Getting Started:. Study Guide:. Read More:. Join our exclusive membership to gain access to the most powerful redemption tools on the planet. Read More. All of the Cracking the Code manuals had serious errors. Because all names are no more than property, no one! The primary reason we are faced with the current dismal state of affairs is people's misunderstanding ofthe nature of their name.
Whereas a. Your true name more closely approximates who you. No man can have more than one Christian name; though two or more names usually kept separate, as John and Peter, ma:Y undtmbtedly be compounded, so as to form, in contemplatioitoflaw, but one.
A letter put between the Christian and surnattle, as an. Peterson, is no part of either. E NAME to ensure your continuectsubjugatic;m. This phenomenon has no particular significance in our society-except. Qutnot every. The judge is calling out a name in one language1. In strict accordance with Revised Article 9 dictates and the remaining articles.
The best time for handling trouble is before it,arrives: and this new package affor-cfs. The most dramatic aspect of the third edition, is the facility for 0btaili! This no longer ne. Government" section of the Los. The moneymaking machinery qf the fedml co. This is wher. Even the listings for the U. Post Offices located in City of Los Angeles takes up only9.
District Court listings. The non-judicial foreclosure process follows closely thereafter-and no one has a monopoly on it. The code-encrypting esquires of the Money Power have crafted the UCC, and now Revised Article 9, for the high-speed transfer of wealth yours into Big Srother's coffers without the nuisance of consulting the courts.
For this very reason, and because the Code is now cracked, regular folks can use the same procedure for thwarting would-be legal marauders -and can reverse the wealth-transferal flow against anyone who foolishly believes he can take private property without just compensation. You need not toil under the threat of "paper terrorism" ofthe legal system any longer. With what is available here you can, with certainty and confidence, regain control of your life and protect yourself, your family, and your property from the rapacious 8 Moloch 9 that is government-and separate any would-be bandit in the employ thereof from his wealth and property if he insists on proceeding without compensating you.
Caveaf: This treatise constitutes neither the practice of law, nor the giving of legal advice, and is for informational and educational purposes only.
You are responsible for yourself and your own actions. The creators of the system have achieved preeminence by knowing these foundational principles of human interaction and encrypting them into "codes" for their own aggrandizement, while keeping the uninitiated ignorant of such knowledge and the means for accessing it. The 10 foundational maxims5 of commerce, from which all codes, law, and statutes are derived and based upon, are:.
In general a warning or emphasis for caution. All law is centract; and in every interchange between people a contract is. A timeless and universal maxim of law: "Contract makes the law. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce.
Sacrifice is the measure of. A lien or claim can be satisfied,only through rebuttal by. In commercialllegal 9 matters there are ornlyJwo kinds of people: debtors10 and It is. Codified law is precise. The rules of all forms of law are set forth in writing, words, syntax, grammar, etc. The way words are legally defined 6 This issue is so profound that even kn.
Career criminals, even susp,ected murderers, are taken at their word and put on the witness stand if it will serve the prosecution.
When one swears. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his. Black's law Dictionary, Fourth Edition Black's 7th. See sovereigaty in Glossary. It is vital that you know how the words. A Glossary of,pertinent terms, with::listings. The Glossary can save yoe much time;ifi. Also, 'fhe'. Donotitakeany:mmg for granted. It is also recommendep that you obtain a copy of the Uniform Commercial Code issued by your State,.
All other codes and bodtes cJHaw are mere subsets of. Deal with the source: the UCC. Whereas the first two editions, of this''fnatnial, of neeessity-and. What you do not know,,however, can kill yotJ Page 3 of3,6 Maintainitl. You have been deceived and bletrayed, anct,ravaged for yowr kiodnes.
Howev,er, by merely confronting the exact:,nature of the: con you. A harmles. Names of men and women and boys and girls. Th,,eir computers,. It is it:lteresting; that the mf! See true namt in Glossary. Legally speaking, there is a term that identifies such entities: "ens legis," defined as follows:. A creature of the law; an artificial being, as contrasted with a natural person. Statutory entities. This situation is characterized in semantics as the difference between the territory and the map, i.
Other legal terms describing fictitious. Proper names set in all. The corporate, banking, taxation, legal, and governmental comn1unft1es,. A creator. Outsider:partiesin a transaction usua! Uy beUeve. If you do. All narne. This is theonly'way they can do business-and that is exactly and only what it is: business. Many grammar books and legal publicatkms identity, permissible methoda? Jj, for presenting. John H. Dde, JohncDoe; J. Your true natne is just that: yo!. U' true name.
