's look at that law. This is 48 Stat. 1, so when you go into a law library, you pick up the 48th book of Congress, and you go to the first page, it says, you know, the number one, not Roman numeral, but number one, and you'll see this. And you can see here where it says, you know, on the October 6th, 1917 Act, which was the Trading with the Enemy Act, they're going to amend Section 2, Subdivision B, to say basically this. I'm going to highlight it so you can read it a little better. During a time of war, or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribed by means of license or otherwise, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Now, let's look at what that did. So the original Trading with the Enemy Act said this. We were the enemy, Section 2B was the government of any nation. But with this amendment done 1933, March 9th, 1933, remember that date, it basically changed it to this. During any time of war, or during any other period of national emergency declared by President, the President may control any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's pretty profound. We haven't had a Constitution for a long time. Let's look and see if there's any evidence. How do we know that these evidence affected people? First, Downs versus Bidwell, 1901. So this is before the Trading with the Enemy Act was ever done, but after the Civil War. The dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall Harlan states, two national governments exist, one to be maintained under the Constitution with all its restrictions, and the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, which is what we see today. The only people that are subject to the Constitution now are the Congress, Senators, and President, if really anybody, but they are a party to it, we're not. Senate Report 93549 states, the United States has been under dictatorial control since March 1933. Let's look at this Senate report for a minute. This is the first page, done in 1973. You can go get it online, you can get it from the Law Library, Library of Congress, wherever you want to. The Senate does a report on the emergency power statutes every two years. The last one was in 2008, and they say all the same thing. They don't have the language in them that this one has in it, but they all say the same thing. So let's look at it. This is the foreword to the Senate report. It says, since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. In other words, because we're in a state of national emergency, the federal law now exists that would not normally exist if we were just citizens of our state and not considered enemies of the United States of America. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. The vast range of powers taken together confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process, without reference to any constitutional process. If it's not normal, it's not a constitutional process. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communications, regulate the operation of private enterprises, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways control the lives of all American citizens. There is no present need for the United States government to continue to function under emergency conditions. That's just in the foreword of the report. Let's look at the first page of the report. Very first page, very first paragraph. A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far tendates or goes way beyond the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and Roman republics. And in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency. Civil War, they're talking about the Libra Code or General Orders 100 that put us underneath military rule and have kept us there. So you look back at what this report is saying. It says it can control and regulate private industry. Before 1933, you did not have to have a license to operate a business, to operate a vehicle, to build a house. You know, if you look up what a license is, it is because you are incapable of doing so. And the original Trade with the Enemy Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act that you're now a part of, in order to continue to do business in this country, they made all the original 1917 countries we were at war with get licenses so that they could monitor those countries and making sure they weren't sending profits back from the businesses that they were doing here in North America or in the United States. They weren't sending those profits back to Germany so they could use that money to wage war against the United States. Well, now, because we've been added to the Trading with the Enemy Act, now they can keep a complete eye and control us in every way, just as this Senate report says. So when you think your politician or your judge or anybody is innocent, that they don't know what's going on, like I said, they do these reports every two years and ignorance of the law is no excuse. They certainly hold you to it. So we've looked at some of the fraud on the federal laws that are only in existence because we were classified as an enemy. And we've seen that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully passed. Did they ever properly pass those 470, which now are well over 500, federal laws that affect us today? This letter is from the desk of Harley G. Lappin. This letter is from the desk of Harley G. Lappin. He is the director of Federal Bureau of Prisons. I'm going to zoom in here so you can look at it. It's done July 27, 2009. It says, attention all department heads. There has been a large volume of inmate requests for administrative remedies questioning the validity of the Bureau's authority to hold or classify them under Title 18. On the claim that Public Law 8772 was never passed or signed in the presence of a quorum or majority of both houses of Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Although most courts thus far have relied on Field v. Clark to avoid ruling on the merits of these claims, however, there have been some which have stated they were not bound by the Field case. But those cases did not involve a quorum clause challenge. So out of abundance of caution, I contacted the Office of Legal Counsel, the National Archives, and the Clerk of House of Representatives to learn that there is no record of any quorum being present during the May 12, 1947 vote on H.R. 3190 bill. And in the House, and the record is not clear as to whether there is a Senate vote on H.R. 3190 bill during any session of the 80th Congress. So what he's saying is he's done his own research and found out that all these inmates were right. There has never been a proper form or quorum in place to pass this law properly. So it's not a valid law. He goes on to say there's only one Supreme Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid, the journals of both houses must show that it was passed in the presence of a quorum. And he gives you the case there. The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 vote was a voice vote. But the Parliamentarian