Category: Health & Freedom

By Chuck Baldwin

Both Republican Party Presidential candidate John McCain and Democrat Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama recently spoke at the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza. I'm sure most readers understand that "La Raza" is Spanish for "The Race."
 

by Chuck Baldwin

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet." 

THE CASE FOR HANGING ERRANT PUBLIC OFFICIALS
By Devvy

Relax, Comrade Chertoff. The Case for Hanging Errant Public Officials is the title of a book by James Farrell who also wrote, The Judas Syndrome. The Case for Hanging Errant Public Officials was published in 1988, decades before a Nazi law called the 'The Patriot Act' was rammed down our throats. Today, only rich kids of famous people are allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights; see Indict Michael Reagan, Applaud Senator Karen Johnson. This talk radio gas bag got away with soliciting murder over the public airwaves because his father was Ronald Reagan. He was given a pass under "political hyperbole." Yours truly would already be in jail.

The title of Farrell's little book is what a lot of Americans are thinking today about the U.S. Congress and their state legislatures. After almost two decades in the trenches full time, few things shock me coming out of Washington, DC, but recently a comment from U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, [D-WA] caused me to think of Farrell's excellent little book. (Did I commit a thought crime?) What did this pusillanimous mush head say?

Why Democrats don't want to lower gas prices
Senator lets cat out of the bag on Bloomberg TV show

"July 22, 2008. In an interview with Bloomberg TV's "Money and Politics" last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don't want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products."

This female who has NO legal right to sit in the U.S. Senate wants Americans to go without food to pay higher gas prices to "wean" us out of our cars. Yes, Americans are being forced to give up food, forgo dental appointments, necessary clothing for their children and health care premium payments to put gas in the tank. Our people are suffering the failed policies of Congress (both parties) for decades in a land rich in human and natural resources.

Now we understand why the Democrats stubbornly refuse to drill responsibly: these Gods from the bowels of Hell are going to force Americans into further financial distress in order to push their lunatic "green" agenda (drilling in ANWR will "kill the environment") and the big hoax known as global warming.

Let's not forget: The Republicans held power for 12 years and they did nothing about the energy problem that would only get worse. Now, these craven hucksters are blaming the Democrats to get votes in a election year. See how you're being played, America?

The Democrats, with the cooperation of Republicans like Juan McCain, want you to suffer. They want parents across this country to sacrifice healthy food for their children in favor of cheap, unhealthy food to fill those little bellies so they can buy gas to go to work. They want you immobile for "conservation" and on your knees begging these false gods to ease the pain at the pump. They revel in power, in making the common man grovel at their feet. While I am seldom at a loss for words, this disclosure, so brazen, so callous, literally took my breath away. Cranial damaged Cantwell and her coconspirators in Congress are playing with the lives of all Americans and it must stop.

Consider this as you fill up your tank and wonder where you're going to get the money to pay just the basic essentials of survival out of this week's shrinking cash flow. I caught this segment on Lou Dobbs, July 24, 2008:

"Well, Senator Jim DeMint is strongly opposed to the practice of passing critical legislation without public debate. Senator DeMint joins me tonight from Capitol Hill…

"This is called hot lining. You push the bills through without debate, but these cost the taxpayer $9 billion. It's outrageous, isn't it?

"Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]: Well, if Americans ever wonder why so much bad stuff comes out of Congress, this is one of the reasons. And the Democrat majority has taken this to a new level. 94 percent of the bills that have passed in this Congress have been by unanimous consent. And some of them were really big bills. And they've gotten to the point where they expect us to give consent to huge bills like the $50 billion foreign aid bill that passed last week…

"They did the same thing with this huge housing bailout. They wanted it unanimous consent without a vote. And so what Senator Reid, the Democrat leader, is doing now, is taking a number of these bills that Senator Coburn has been asking for an open debate on, and packaging them up and they're going to try to ram them through without debate….