NAMES without ever openly disclosing the practice. After Redemption, :. Ailandmark Supreme Court case of. Fiated, fined, imprisoned:, plundered, brutalized; and killed:Qy government officials every day. Despite the logic ofthis example, and as pointed out above, anyone can look around and see that the above hierarchy of rul. Redemption: The act of redeeming, or the state ofbeing:redeemed. R,edeem: To recoV. Existing or occurring together; attendant. What, is misiing. Sol: ptypulation: ; average Sarkee.
There areohly iwo''olirer. In other words, upder a contract of suretyship, a surety becomes a party to the principal obligation.
Law Dictionacy, Sixth. A 5,4rety4s equal! However, as you. Examining the definition of "sui juris" more closely, you can discover that this. Wef,e toLl rtQf si. YQ-U chuli:l never have, b. Thus, we have uncovered the answ. UntiFreoently1 aU such "contracts" were secret, invisible,. Likely you are following this essay and have a good grasp of the concepts.
Jet us digress for a moment. A great number of Americans have figured out that the all-caps gprruption of their true name is somehow bein.
However, there is an even subtlerconunderway concerning the name, and it has be. It reflects the very essence, basis, and nafure of your position in American society. This doctrine obtains. How is it that any such claim of righ. Fr; apeler. The action of appealing to higher court or.
See sovereignty in Glossary. Ground of appeal, title; claim. The action: ofappealing or calling on; :entreaty, or eamest address. The action of calling by a name; nomenclature. A designation, name or title given: a. A name or title. The act oftiam:ing or calling. Fifth Edition,. Thc:mg h this word has come our way through French, its ultimate origin is. Of the first four definitions of appellation Jn The Oxford English. The reason proper usage of this word is labeled "obsolete" by the king's esquires on,staf.
Pagell of36 Maintaining. Sadly, most. You are not vtur properlY! The 1so.. All the different names you have gone by. Judge: What is your name? Sovereign: I mean "What" is not my name. Judge: I am asking for; your name. Judge: I'm talking about your real nar;ne. What isjt? Jnd to each. What name are you interested in? If you want to use that piece of property. Judge: l don't. Sovereign: 1 apologize,. Is that correct? Sovereign: Yoll;tbring up. Sovereign: You want fQ,know what to call me? Judge: That wocild do fihfJ.
Sovereign: You can. Jah longer, my fltePtd! Vety well; Mr. Secured Party. Judge: Dropping his. Sovereign: 1 dontt have. Sovereign: Jr a bed. Sovereign: Like. Judge: Sir, Secured Party, whoever you are The 1. The judge knew. Tbe consensus of the other 9. Your s. Dy makrng.
Supreme Cou. Ctthis is wherEithe'concept'of"Redetnption" e:r tets in. Government accepted. Infants'and petsons ofuhsoundln4nd.. The state Fegarded as a sov. Em findsh. In teri'.
J,pb;J,ron,t and. Qlmeroial sub. The policies of the monarch are always those of his ctediters. Rarick, Congressional Record, February 1, The dilemma of operating in today's political erivi'rortrnent pans out like this: almost every government in e? For ayerybriet:peripd inhiS;tpcy FRNs could be redeel le jfor lawful money, but that facility vanished with. See Seeretary,in Glossary. Wheh a sovereign. The creditors dictate. It has also b. Governmenfincorporated as a for-profit,. United States," i.
When Big Brother's hatchet men come calling, theygtant. Government, etc. This phenomenon is no different than walking into a restaurant, examining the menupand then placing. Miller, U. That the coCJe.. You are also accorded, as a sovereign, respect:for:having full understanding.
In Chapter 11 Reorgaruzat1on.? The systerl'ii justjfie. American sovereign, indeed thrives on ;it, because the sovereign was duped,. True sovereignty begins between your ears,. H,pw doef ,sovereignty manifest in today's w9rld? As of March. Bv not. We are now. Congressfonal Record, Mat. See Chapter U B. For a detailed explanation of your official "enemy" status see Trading With The E. Page 21 of36 Mf! Jal approval, and if you don't approve, no contract commtl! Motorist: How can I help you, officer?
Edition States Attorney see Internal Revinue.. Maintaming Fiscal Integrity. Which is. The terms of. It instructed government offices and agencies to treat and report their payments as such, by means which we will examine later, but left to all others the task of recognizing when the law does and does not apply to them.
In Pollock's case, the railroad- 18 The Supreme Court And The Meaning Of "Income" owning Farmer's Loan and Trust Company now Citibank of New York had indicated its intention to declare its profits as "income" and pay taxes on them before distributing what was left to Pollock and other investors as dividends.