of the House states that a voice vote is only valid when the journal shows that a quorum is present and that it's unlawful for the Speaker of the House to sign any enrolled bill in the absence of a quorum. On May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 members in the Hall of the House was required to be entered into the House in order for the 44-member 38-to-6 voice vote to be illegal. In other words, out of the 218 members that were supposed to be there, only 44 showed up. The rest of the people did not want to sign that bill because they knew it was an unlawful bill making the United States people enemies and subject to the federal laws. It appears that the 1909 version of the Federal Criminal Code has never been repealed. In other words, since the new Title 18 hasn't been passed, the only true federal version that is in existence today is the 1909 version. He goes on to say, therefore, in essence, our only true authority is derived from the predecessor, which again is referring to the 1909 version. Although adjudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought to be beyond the jurisdiction of federal administrative agencies, this rule is not mandatory. So, although he knows it's fraud, they don't have to rule on the fraud. They don't have to hear or allow people to get out of the fraudulent jail. According to the Supreme Court in the case Thunder Basin Coal Company v. Reich, therefore the Bureau under the advice of legal counsel feels that it is the best interest of public safety to continue addressing all these administrative remedies requests by stating that only Congress or courts can repeal or declare a federal statute unconstitutional. You guys, people that go to jail for IRS issues, all the different frivolous things that people go to jail for, most of them all are under Title 18 and are all fraud. That's just the facts. And this is somebody in government that has done his own research. You can go get archived certified copies of the documents yourself and verify it for yourself. Do what he's done. But he's done his own research and he says, you know what, let's just keep it going. Let's just keep playing the game. They won't know any different. We won't let them have the truth. So a review of events that took away your God-given rights. 1861, Congress was adjourned sine die, which means without a sign of the day for a further meeting. And Lincoln could not legally reconvene Congress. In 1863, the Libra Code was established, giving the government the ability to take away your property and your rights, and putting the country under military rule or martial law. In 1867, the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, but was never ratified by a Constitutional Congress or presented to the President of the United States to be signed into law. This law made whites and blacks slaves, as stated by President Johnson. June 30, 1868, Governor Jonathan Worth was removed from office because he opposed the Reconstruction Acts of the 14th Amendment and military rule. March 9, 1933, the U.S. person or citizen was added to the Trading with the Enemy Act, making them enemy combatants, classifying them the same as Al-Qaeda. April 5, 1933, Executive Order 6102 was given, making it illegal for a U.S. citizen to own gold. April 17, 1933, Senate Doctrine 43 says, it doesn't matter how we pay for things, because the state owns it all anyway. 1948, Title 18 was never lawfully passed by Congress or Senate, making Title 18 null and void and without effect. So how did the Constitution structure our government? Ben Franklin was asked, what kind of government do we have? He said, a republic, if you can keep it. Article 4, Section 4, guarantees to every state in the Union a republican form of government. What is a republic? Republic is Latin for a public thing, and a public thing was God's law. What is a democracy? When I was doing my research, I came across this cartoon, and I think it sums it up the best. The squirrel says, I think a democracy is the best possible political system. The raccoon says, you're dope, and the fox says, that's great. The raccoon says, who supports a new law that all present squirrels should be eaten by a fox or raccoon? The fox or raccoon vote, and the majority is the majority. The squirrel tries to veto, but majority rule or mob rule means the law does not apply. The majority of the people can do what they want to do, and the minority just have to go along with it. The squirrel now doesn't think a democracy is the best political system. In a republic, the squirrel would have been protected by the law, and the raccoon and the fox could not have voted on eating the squirrel. Plato said, a democracy passes into despotism, which is a form of government which a single entity rules with absolute and unlimited power. Karl Marx said, democracy is the road to socialism. We started being called a democracy around 1913 by President Woodrow Wilson. He said the American people are unable to make good decisions for themselves, so the government needs to be able to make those decisions for them. Now I'm not a fan of Wilson, and I don't agree with him on anything. But I will say this, I don't think he was very far from the truth when he said that. The people decided to stop ruling themselves, and started asking for others to rule them for them. So how is the power divided in the government to protect the republic? We're supposed to have three branches of government, each with equal power. The executive, legislative, and judicial. This is from the .gov website. What power does the executive branch have? They control agricultural, commerce, defense, education, energy, homeland security, justice, state, interior, treasury, transportation, veterans affairs. They control everything. There is nothing that the president does not appoint to the office and control their job. So it is their policy that is decided. What power does the legislative branch have? They control their websites and their leadership, and that's pretty much it. Does the legislative branch have any control of anything of importance when the president can issue an executive order and do whatever he wants without approval of the House of Representatives, without your approval? So it doesn't really matter what power they have. The president just issued an executive order, which is unconstitutional. The first one was done by Abraham Lincoln so he could reconvene Congress. So it's completely unconstitutional and can only be done because we're now a military. What power does the judicial branch have? It doesn't matter. Congress will just pass a law restricting the courts from hearing any arguments it doesn't want the court to hear. They've certainly done this in the past. The president controls the Justice Department, so he controls what actions are going to be prosecuted in the courts. So let's look at who's working against the American people. We understand a little bit about what has been done to us, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more, but