Pilgrem: "Well, you know, we have some statistics on how many of these bills are going through. It's an enormous amount. Six percent were passed by a vote, but 94 percent passed without debate or vote, and they were — 388 were introduced and passed on the same day, which certainly does not give you time to read a 500 to 800-page bill. Why is everything getting pushed to the end, getting slammed through? What's so dysfunctional about this Congress? It can't possibly continue like this."

$5 MILLION dollars for a museum in Poland. Up your bucket, Harry Reid. Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution forbids stealing from the people's purse for this type of larceny. The people's purse is empty. For the past sixty years, these poltroons in Congress (both parties) have looted the public treasury and it's now over drawn $9.5 TRILLION dollars. The Democrats – with votes from Republicans, without a care in the world, are going to rob you to BORROW that $5 MILLION dollars to send to Poland for a museum. This is lunacy on the grandest scale.

$50 BILLION dollars in foreign welfare? Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution forbids stealing from the people's purse to give one penny to ANY foreign country for humanitarian aid, to build weapons of mass destruction or fund some potentate's week long spending spree in London ($1.5 million US dollars), riding around in a limousine buying whores and champagne. That $50 BILLION dollars doesn't exist. Like the $5 million to Poland, these craven crooks in Congress will borrow the "money" from the central bank and the interest will turn the tab into $100 BILLION dollars. Is this what you voted for last November? Change? What change? The buzz is Democrats will take a couple dozen more seats from the Republicans in November. The people allegedly gave the Democrats control in November 2006 for "change." Look what we have almost two years down the road and now the people want to put more of these changelings into Congress? This is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Taxation without representation. The colonials went to war over far less.

The Democrats have been looting this country since LBJ and his destructive, "Great Society." Not to be outdone, the Republicans took control in 1995 and outspent the Democrats during their reign of terror (1995-2006). The American people said they wanted change. In 2006, with the exception of changing 31 seats in House of Representatives, the people allegedly voted back the same incumbents, many of them leftovers from the phony "Republican Revolution" of 1994, many of them left over progessives and liberals who were ousted in 1994. Brought them all back for change!

How can you expect change when you put the same liars and crooks back in office? To vote against the "other side"? There is no logic in that justification because all you're doing is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Advertisement

Over the years I have written many columns about the sacking of this country. The unconstitutional mortgage bail out is another example of these rats in Congress violating the supreme law of the land to protect Wall Street and their big money donors. It will do NOTHING to stop the hemorrhaging except add more debt onto the backs of the we the people and our children. Tragically, a hundred million voters didn't get the message back in 2004:

Speeches Ignore Impending U.S. Debt Disaster by Carolyn Lochhead, September 12, 2004: "Laurence Kotlikoff, Economics Chairman at Boston University, who has written abundantly on this subject, offers up a shocking response on how to close a $51 trillion dollar fiscal gap: "To give you idea how big the problem is, you'd have to have an immediate and permanent 78 percent hike in the federal income tax." More than double the payroll tax, immediately and forever, from 15.3 percent of wages to nearly 32 percent; Raise income taxes by two thirds (roughly 78%), immediately and forever; Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45 percent, immediately and forever;"

As I said in my column highlighting Ms. Lochhead's warning, "That's not the end of it: "…borrowing by Congress to fund their immoral and unconstitutional wars, UN dues, 18% of the IMFs budget, billions in corporate welfare, trillions in foreign "aid," all these social welfare programs and basic government functions continues to rack up debt at a rate of $1.69 BILLION dollars a day from an empty treasury." I wrote those words September 28, 2004. Now the daily rape is $2.27 BILLION dollars per day – borrowed from foreign governments and banks. What you have is a financial disaster coming that will drown every American whose last name isn't Rockefeller, Sensenbrenner, Kennedy, Feinstein, McCain, Bush, Clinton or Frist."