His suit established only that such dividends and their like could not be treated as "income" even if associated with a taxable activity. Nonetheless, the case was enormously significant. In large part, the act had had its sights set on the huge profits being made by investments in ventures such as railroads, declared by the Supreme Court during the 's to amount to federal instrumentalities.
The ruling thus took the meat-andpotatoes of the "income" tax's potential to the federal treasury off the table-- there wasn't much left by which the tax on federal salary "income" could be supplemented.
In response to the Pollock ruling, the Sixteenth Amendment- "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Almost immediately, the Supreme Court had occasion to address the new amendment, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. The plaintiff in the case, Frank Brushaber, sought to defeat the taxation of dividends from his railroad investments under the new act. He cleverly suggested that the definition of "income" to which it and the amendment referred should be understood as having been expanded so as to encompass the objects of a capitation or other direct tax, yet without apportionment.
His notion was to exploit the various Constitutional problems which would naturally arise from such a misunderstanding. The court patiently corrected his error, declaring that the amendment had done nothing more than establish that the excise on "income" can be laid without regard 19 Cracking the Code to its connection with personal property.
The court also repeats and reinforces its declaration from the Pollock ruling that such a tax can only be laid as an excise-- noting that the Article 1, Section 9 Constitutional prohibition on unapportioned direct taxes had not been repealed.
And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it Nor had it changed the requirement that the application of any such statute must be confined to the forms and proper subjects of an exciselicensed or privileged activities.
It simply provided that the constitutionality of such a tax could no longer be challenged by reference to untaxable property connected with any particular "income". Such a challenge, in other words, can only argue against the taxability of the activity to which the "income" tax is being applied.
The court upholds the revenue act at issue in Brushaber as being consistent with these requirements. All 20 The Supreme Court And The Meaning Of "Income" that it seeks to tax are "gains, profits, or income from whatever source derived''just as had the act of , with no language seeking to tax common, private-sector receipts, such as unprivileged pay-for-work.
Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law, nor expenses incurred in connection therewith, other than interest, enter into the computation of net income as defined by section Certain items of income specified in section 22 b are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income.
These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law. The Brushaber court also seizes the opportunity to reaffirm the core element of the "income" tax by pointing out that the only way to square the Sixteenth Amendment with Article 1, Sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution was through a fixed, customized definition of what had been a legal term and 21 Cracking the Code was now a Constitutional term: "income".
Because a tax on "income" is necessarily an excise, whatever is thus taxed as "income" MUST be confined to such things to which an excise can properly be applied. As the court puts it, taxation on "income" is, " In the same year as the Brushaber decision, the court acknowledges the concurrent jurisdictional limitation of the taxing power of Congress in Stanton v.
Baltic Mining Co, U. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax" 22 The Supreme Court And The Meaning Of "Income" Two years later, in Peck v. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.
Stores, F2d Lowe, F. The tax is not, never has been, and could not 23 Cracking the Code constitutionally be upon "gross receipts" In its ruling in So. The true function of the words gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income'. The revenue acts, after all, draw, and can draw, no distinction whatever between the meaning of "income" to a corporation and the meaning of "income" to a natural person: "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of , and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co.
Lowe U. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of and that it had in the act of When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of , with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or con version of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.
Smietanka U. Even government workers otherwise properly taxed on receipts associated with their conduct of a public office can't be taxed on money received as reimbursements, for instance.
The key virtue of this exercise will be in illuminating why, among other reasons, under this particular settled doctrine of the court private-sector proceeds of work in particular cannot be taxed under an "income" tax. Let's begin with a simple mental exercise: Suppose that you were a shepherd who needed a new pair of shoes. You 25 Cracking the Code take a sheep down to your neighbor the cobbler, who trades you a pair of shoes for your sheep.
You're both happy, you with the shoes that you didn't have before, and your neighbor with a week or two's worth of dinner.
Did either of you receive "income" defined, for the purpose of this exercise, solely as profit? Clearly not. The market value of your sheep was equaled by the market value of the shoes, and neither you nor the cobbler made a profit. Now, let's suppose that, rather than carrying your sheep to the cobbler's, you gave him an IOU which can be redeemed for one sheep or traded to someone else for one sheep's worth of value in other goods, who will trade for it knowing that they can redeem it for a sheep, or trade it away themselves.
Now you've got the shoes and the cobbler has a claim on a sheep or its equivalent value. Any profits "income" now? Of course not. OK, how about this- instead of an IOU for one of your sheep, you give the cobbler the note you're holding from your other neighbor, the carpenter, for a day's worth of carpentry, or its equivalent, as explained earlier , that you got last week in trade for one of your sheep. Any profit or "income" now?