that should give you a pretty good color picture of what's going on. Now we need to find out who exactly is the enemy. The corporate federal government, when I say the queen, I mean the crown, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, lawyers, and unions are just to mention a few. And before we have any knee-jerk reactions, I'll say there are some lawyers out there and people who work for unions that are good people, and they don't know any different. They're being played, and we'll show you a Senate report that proves it. So there's a lot of good people out there that are playing. They're trying to do good things, but they work for bad people, and they don't understand what they're doing because they're not taking the time to investigate it. So how is the queen involved? Now, it goes back a long way, and this is just a small example of the fact that she's involved. But she gets her Social Security. This is statutory instrument 1997, number 1778. And it basically is amending a 1984 agreement on Social Security between the government of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the United States. It says, now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of Section 179.1a and 2 of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992, and all other powers enabling her in that behalf, is pleased by and with the advice of her Privy Council to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows. So the queen is making an order on how we're dealing with Social Security. And you can go through and you can research this yourself and find out exactly what they're talking about. But you can see clearly territory means as regards to the United States, not just a corporate United States government in Washington, D.C., but the states in District Columbia. Who controls the queen? 1213 Papal Decree. April 21st, 1214, the Pope in Rome formally accepted King John's surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of SL together with monies paid in tribute. And three months later, July 1214, Pope Innocent III raced to interdict against the English. Thus the Pope assured the English of access to heaven, from which they had been barred by their king's opposition to the Church of Nazarene or communist totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind. You've got to go back and research what's going on. But at this time the people did not have access to the Bible. The Church controlled the Bible and the Church told the people the only way you could get to heaven is if you paid. And so they made the king pay. The king turned over all of his properties, all of his money to the Pope. And so literally the crown is the arch treasurer to the Vatican still to today. It's just a fact. I'm sorry if I offend anybody, but these are just the facts. It's just history. So why haven't our lawmakers fixed this problem? This cartoon is a pretty accurate depiction about exactly what happens in Washington, D.C. First of all, when a congressperson or a senator gets elected into office, the first thing they have to do or they're told to do by their party is they need to raise money. So they spend the majority of their day, even senior congresspeople and senators, spend the majority of their day trying to raise money for their party. If they don't, their party will no longer support them, and they will just have a pretty hard time in Congress. So they end up going to the lobbyists because it's easier to get, you know, $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 at a time than $2,000 or $3,000 at a time from the constituents like us. So that is a very good source of some of the problems we have in D.C. Plus, you know, obviously our congresspeople are not writing any bills. The senators are not writing any bills. They don't even read the bills that somebody else writes. So it's pretty obvious that that's going on. Another good reason. The unions started out in this country as protecting the workers' rights. They started out helping young kids get out of work camps and things like that. But now they control and dominate our employees, our employers, our government. They are some of the biggest lobbyists in government. They control pretty much everything, local governments on up and federal governments. And the lawyers themselves. You know, this is a good cartoon. My law practice has been so successful they've named loopholes after me. They write things on legalese that you and I don't understand. They change the definitions of words constantly. So what meant something or a particular thing today means something entirely different tomorrow. And so we can't be protected by words we don't understand, and we use words like person. A person is a corporation. A person is not a living and flesh-bodied person or individual. So different meanings of words we need to understand how they use them and how they use them against us and how they get us to admit that we're a person. We admit that we're a corporation. Look it up in Blackslaw. Look up the definition yourself. And now they have jurisdiction over us because we've admitted to be what they want us to be. This is the report on the National Lawyers Guild, the legal bulk work of the Communist Party. It was done around 1915. It was a House report. And we're going to get into a little bit about it and see some of the things that it's talking about. The National Lawyers Guild is the foremost legal bulk work of the Communist Party, its front organizations and controlled unions, since its inception has never failed to rally to the legal defense of the Communist Party and individual members thereof, including known espionage agents. It has constantly fought against national, state, and local legislation aimed at curbing the Communist conspiracy. It has been most articulate in its attacks upon all agencies of the government seeking to expose or prosecute the subversive activities of the Communist network, including national, state, local investigative committees, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and law enforcement agencies generally. Through its affiliation with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and International Communist Front Organization, the National Lawyers Guild has constituted itself as an agent of foreign principle hostile to the interests of the United States. These aims, the real aims of the National Lawyers Guild, as demonstrated conclusively by its activities for the past 13 years of its existence, are not specified in its constitution or statement of about purpose. In order to attract non-communists to serve as a cover for its actual purpose, as an appendage to the Communist Party, the National Lawyers Guild poses benevolently as a professional organization. See, they're not telling you the truth. They get people to come in to think they're doing the good things, and there's organizations throughout this world that work that way. These are just the lawyers in the unions we're talking about in this particular Senate report. Newmass, a