The big bang isn't even here yet. The federal take over of banks is increasing and there will be a blood letting of epic proportions. The people of Washington State are stuck with Maria Cantwell as she was allegedly re-elected in 2006. This foolish female will continue to hurt the people of Washington State with her insane agenda to "save the environment." Is anyone interested yet in challenging the fraudulent ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment so the states can get rid of lunatics like Cantwell and Reid [D-NV]?

I've been trying to get one state to do this for more than a decade. Hasn't the unlawfully seated U.S. Senate done enough to destroy this country where one state legislature will finally stand up and say NO MORE? Will one state legislature finally stand together to save their own state and citizens? It won't happen until YOU contact your incumbent in your legislature and tell them you will work to throw them out in November unless they promise to challenge the fraud of the Seventeenth Amendment. It must happen or the states will not exist as sovereign entities five years from now.

The frustration and anger is growing in this country, but we need to reach out to every American regardless of party. Forget those whose blind loyalty to their political party is so ingrained, they will die by the actions of their party. So be it. Great things in history have never been done by the majority, but by a core group of dedicated people. As the situation deteriorates, more Americans will begin asking questions and want to become part of the solution.

There are those who say voting won't change a thing. Well, there's voting and then there's voting. How many of you remember Linda Smith?

From the Hoover Institute: "Ten days before the primary in her congressional district in southwest Washington, the leading GOP candidate suddenly withdrew. Smith, a state legislator, was persuaded to run as a write-in candidate because she had organized a strong grass-roots base of more than 10,000 volunteers. Smith's volunteers hit the streets and got out the vote. She won the primary as the first successful write-in candidate in state history, and then won the general election with 51 percent of the vote." This great lioness went to battle. She sent out 150,000 mailings explaining to voters how to cast a write-in ballot. Linda won the hearts and minds of a large grass roots base and together, they won.

Can this be done in November at all levels of government? We know vote fraud is rampant; I've written dozens of detailed columns on it, just use a search engine. Every column provides links with proof our elections are being stolen from us by high technology with the assistance of rotten "Americans" who think it's okay to cheat their fellow Americans to further their agenda or candidate. Read your state constitution. If there is no candidate running for your state legislature or CON-gress who will uphold their oath of office – jackals like U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham – then find a qualified individual to run on a write in and get busy. If the Constitution Party couldn't get on the ballot in your state, get the candidate who wanted to run and run him/her as a write in if your constitution allows it and audit the vote the next day. That means a hand count. It's the only way.

Come on, folks, this isn't that difficult. Where there's a will, there's a way. Use local talk radio. Get out to the town hall meetings, the debates and push your write in candidate. Put a flyer on every doors step possible. On the ground effort brings success. Don't get trapped by this BS about "experience." We don't need any more of the kind of experience the U.S. Congress has shoved down our throats for the past sixty years. The same applies to the state legislatures, city council, county board of supervisors, mayors and sheriffs.

I will be on the road the next two weeks, so no new columns. I hope you will book mark this one and take the time to read the links provided below. Knowledge is power, but only applied knowledge will make the revolution effective. Time is an issue with everyone, I know. However, we are fighting right now – right now – for our very survival and anyone who thinks that's just blarney is in denial. We are living through history. Will you be part of it or a victim of it?

by Ron Paul

I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway.  According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project.  A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement. 

Thus, people who not only have enough money to eat but even enough “extra” money to invest, may profit handsomely from the growing food shortage. However, those hundreds of millions of poor and even middle class people who have barely enough money to buy their food, let alone money to invest, may soon face levels of hunger, starvation, and even famine that are unprecedented in human history.

 Growth in the world’s food supply is currently restricted by recent export controls by many grain producing countries, drought in several producing regions, and the lack of readily available acreage suitable for expanding farming operations. Western agriculture methods are also incredibly energy intensive, which increases the cost of expanding supplies.