Still no. And how about that carpenter, who redeems his note by doing a day's worth of work for the cobbler. When the cobbler gives him the note, debt paid, has the carpenter received "income"? No one received any "income" in our example because by merely trading what they already possessed for it's equivalent value in someone else's property, none of our citizens increased their wealth, they simply converted preexisting assets to a different form. Some would make the argument that our carpenter is an exception, saying that he didn't really trade anything, he simply was paid for his timegetting something for nothing.
I will dismiss such arguments with the observations that the consumer of the carpenter's work did not acquire its benefits by magic; and the carpenter could have spent his days making shoes like the cobbler or raising sheep like the shepherd if he wished, or studying to improve his skills.
Douglas Adams, in 'Life, the Universe and Everything' one of the books in his wonderful 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' series, describes a society that elected to make leaves legal tender, imagining that with this choice they would immediately all be rich, and without any effort!
Eventually, they are forced to burn down all the trees, in order to curb inflation They might still be desirable, as air is desirable, even necessary, but of no tradable value due to being attainable without any effort. It can be used as money only because acquiring it requires effort in the mining process, both in locating and extracting it, rendering it a tradable good with an inherent value.
The same is true of our shepherd's sheep. If a sheep could be had by anybody, anytime, by simply stepping outside and grabbing one- without hunting for it or husbanding it-- sheep would have no value, and neither the cobbler nor the carpenter would offer their goods in trade for one. Surely he has made a profit, and acquired "income"?! If the cobbler attempted to sell his shoes for more than the value of the resources consumed in the production process, his customers, who also can acquire leather and thread, and also have time and energy, could make them for themselves.
If those customers were to make that choice, and fashion their own shoes, they could surely not be charged with having received "income" represented by some calculation of the increased value of the leather and thread; no more can the cobbler.
But that same advantage is enjoyed by all specialists in the market, and thus does not change the dynamic of trading value for equal value, with gain to none, and in any case does not represent some magical confusion of resource or value not originating from and belonging to , the cobbler. That any producer may also bring special artistry to his or her work, adding value beyond that of the other resources consumed, is true as well, but does not conflict with the basic point.
Choosing the advantages of specialization, and the necessary mechanism of trade to actualize its benefits, does not add to our inherent personal resources despite allowing us to acquire more and better goods than we could make or acquire were we to live as hermits. All of our players in this example are participants in a specialization based market economy, the same market economy in which you and I participate in every detail, rendered a little tricky to perceive by the use of different terms for key Ingredients, most notably IOUs or notes for money, and the references to work as a tradable good.
The money that we use today in the United States is simply IOUs which, for convenience and efficiency, we have recently about a hundred years ago decided should be written by a central authority for the sake of uniformity.
After all, goes the argument, transactions are often wide-ranging in the players they involve and the distances and layers of ownership and obligation that they navigate. That 29 Cracking the Code centralization removes from money the personal IOU obligation of the original notes. It was only in the early 20th century that the American economy began this experiment with centralized printing of money; prior to that time paper money consisted exclusively of banknotes issued by individual financial institutions redeemable upon demand by the bank for a tradable good such as gold or silver, as well as drafts against personal accounts.
Our Federal Reserve scrip of today will not be redeemed by the issuing institution, but is imbued with value by our general agreement as participants in the market to accept it as a trading medium.
When you are paid dollars by one participating member of the market, you are receiving notes of obligation against the common pool of market wealth equal to your contribution to that pool, and redeemable in the form of any other equally valued portion of the pool. The true nature of money is an important issue for society for many reasons, but for our purposes here, it is because those benefiting from already confusing "income" tax laws try to further muddy the waters by focusing our attention on the acquisition of money- as though the tax were laid upon money, rather than on taxable privileged activities, the extent of which is measured by the money they produce.
Such beneficiaries like very much to have the legal object of the "income" tax be a blurry moving target in the minds of their 30 The Supreme Court And The Meaning Of "Income" victims, and they are delighted to borrow from the widespread confusion regarding the nature of money.
Money, of course, being property, can only be taxed by a direct therefore, apportioned tax. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that the money itself, particularly our printed scrip form, has no inherent value at all-- its sole value is in its representation of, or ability to command redemption by, labor.
You can't eat the money, you can only eat the product of labor for which the money can be traded. When you give someone money, you're actually giving them, at bottom, labor; when you receive money, you are receiving debt instruments representing labor owed to you.
In a complex economy, the distance between currency and the foundational labor of acquiring, defending, coaxing yield— and eventually surplusfrom the land; and the basic production of all the other things made possible by that fundamental formation of wealth is great indeed, but that labor remains the source of value of every dollar.