weekly publication of the Communist Party, featured an article entitled, The Need for the National Lawyers Guild. In its issue of June 14, 1938, by Charles Wright, an attorney for the Soviet government, a member of the Guild observed that, with the growth of the American Labor Party in New York, and they're talking about unions there, and the kindred progressive movements throughout the United States, the lawyers, who in many of the smaller communities are the nerve centers of political activities, will be an invaluable aid in galvanizing the latent liberal elements of the country into a political force. The National Lawyers Guild can and will form one of the most important adjuncts to the progressive movement, representing the interests and workers of the farmers. So there you go. They tell you clearly on what their purpose is. We're not using what people think they're going to do. They're telling you exactly what they're going to do with their own words. So what is the Federal Reserve? The Rothschilds, Eugene Meyer, Israel Schiff, Warburg, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Aldridge, and other bankers created the Federal Reserve Plan in a private meeting on Jekyll Isle on November 22, 1910. Research used this model. He's done some great research on this. Other people have plagiarized his work, but he's done a very good job on this. The original plan was called the Aldridge Plan. It was brought to Congress and to the American people by Republicans. It brought forth one national bank, and the people hated it. They understood our country at that time was better educated. They understood what a national bank had done to our country before and what it had done to other countries and would not tolerate it. And so the Democrats, pushed by Wilson, and the bankers put Wilson into office. It's very well documented. It came out with a new plan, which is called the Federal Reserve Plan, which is the exact same language in the plan. They just had 12 national banks. That was the only difference, and they renamed it as the Federal Reserve Plan. So you can see that the Republicans and Democrats, the upper end of those organizations have worked throughout history together to get the country pointed in a common direction. There are people on both sides that want the right thing for this country and have stood up and spoke for this country, without the support of the people, of course. But as an overall picture, the money behind them have kept the country going in the same direction, and that is towards the wrong direction. So in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed with only three congressmen voting on it. Congress was not properly adjourned during the Christmas break and allowed this to happen. Charles Lindberg, representative of Minnesota, said, the financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers a finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. That system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the president signs this bill, the invisible government by the monetary power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The worst legislative crime of the age is perpetrated by this banking bill. It was signed in 1913. The Great Depression happened in 1929, which gave the banks more control over more of the country. At the time, the national banks, the Federal Reserve banks, really only had power over the Northeast. The rest of the country was financing their own growth, and they didn't like it. So 1929 came along, which took a lot of those banks out, and worked out pretty good for the Federal Reserve, but not so good for everybody else. Congressional Record March 3, 1934. Congressman Wideman stated, So the paramount issue of the day is this. Shall the government of the United States be run for the benefit of the international bankers, or shall the citizens of the United States be given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Shall we replace the Statue of Liberty with a golden statue erected to the God of Greed? Shall we forget that the only time our Savior used for us was when He drove the money changers from the Temple? Let us reestablish the principle that we all believe in, that all men are entitled to the right to work, to own their own homes, and to reap a just reward for their labors, and to enjoy nature's sunshine as God intended. We owe it to our children that we shall not depart and leave them in a condition of bondage and slavery to organize greed and gold. Court Case Lewis v. The United States It was a case where Lewis was hit by a Federal Reserve vehicle. He sued the United States for damages, and the court said, The Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned. We conclude that the Reserve Banks are not Federal instrumentalities. They are no different than Federal Express. So how is the government using your taxes? This is the Grace Commission Report, done in 1984. Ronald Reagan, when he came into office, wanted to find a way to save the American people money, and so he commissioned Peter Grace to look into taxes to see how he could save people money on their income taxes. This is part of his response. Mr. President, you have been so correct in resisting attempts to balance the budget by increasing taxes. The tax load on the average American family is already at counterproductive levels, with the underground economy having now grown to an estimated $500 billion per year, costing about $100 billion in lost Federal tax revenues per year. The size of the underground economy is understandable when one considers that median family income taxes have increased from $9 in 1948 to $2,218 in 1983, or by 246 times. This is runaway taxation at its worst. One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government, as we have identified in our survey. Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law-abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy, a vicious cycle that must be broken. With two-thirds of everyone's personal income tax wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by the interest in the Federal debt and by the Federal Government contributions through transfer payments. In other words, and these are his words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government. So the IRS is a private debt collector for the private entity known as the Federal Reserve. Who is the IRS? The GAO or the Government Accounting Office has the IRS listed as a foreign corporation. The 1954 Army Handbook has the IRS listed as a foreign debt collector. That's all they are. Yet we give them all the energy and credence in the world because we fear them, the little man behind the curtain. This is a copy of the Grace Commission Report. So is the government trying to protect us or control us? This is National Security Study Memorandum, also known as the Kissinger Report. It was done in 1974, declassified in 1989. It's about a 130-page report. We're just going to talk about a couple of different little things in it, but you need to read the report in its entirety so you understand exactly what your government is trying to do for you or to you. Section 28. World policy and programs in the population field should incorporate two major objectives. A. Actions to accommodate continued population growth up to 6 billion by the mid-21st century without massive starvation or total frustration or developmental hopes. B. Actions to keep the ultimate levels close to possible as 8 billion rather than permitting it to reach 10 billion, 13 billion or more. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement-level fertility, a two-child family on average, by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2% growth rate to decline to 1.7% within a decade and to 1.1% by 2000. Compared to the median projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer people in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action, which is part of this report. The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies. To make it effective, the U.S. leadership is essential. So let's look at some of the topics they talk about in this report. Chapter 5, Implications on Population Pressure for National Security. They want to make sure we don't have too many people who could harm national security. Actions to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline. So they're going to do some kind of action to create some kind of condition for fertility decline. You can do your own research on that and we'll go over that in just a little bit, but it's not something that they're trying to get you to do willingly. We're not talking about the pill. Functional Assistant Programs to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline. So they're going to create these conditions. Food for Peace Program and Population. That part of the report talks about how they were going to work with these third world countries and basically use food to control whether or not they were going to put certain things in place so that they could start getting their population in control. In the mid-40s or 50s, on those pages of this report, they talk about how the American woman was staying home having too many babies and so they basically need to get her out of the house, get her working and work on taking down the family unit so you stop having so many kids and you have to go out and work more and gosh, parents don't want to have 10 kids when they're out working. It's hard to raise them that way. A, Research to Improve Fertility Control Technology. Let's look a little bit at a few things that may be related to this. ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This is on hydrogen fluoride and fluorine. Some of this is what you find in your water, toothpaste, you shower in it, you drink it constantly. Let's look at how hydrogen fluoride and fluoride may affect my health. In adults, exposures to high levels of fluoride can result in denser bones. However, if exposure is high enough, these bones may be more fragile and brittle and there may be a greater risk for breaking bone. In animals, which we are a version of an animal, exposures to extremely high doses of fluoride can result in decreased fertility in sperm and test feed damage. This is by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This next one is on the National Autism, you can get it off their website, and I'm not going to say this, right, I'm not a professional speaker and I'm not going to claim to be, but a thimerosal is an inorganic mercury compound that is metabolized to ethyl mercury and thiosilicate and has been present since the 1930s as a preservative in some vaccines and pharmaceutical products to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination. So let's look at what that is. The facts. Mercury is hazardous to humans. The use of toxic poison as a preservative is undesirable, unnecessary, and should be eliminated entirely. The United States is in the midst of a tragic epidemic of autism. An analysis of the U.S. Department of Education data from 1992 to 1993 in comparison to 2001 indicates there has been an average increase of 644% among U.S. children. Now, if you go through and read this report, it's not that the numbers didn't increase because they got better at reporting it or anything like that or diagnosing. You can see at the bottom it says confirmed autism epidemic is real and not due to changes in diagnosis or population changes nor is explained by other factors. It is explained by the poisons that we ingest in our body. That's simple. The poisons we clean with. So where do all the other taxes go? If I stop paying my taxes, how will the roads and schools get built? The GRACE report shows you that all your income tax is wasted or goes to pay interest on the national debt, which is peer profit to a private bank called the Federal Reserve. Let's look at North Carolina's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or the CAF report and see if we can find a clue there. You can get this from the osc.nc.gov. You can get it for whatever state you're in, whatever county, city. They all have these reports. Now, it shows total assets up here to be $82 billion. This is on page 82, I think it is, of a 300-plus page report. Total liabilities, $11.9 billion, which gives North Carolina the state of $70.9 billion in assets. There's a YouTube video out there of an Oregon congressperson on the floor raising cane in his state because they're trying to raise taxes, and he just filed his CAF report for the first time and realized there was over $4 billion in cash that was unallocated that they could use for what they wanted to do, but that's not what they want to do. They want to raise taxes, and the reason why they want to raise taxes is to keep you working and to keep you better controlled. To get more information on this, you might want to go to Walter Buren's site, which is caf11.com. He's got a lot of good information on it. Now, we're going to talk about how our banking system works. First, I want you to understand that our current monetary system is based on debt. This is a Federal Reserve note. Note means debt instrument or promise to pay. You cannot pay debt with a debt no matter how hard you try. So, we're going to look at our Constitution and see what it tells us about paying debt and try to understand a little bit about how our monetary system really works. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution clearly states the following. No state shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender and payment of debts. Pretty simple. So, is our current money backed by substance? No. This is from the federalreserve.gov website. It pretty clearly states that it's no longer backed by substance. So, are the states violating the Constitution? North Carolina Constitution, Article 6, Section 7, under Oath, says before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath. They solemnly swear or affirm that they will support and maintain the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the Constitution and the laws of North Carolina, not inconsistent therewith. Now, North Carolina General Statutes 105-357A, underneath Medium of Payment, states taxes shall be payable in existing national currency, which is the Federal Reserve Note, which is not gold or silver. So, North Carolina has a law that is unconstitutional. Clearly, the Constitution says no state shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts. So, what's going on here? Are you violating the Constitution with how you pay debt? No. You're not a party to the Constitution. You're an enemy of the United States, same as Al-Qaeda. But just like the 14th Amendment that they didn't pass properly, and just like Title 18, that are only in effect because you're an enemy of the United States, they were never lawfully passed or ratified. They had to give you out here, which is known as House Joint Resolution 192 or Public Law 7310. It's located at 48 Stat. 112. It was passed to make it illegal for anyone to require you to pay a debt in a particular kind of currency. Let's look at this one. This is an archive-certified copy of that particular law. To assure uniform value of coins and currency of the United States, that every obligation contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency or in an amount of money the United States measures thereby is declared to be against public policy. And no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto shall be discharged upon payment dollar for dollar in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts and your signature is legal tender for public and private debts. This is the origins of Accepted for Value. B. As used in this resolution, the term obligation means obligation, payable in money of the United States. And the term coin or currency means coin or currency of the United States including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banking Associations. So it's very clear nobody can require you to pay a debt in any particular kind of coin or currency including Federal Reserve notes. This law has never been repealed. It's still on the books. You can go into a law library and find it. And it's very hard to enforce, but you can do it. You can start Accepting for Value your mortgage payments, your taxes, anything. It's a legal and lawful way to pay debt. So let's talk about how money is created. First, Congress votes to increase the federal debt by let's say a billion dollars and instructs the United States Treasury to write an interest-bearing bond for a billion dollars. The Treasury offers the bond to the Fed against the taxpayer's ability to pay. This is what a bond looks like. This is a 30-year bond at 7.58% interest. So technically, Congress is telling Treasury to sell you into slavery to a private bank called the Federal Reserve. Congress is saying, hey, now Congress has the right to make money. They can print money. It's in the Constitution. They can do it. But they don't have the right to delegate that authority to somebody else. And that somebody else does not have the right to charge authority or usury, interest or usury, against it. So Congress literally is saying, hey, yeah, print more money. We'll get these people to work and pay off the interest for you. The U.S. Constitution, the 13th Amendment, says neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Pretty clearly, there's some involuntary servitude there. We're paying interest to a private group of bankers that we don't want to, that we don't need to, that it's not necessary for. So let's look and see how this works. This is a birth certificate, but it works the same way as it would if it was a car or a house. When you go buy a new car, you or the dealer sends the manufacturer's certificate of origin to the DMV, and now your state's DMV, along with the county that it's registered in, knows that it's got a new vehicle that's going to start paying taxes. Technically, you're going to pay taxes, but that vehicle is going to generate more income for them. They place all these new assets on a ledger and sell bonds against them. So just like a hospital, if they were going to build a hospital, they would put a business plan, say it's going to make this much money. They'd go to the public and say, would you like to buy these bonds? It'll pay you this much interest. And people, yeah. So they buy the bonds. They finance the building of the hospital. They buy the future profits of that hospital, what they think is going to make, what they think that hospital is going to make. And everybody wins. The people earn interest, and the bank or the city doesn't have to go borrow money from a bank to build a hospital. That's the same way the birth certificate works. Now the state knows it's going to have a new income-producing asset when it turns 18 or 16. They keep track of it because you fill out a Social Security form that was completely voluntary if you go back and look at the rules. You never had to have one. You still don't have to unless you want a bank account or drive or do anything like that. But you never had to have one, and they track your entire school, work, and everything through this. Big brother keeping an eye on you. Then you fill out this W-4, which is an Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate. Now I'm not going to tell you what to do about taxes, but you need to look up the laws, what an employee is. An employee is somebody who works for the government. What is income? Income is profit. If I had a cell phone or something that I bought for $20 and sold it for $40, the $20 that I made on it is profit. If I went out and worked and traded my labor for that $20 cell phone, that's the equal exchange of value. Somebody thought my labor was worth $20, and I thought that phone was worth my labor, and so we made an equal exchange. And that's what we did. No income. So, number three. The Fed buys the bonds by simply creating a book entry, a bookkeeping entry for $1 billion to credit the government's checking account. They just created a digital book entry. They don't transfer gold. There is no gold. They don't do anything. They just hit the button, and voila, there's $1 billion for them. The Treasury now writes checks against the created credit. These checks are dispersed throughout the country, endorsed by recipients, and deposited in the banks. The banks send the Treasury checks to the Fed to be cleared. The Fed debits the Treasury's account with credits. The Fed debits the Treasury's account and credits the banks with the amount. These credits increase the banks' reserves. We're going to talk about that a little bit also. These reserves serve as a base used by the commercial banks to create checkbook money and to lend it out at interest. So, they're going to use this to lend more money out to you at interest. And now you see the one through six arrows. Now you've got the other arrows to go to the banks and come out in many different ways, and that's where most of the money is created. So, we're going to talk about that next. First, UCC Law and Federal Reserve Publications. UCC Law 3-102c says, Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any inconsistent provisions of this article. UCC Law governs all financial instruments, and what they're saying is we may govern all financial instruments, but UCC Law is subordinate to what the Federal Reserve says. It's very important. So, you go to the bank to get a loan to buy a home and sign a promissory note for $100,000. The bank deposits this $100,000 note into a bank account with your name on it. They have to. It's a law. The bank gives you a check for $100,000 so you can go purchase your home. Has the bank loaned you any money? Now, there's all kinds of fraud out there in the mortgage market, and it really starts right here. No. You made a deposit with the bank for $100,000, which is your promissory note, and the bank gave you a check for $100,000. Now you're even. It's against the law for a bank to loan you its depositors' or investors' money. Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, says, of course they, meaning banks, do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did, no additional money would be created. This is the title of this article. This is the title page for Modern Money Mechanics. Well, the worst part isn't that you're paying a bank principal an interest for money that the law says you did not borrow. The worst part is that the bank is using your promissory note as reserves so they can loan out more money. Your promissory note became a tier one asset for the bank, allowing them to take your $100,000 note and lend out $900,000 more to other customers. In that book, Modern Money Mechanics, they give you this example. First, they show you stage one, or they show you the initial reserves provided and they start with $10,000. And they show you the loaning process, how it creates excess reserves with every process. When they loaned out $10,000, they only had to keep $9,000 in reserves and so they created $9,000 out of thin air. If you follow this through all the stages, eventually it makes out to where they have $90,000 in additional money. Thus, it says at the top here, thus, each stage after stage of expansion, money can grow to a total of 10 times the new reserves applied to the banking system. I wish money would grow 10 times in our wallet. As the new deposits created by loans at each stage are added to those created at all earlier stages and those supplied by the initial reserve creating action. Here they give you a graph of what that looks like. The initial deposits there to the left in the dark, $10,000 and everything else is money completely created by the act of loaning money. Your promissory note became money, became cash, and now it's in the bank as an asset. Money and Banking, page 11, explains that when banks grant loans they create new money. The new money is created because a new loan becomes a deposit just like a paycheck does. Next is a copy of a promissory note that has been stamped pay to the order of without recourse so it could be deposited by a bank. Here's the first page of a promissory note. It's a normal average promissory note. Here's the second page and I zoomed it in there so you could see where it says pay to the order of. They turned that promissory note into the same thing as cash, same thing as a check, whatever it is and deposited it into the bank. Money and Banking says most people suppose that banks lend the deposits of its customers. However, no bank ever lends its deposits. I bet you thought from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York says banks create new money by depositing promissory notes. The receipt of cash from depositors increase both its assets and its deposit liabilities which enables it to make additional loans and investments. It accepts as an asset that borrows debt obligation. Banks create new money by depositing promissory notes and it also says money does not have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by a government or be in any special form because the most common form of money is your signature. Here's the top page for that book. He faces a debt from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says such newly created funds are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations. A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor. Depositors' balance rise when the depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan or by buying securities from the depositor in exchange for the note or security. What they're saying here is if you walked into the bank and you borrowed $100,000 to buy a house, that bank takes that $100,000 promissory note, deposits it into the bank. If you had good credit, it becomes a tier one asset and they can monetize it or expand it 10 times. If your neighbor walks into the bank with $100,000 to be dug up out of his backyard and bought $100,000 CD, he deposits that into the bank. It becomes again a tier one asset. The bank can monetize it 10 times the same way they can your promissory note. The difference is they're going to pay your neighbor back at interest and at the end of five years, whatever the CD is, he gets all his money back. But you don't get anything. They go on to say, in this case, no one loses a deposit. The money supply is simply increased. New money has been brought into existence. This is the title page. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Federal Statutes, Title 12, says banks must follow the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. While the 2003 edition of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles on page 41 underneath the section of cash and cash equivalent states anything accepted by a bank to deposit would be considered as cash. So your promissory note is deposited at the bank the same way your paycheck is. The bank uses that deposit as reserves so they can create more money to loan out to other customers. Further evidence to money we use today is created by you. Congressional Record 1933, page 83, says that money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and all the other property of all the people of the nation. This is a page from that particular Congressional Record. Congressional Record April 9, 1934. Congressman Patman says, A Federal Reserve Bank has a great privilege. It has the right to issue a blanket mortgage on all the property of all the people of this country. It is called a Federal Reserve Note. For that privilege, section 16 of the act provides that when a government prints a Federal Reserve Note and guarantees to pay that note and delivers it to a Federal Reserve Bank, that Federal Reserve Bank shall pay, it seems to be mandatory, he's saying, to charge an interest that is set by the Federal Reserve Board. The law has never been put into effect. The Federal Reserve Board sets the zero rate. Instead of charging an interest rate, which the law says they shall charge, they set no rate at all. Therefore, for the use of this great government credit, these blanket mortgages that are