Mr. Dancy reports that the following developments occurred in the agricultural sector just last month:

The collapse of Australia ’s rice production has helped double of price of rice in just the last three months. Price increases have led the world’s largest exporters to restrict exports, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and set off violent protests in countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania , the Philippines , Thailand , Uzbekistan and Yemen .

U.S. restaurants and other large-scale customers are buying so much rice that Costco, Sam’s Club and other wholesalers have put limits on the amounts they sell. This has resulted in some individual stores in places like California reportedly running out of rice. Global shifts in the commodity markets have caused the prices of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans to hit record levels.

The price of rice, the staple food for half the world, is double the price a year ago and a fivefold increase from 2001.

The cost (in dollars) of staple foods are at least 50% higher than they were this time last year. The UN has declared, “We consider that the dramatic escalation in food prices worldwide has evolved into an unprecedented challenge of global proportions that has become a crisis for the world’s most vulnerable, including the urban poor. ”

The price of some fertilizers has nearly tripled in price in the last year. Some Midwest dealers ran out of fertilizer last fall, and continue to restrict sales because of a limited supply. Supplies are expected to remain tight for years.

Stem rust is the most feared of all wheat diseases. It can turn a healthy crop of wheat into a tangled mass of stems that produce little or no grain. It has caused major famines since the beginning of history. A new strain of stem rust, called Ug99 was discovered in Uganda in 1999, and is much more devastating than those that, 50 years ago, destroyed the American wheat crop. Agricultural scientists have been unable to find an effective defense against it. After being restricted to East Africa, Ug99 has now been identified in Yemen.

Agricultural meteorologist Elwynn Taylor estimates the odds of a major American drought at 1 in 3, about double the usual risk. A major drought typically strikes the Midwest every 18 or 19 years. The last one hit in 1988. Taylor noted the average length of time between major Midwest droughts is 18.6 years. “The longest gap between major droughts in 800 years is 23 years, so if we don’t have a drought by 2011, we’ll break an 800 year-old record,” Taylor said “We’re overdue,” he noted.

In many areas of the Midwest the corn planting schedules are well behind schedule, raising the potential for a shortfall.

Since January of 2007, the price of wheat has gone up 200% and corn 150%.

Desperate poor have already rioted in 34 countries this year. Thomas Malthus predicted in the early 1800s that population would grow faster than food supplies and that ultimately, millions of people would starve. We may soon reach “Peak Food”…the point at which the world can produce no more food while the human population keeps growing.

Last week, the U.S. Senate approved the latest farm bill by the largest margin since 1973. There is something in the farm bill for almost every scoundrel and bounder in the country. Poor people get more free food. Rich people get more subsidies. The total cost of the bill is $307 billion over five years.

UNITED NATIONS, May 19 (IPS) – Vicente Garcia-Delgado, the U.N. representative for CIVICUS, warned, “A rolling tsunami of social unrest is underway as we speak—hungry people are desperate people capable of taking desperate actions. This tsunami is rapidly enveloping the global South, and it won’t take much longer before it knocks at the door of the global North.”

A UN forum on the world food crisis stressed that over 800 million people are now at risk of starvation and 100 million have joined the ranks of the extremely poor in just the last few months and are now living on less than a dollar a day.

While the U.S. government assures us that the inflation rate is only about 4.5%, the UN’s food price index rose by 9 percent in 2006 and 23 percent in 2007. As of March this year, wheat and maize prices were 130 and 30 percent higher than a year earlier. Rice prices have more than doubled since late January.

The UN’s Garcia-Delgado said, “Governments must not fall prey to the temptation to seek unilateral solutions based on defensive or militaristic non-solutions. It would be extremely dangerous to look at the current crisis strictly from a national perspective. A knee-jerk resort to a ‘fortress America‘ or a ‘fortress Europe‘ type of mentality would only exacerbate the risks of social and political chaos and will not work.”