To summarize all of this in a nutshell: remuneration for work literally IS labor; and the seizure whether called a tax or anything else of remuneration that is the result of simply working for a living amounts to slavery. That the latter would be grossly unconstitutional needs hardly be said; that the former also is should be clear as well. In light of the requirement that a lawfully taxable activity be measured by profit without even concerning ourselves with the privilege requirement , it is equally clear that in neither case can "Income" be alleged.
Just as it is impossible to characterize two 31 Cracking the Code hours of labor in the government factory as profit, the two hours worth of work taken as money also fails the test. For someone working for the taxing authority, of course, the "tax" would be nothing but a pay cut, and would represent a voluntarily accepted condition of "employment", all remuneration from which constitutes, by law, profit.
This discussion of labor and money allows an only slightly tortured segue to another topic by virtue of the underlying wisdom awaiting discovery, as so often is the case, behind words long associated with those two subjects. In this case, it is our expression "making money" that reveals the truth about money's nature; for restated with more accuracy and clarity, what we mean by these words is "creating wealth", a true description of our behavior when we expend our laborwealth being nothing more than the durable product of labor, whether that labor is devoted directly to physical production or improvement, or is in the form of services by which others are made able to so directly produce.
The creation, of course, is the property of the creator; by which principle both our own wealth is secured to us, and that created by virtue of government privilege is made amenable to a government claim of an ownership interest. This same principle informs the nature of lawful government and its proper authority, and the laws that can be made under that authority; which we will briefly explore next.
While a thoughtful and informed perspective on those subjects is not absolutely necessary to understand and apply the tax law as written, it is nonetheless very helpful in that endeavor-- and a virtue in any free and sovereign citizen. By the use of law, what had been more-or-less spontaneous interactions of conflict are regularized and formalized.
This more reliably secures to each participant the benefits of predictability and stability and that of a superior defensive capacity against individuals or organizations which might seek to subjugate them. Law provides these benefits by replacing the vagaries of custom and tradition with demonstrably authorized, written, unambiguous and procedurally scrupulous rules governing the interactions of the participants, backed by the cooperative and coordinated actions of each such participant.
When performing its legitimate purpose, the law is a great blessing to all. When carelessness or ignorance permit its application to illegitimate purposes, the enormous power of a coordinated and cooperative society becomes a potent tool for the satisfaction of private interests and the abuse of political targets, as well as the imposition of tyranny. It is possible to measure the character of that which claims status as law by its conformity to three essential principles: 1.
Legitimacy of 33 Cracking the Code authority; 2. Clarity of command; and 3. Conformity with established procedures of notice. Though once the very pinnacle of respect for legitimate rule of law and the most richly rewarded beneficiary thereof , the United States has fallen deeply from that high ground.
An analysis of the essential principles of law will reveal how we have stumbled, and provide guidance as to how to once again find the right path. But first, Sovereignty Before discussing the characteristics of law, which is the product of a state, it is necessary to briefly comment on sovereigns, who are the precursors to the state.
A sovereign is a free-standing, independent agent, whose right to exist and act are inherent by nature. Therefore, regardless of whether or not each of us really has a right to act freely, no one else has a right to interfere with our acting freely.
So, we are all sovereign by default at least, if not by design. Our power-to-act is not dependent upon or answerable to any other person or any other person's creation. This will be discussed in more detail below.
On to the law Legitimacy of Authority The starting point of any law is the authority of the legislators. A law can only issue from an agency to which those upon whom the law will act have delegated appropriate authority. Such authority can be broad or narrow, depending upon the wishes of the delegator, but is in all cases limited and explicit-- for the authority to withdraw, modify or define any delegation cannot itself be delegated.
A delegation, after all, is an assignment, not a negotiation; furthermore, only that over which an individual has authority himself can be delegated to another. The root of the word is the Latin, "auctor" which means "creator". Download Fracture Mechanics books ,. With the natural maturing of the fields of structural ceramics, this symposium focused on nano-scale materials, composites, thin films and coatings as well as glass.
The symposium also addressed new issues on fundamentals of fracture mechanics and contact mechanics, and a session on reliability and standardization. This phenomenon occurs in different forms depending on the geometry of structure, material properties of intact rock, structure of rock mass, environmental conditions and initial state of stress. Search for:. Author : D. Author : Philip A. Author : AA. Author : S. Author : R. Author : Eduardo M. Jail House Lawyers Handbook. Jean Keating Prison Treatise.
Jean Keating Transcript. MSO-Whose car is it. Memorandum of Law on the Name. Paper Arrows. Presentments Law Redemption In Court. Purging America of the Matrix. Redemption Manual Edition.
0コメント