issued against all the property of all the people of this nation and against the incomes of all the people of this nation, they do not pay one penny. Not one penny of the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank is owned by the government or the people, it is owned by private banks exclusively. They do not pay one penny for the use of that great privilege to the people or the government. So your labor has built or rebuilt just about every nation in the world and have you received any consideration for lending the world your credit? You're the best slave because you think you're free and they've also used your money to wage war against people and it's hard to understand but when you really start looking into the history of our country, you can see why maybe people in other countries are mad at us because we've allowed these people to do what they've done and we've financed them. We've provided the funding for them to do it. Report to the Comptroller Currency, 1963, Banking and Monetary Studies. Whatever their other hairs, a long line of financial heretics have been writing speaking of fountain pen money, money created by the stroke of the bank president's pen when he approves a loan and credits the proceeds to the borrower's checking account. So what does a bank do when it approves a loan and credits the proceeds to the borrower's checking account? So what does a bank's accounts look like if this is really true? This is a financial 10 report. You can go to FDIC.gov and get this report and look at any bank you want to. It's FDIC insured. This particular bank has $2.6 billion in assets and it also has $2.6 billion in liabilities. That is line 2 and line 15. This bank has total equity capital of $325 million. So all the buildings equipment assets stock preferred and non-preferred stock equals $325 million. But somehow or another this bank has had $2.1 billion to loan out. So this shows and proves that banks create money out of thin air. Nowhere on their ledger will you find that they had $2.1 billion to loan. They created it with your promissory note. So if banks work that way why hasn't somebody sued them? Well they have and they've won. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Trum Daly. In the Justice Court of Minnesota County of Scott Township of Credit River Justice Martin v. Mahoney the jury found that the plaintiff who is the bank was not entitled to recover possession of lot 19. That because of failure of lawful consideration which in other words the bank did not loan any money to this customer to this gentleman who was an attorney the note and mortgage dated May 8, 1964 that the share sale on above described premises is null and void of no effect. That the plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or land thereon as is above described. Section 50, 51, and 52 of America's Jurisprudence 2nd edition under actions on page 584 states no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon or any manner dependent upon a fraudulent illegal or immoral transaction contract to which the plaintiff is entitled to pay. See no bank ever loans money and it's conversion they take your promissory note and convert it into money which they didn't tell you about and they give you your money back and so there's no lawful consideration there's no risk and without any risk there's no contract and no contract means all these foreclosures that are going on today every one of them this is just one of the reasons there's fraud not to mention everything else but here is the testimony from their government website and you can pull down all the documents it's got testimony from the Federal Reserve Bank from the bank that he that was foreclosing on him and they all said the same thing yep we didn't loan you any money but they thought the judge and the jury would go their way and they didn't this is all three pages so are the banks breaking any laws let's look at a few this one is important this is the Banking Act or the Currency Act of 1864 it's an act to provide a national currency secured by the pledge of the United States bonds and provide for circulation and redemption thereof section 27 and be it further enacted that it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the provisions of this act to countersign or deliver to any association company or person any circulating notes promissory notes is a circulating note contemplated by this act except as here before provided in accordance with the true intent and meaning of this act and any officer who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor and on the conviction of the court in which he shall be tried section 28 and it shall be further enacted that it shall be lawful for any such association to purchase hold and convey real estate as follows and it goes through the couple of reasons five reasons how they can hold property the bottom of that to hold real estate under mortgage or hold the title and possession of any real estate purchase to secure any debts due to it for a period longer than five years how many bankers and people that work in banks would be going to prison for 15 years if this law was enforced section 53 and be it further enacted that if the directors of any association shall knowingly violate any provisions of this act all the rights privileges and franchises of the association derived from this act shall be therefore forfeited thereby forfeited and in cases of such violation every director who participated in or ascended to the same shall be held liable for his personal and individual capacity for all damages which the bankers were doing what they do every day it's completely against the law here is a 2009 popular name table of this you know particular section and you do this so you can see what amendments have been done and the currency act that we just talked about last was amended in 1908 and they've never taken those particular parts of the national but the people that we elect to enforce it won't do it Julius Caesar was assassinated by the senators of imperial Rome for turning the empire over to the Canaanite bankers Rome was once a great and mighty power but it was destroyed without a battle as was Babylon Egypt and Greece the bankers have ordered the murders of kings world leaders and presidents because they threaten their control research executive order 11,110 signed into law by president Kennedy for the first time since 1913 it was going to start allowing treasury to print money again without the fed's approval then research how long it took president Johnson to repeal that order he did it within 24 hours of Kennedy's death and we the American people support this you pay the bankers usury on money they did not loan you for property you cannot own you pay the IRS a foreign debt collector for the federal reserve so they can hire people pay judges to put your friends neighbors and family members in prison unlawfully why? why are you paying money to people so they can poison kill and control you when are you going to say enough is enough?