Asma Lateef, director of Bread for the World Institute, said that rising global food prices are driven by at least four structural changes. One factor is growing demand for food; secondly, competition for land use and diversion of crops posed by biofuels; third, weather-related crop failures possibly associated with climate change; and fourth, rising oil prices, as all contributing to food inflation.

I am fascinated to see that Ms Lateef does not suggests that “food inflation” can be traced to dollar inflation—which can be traced to the fact that our dollars are no longer backed by gold, silver or oil and thus intrinsically worthless.

Lateef also said, “Special lines of credit and guarantees should be also made available to enable net food importing countries to meet the needs of poor people and continue to purchase food on international markets, in ways that do not raise debt burdens . . . .”

“Fat”(if you’ll excuse the pun) chance.

Lateef is asking that the wealthy, grain-producing nations give the poor nations credit (that does not raise debt burdens on the poor) for debts that will never be repaid for grain that may already be in short supply in the grain-producing countries. In other words, Lateef is asking for free food for hundreds of millions.

Lateef’s request is a fantasy. There may be a handful of “gestures” that offer “special lines of credit” to the starving nations, but those gestures can’t and won’t be sufficient to provide enough grain to feed 800 million or more who are starving. Who will make these “gestures”? The US? We’re already broke. Our food supplies are still ample but increasingly expensive. What politician is going to offer more than a handful of grain giveaways in this economic climate? If we don’t feed the world’s poor, who will?

What can’t be paid, won’t be paid. What can’t be provided, won’t be provided.

The era of easy promises is gone. We are now in a world where real money is king. Mere paper “promises to pay” will be increasingly viewed with contempt.

My guess is that we’ll witness 100 million people die from famine over the next 12 to 24 months. My guess is that we’ll see global political instability on a scale that exceeds WWII as millions riot and overthrow their government for failing to provide food. My guess is that we’ll see global free trade impaired and decimated as the wealthy, agriculturally-productive nations retreat into the “fortress Europe” and “fortress America” mentality. My guess is that we shall see the hungriest nations begin to invade their neighbors by means of illegal aliens or overt war. (I can’t help wondering, What nation is both a significant source of grain and is also close enough to China to be subject to a land invasion? Taiwan, perhaps?)

We are fast-approaching an era of famine and political instability that will afflict the entire globe. Here in the USA, I don’t expect people to die from starvation, nor do I expect a shooting revolution—however, both of these consequences are possible if the food distribution system breaks down. But if the food distribution system holds together, prices and unemployment are going to rise, financial and political stress is going to rise, the dollar will fail and die, and most people’s hold on any semblance of prosperity will grow increasingly tenuous.

Serious troubles likely to last for several years are headed our way. Prudent people should prepare.

We are sitting on the edge of a global catastrophe. It is irrational to suppose that any of us will escape absolutely unscathed. What do you need? Food, guns, gold. Friends you can rely on. And a solid association with God.

This is no game. Buckle up.

And if the previously described problems with the global food supply weren’t bad enough, even the bees are disappearing.

According to NaturalNews, the ongoing phenomenon of mysterious honeybee deaths is starting to raise alarm in the food industry, which depends heavily on bees to pollinate 130 different crops, which supply $15 billion worth of food and ingredients each year. One-third of the U.S. food supply depends on honeybee pollination.

In late 2006, beekeepers in the United States began to notice that unusual numbers of honeybees were dying during the winter. Beekeepers reported losing between 30 and 90 percent of their bees, in contrast to the usual 20 to 25 percent. The phenomenon, which continued through last winter, remains unexplained.

NaturalNews: “A global famine is not out of the question, especially when you combine the loss of honeybee populations with the situation of rapidly deteriorating soil quality across the world’s farmlands. . . . . Eventually humans will live in balance with nature. The question is whether we will consciously create that balance as a mature species, or if we will be starved into submission by a global ecosystem that refuses to support such a large population of human beings.”

Note that the previous quote is from NaturalNews—which I suspect should be a fairly benign, non-political publication. But when even the tree-huggers begin to talk about “a large population . . . starved into submission,” we are seeing faint evidence that some very pacifistic people recognize that tens of millions—maybe hundreds of millions—of people may not only soon die from starvation, but that such losses might not only be inevitable, but perhaps even desirable.

Too many people plus not enough food means that some of the people—lots of the people—have to die. That logic and inevitability creates a recognition of a fundamental “truth” that overwhelms sentiment and inspires a system of values where the deaths of others may be recognized as beneficial. This points to a shift in global values wherein we move from even the pretext of liberal “do-gooder-ism” into a system of values based on ruthless objectivity. In such system, if you want something, you’d better be able to pay for it or do without. No more Mister Nice Guy. No more easy credit. The world will no longer accept a promise to pay as if it were a payment. They will demand payment for food, and if you can’t pay—not promise to pay with legal tender or debt instruments, but actually pay with something tangible like gold or silver—you may starve.

NaturalNews: “The alarm bells are ringing, folks. We have reached the limit of the planet’s ability to absorb our pollution and environmental devastation. I sadly predict the human species is not mature enough to make the necessary forward-thinking changes, and that it will only learn from disaster. That disaster is coming. Prepare to live in a world where food becomes desperately scarce. Prepare to see the human population collapse in almost precisely the same way the honeybee populations are collapsing. As go the insects, so go humans.”

I remember growing up in the 1950s and 1960s in northern Illinois. In the summer, if anyone wanted to go in or out of our house at night, we could only turn the porch light on for a minute or two and hustle into or out of the house. Why? Because scores, maybe hundreds of bugs would quickly swarm to any night light, so if we turned on the porch light for more than a minute or so before we opened the door, when we finally opened the door, we’d have scores of bugs fly into the house.

I remember clearly, that in the summertime, there wasn’t a streetlight in the entire town that wasn’t surrounded by a cloud of hundreds, maybe thousands of insects, every single summer night.

And you couldn’t drive your car for 15 minutes without getting the windshield and front bumper, grill and radiator coated with the sticky bodies of dead bugs.

Today, I live on Texas and we can turn lights on all night around the house and hardly ever attract a flying bug. I doubt that I’ve seen a street light in twenty years that attracted more than a handful of insects. We can drive hundreds of miles and barely ever see an insect smash into the windshield. If I had to guess, I’d say that the flying insect population has been cut by 99%—maybe 99.9%—since I was a kid.

I don’t much like insects but there is something very disturbing about living in a world where flying insects no longer flourish. Given the loss of all those flying “pests” over the past 50 years, it’s no surprise that the honey bees are also disappearing. And if honey bees are crucial to one-third of our supply of food—and disappearing at a time when food is already in short supply—I see just another dot in a constellation of problems that seems almost inescapable.

Connect the dots. Make up your own mind. See if you agree with me that we are heading toward trouble that may be catastrophic.

Again, this is no game.

Buckle up.

The following is a guest article by Alfred Adask, former Libertarian Party candidate for The Texas Supreme Court.

Black’s 7^th (A.D. 1999):

“nondischargeable debt. A debt (such as one for delinquent taxes) that is not released through bankruptcy.”

[Defining “nondischargeable debt” as only applying to questions of bankruptcy implies that “dischargeable debt” is likewise a concept found only in bankruptcy. Is the essence of “legal tender” the ability to “discharge” our debts? Does “discharge” (rather than “pay”) imply that we must be in bankruptcy?

That makes sense. Legal tender has, by definition, always existed when at least the government could not pay its debts with lawful money/specie. Thus, insofar as the persistent inability to pay debt has been an essential indicator of bankruptcy, it would follow that reliance on legal tender would always be an indication that those who use legal tender are bankrupts.

Normally, a person can file for bankruptcy protection as a voluntary act of “self-defense”. If a person does not personally file for bankruptcy protection, he will not normally be presumed to be bankrupt. Therefore, unless the use of legal tender was backed up by something like a SSN (to prove your relationship as fiduciary/employee of the federal government and thus liable for the debts of the bankrupt federal government), it seems that a single instance of using legal tender would be no more sufficient to presume a person was bankrupt than a single instance of not paying one’s bills.

However, if three separate creditors (“out of the mouths of two or three”) came to court claiming that one man wasn’t paying all three, the court could put that person into an involuntary bankruptcy.

Even so, in a particular case, where are the three instances/“creditors” required to “prove” that a particular defendant is not paying his bills and is therefore a presumed involuntary bankrupt? If the plaintiff is suing me for $500,000, it seems that we have a single claim of non-payment of debt; we do not have three “creditors” claiming that I’ve failed to pay three different debts.

Unless . . . what if the plaintiff alleged three causes of action under three (or more) separate statutes? What if the plaintiff alleged that I owed $500,000 on the original debt; that I owed another $250,000 for legal fees, and another $200,000 in “punitive damages”? What if the plaintiff alleged three separate “debts” and/or “causes of action,” each debt/cause was denominated in legal tender (seeking discharge rather than payment), and each debt/cause was under a separate statute. Is it possible that I might be deemed a “debtor” to each of the three underlying statutes?? If so, and if I’d been given notice of all three of the separate debts/causes and I refused to pay or settle out of court, then could the court deem me to be a bankrupt/debtor when I came to court and proceed against me as a debtor?

If that hypothesis were valid, a defendant’s first lines of defense might be 1) deny any debtor-creditor relationship exists between himself and the plaintiff; 2) deny that he’s voluntarily agreed to serve as debtor and/or surety relative to the three or more statutes under which the plaintiff makes his claims (I’ll bet that the government can’t make you a debtor to a statute without your voluntary consent; forced debtor status would be involuntary servitude); 3) deny that you are bankrupt and/or produce evidence that you have gold/silver sufficient to pay at least part of the alleged “debt”; 4) deny that you owe a debt denominated in legal tender; 5) accuse the plaintiff of being bankrupt by virtue of paying the filing fee in legal tender; 6) accuse the plaintiff of being a bankrupt (without rights) by virtue of not paying its debts in specie. 7) accuse plaintiff of being bankrupt for not paying any filing fee; 8) deny the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear bankruptcy cases; etc..

Deny that you’re bankrupt when the plaintiff sends his first notice/petition to your denominated in legal tender (I.e., the case starts with a plaintiff’s claim for damages denominated in legal tender. By reference to legal tender, the plaintiff creates the presumption that the defendant must be a bankrupt. If the plaintiff sues for legal tender, he must presume that the defendant is already bankrupt, can’t pay his bills, and therefore will be “privileged” to discharge his obligation with legal tender. In 95 to 98% of all cases, that “discharge” would be negotiated with a plea bargain and/or out-of-court “settlement” wherein the creditor-plaintiff took whatever he could get from the “bankrupt” defendant-debtor.

My point is that if the case starts with claims denominated in legal tender, and if the defendant does not object to that medium of transfer by denying that he’s bankrupt, then the defendant’s failure to repudiate the plaintiff’s claim (in FRNs) might be deemed as the defendant’s implicit confession that he is a bankrupt and/or that he consents to be tried under the rules of bankruptcy.

If so, then if the defendant replied to the plaintiff’s first notice/petition with an express, sworn denial of being 1) personally bankrupt or 2) surety for a bankrupt (U.S. gov-co), plus 3) a demand that he be sued in specie rather than legal tender, and 4) a declaration that the plaintiff is bankrupt—might the plaintiff be estopped from proceeding?

As evidence that I am not bankrupt, suppose I posted a “conditional” bond (if there is such thing) made out to the plaintiff for 21 silver dollars as at least a partial payment of any debt truly due from me to the plaintiff. Suppose I conditioned that specie bond on being found guilty AT COMMON LAW for the alleged offenses/debts? By pre-bonding the case at law—even partially—with a bond denominated in specie I might create evidence that I was not bankrupt and was therefore not subject to process wherein I was deemed without rights to . . . substantive due process? Is procedural due process for bankrupts? Is substantive due process for creditors and/or men who are “solvent”?

What would happen if I were sued for $500,000 (legal tender), and I offered to settle for 21 silver dollars (specie)? Aren’t 21 silver dollars worth more than $5 (legal tender) for 21 silver dollars? Aren’t 21 silver dollars (actual assets) worth more than $500,000 in legal tender/debt instruments?

If I offered to settle a case denominated in legal tender with specie (and backed my offer to settle in specie with denials of being bankrupt, being involved in a debtor-relationship with the plaintiff, etc.), would I create a “conflict of law” that could only be resolved by a judicial court?

This line of conjecture needs a lot of work. The ideas that the courts presume us to be bankrupts from our use of legal tender and/or from being charged by government under three or more statutes (witnesses? Creditors?) to which we are presumed debtors are pretty flimsy. Still, if “non-dischargeable debt” applies only in bankruptcy, and therefore (??) all debts subject to “discharge” implicate bankruptcy law, it does appear that the use of legal tender would tend to invoke bankruptcy laws.

If that were true, there might be three fundamental, “generic” defenses: 1) deny that you’re the debtor; claim to be the creditor; 2) deny that you are bankrupt; and 3) produce a bond or other evidence that you have specie and/or are willing to litigate for specie.

“irredeemable bond. See annuity bond under BOND (3).”

“redeemable bond. See BOND (3).”

“redeemable security. See SECURITY.”

“redeemable stock. See STOCK.”

Black’s 4^th (A.D. 1957):

“RECTUS. In the old law of descents. Right; upright; the opposite of obliquus (q.v.).”

“OBLIQUUS. Lat. In the old law of descents, oblique; cross; transverse; collateral. The opposite of rectus, right, or upright.”

Findlaw search USSC “nondischargeable debt”:

1. FindLaw Case

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-1923.html

[This case is under the heading “SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES” (not “UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT” or “U.S. SUPREME COURT”).]

… … credit is] obtained by” fraud. The phrase thereby makes clear that the share of money, property, etc., that is obtained by fraud gives rise to a nondischargeable debt. Once it is established that specific money or property has been obtained by fraud, however, “any debt” arising therefrom is excepted from …

[This partial text suggests that any debt, cause or case based on FRAUD gives rise to a “non-dischargeable debt”. If so, this suggests that a plaintiff might not have to sue for or accept legal tender as a “discharge” for debts based on FRAUD. Instead, fraud might open the door to sue for specie.]

… a ‘fine, penalty, or forfeiture’ ”). Because each use of “debt for” in §523(a) serves the identical function of introducing a category of nondischargeable debt the presumption that equivalent words have equivalent meaning when repeated in the same statute, e.g., Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 143 …

[Bankruptcy Code: 11 USC 523(a)]

2. FindLaw: Case Num. 97115

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/97-115.html

[This case is under “U.S. SUPREME COURT”.]

… in civil actions for ” ‘willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another’ “? Id. , at 480. The Tinker Court held such an award a nondischargeable debt. The Kawaauhaus feature certain statements in the Tinker opinion, in particular: “[An] act is willful . . . in the sense that it is intentional and …

[This is less clear. Is the debt nondischargeable because it was established by an “award” by the court? Or is the debt nondischargeable because it was based on “willful and malicious injuries”?

Is the debt is nondischargeable because it was based on an award by a court, it had little application relative to my hypothesis. However, if the debt is nondischargeable because it was based on “willful and malicious injuries,” then it might be possible to sue for specie whenever a defendant was charged with “willful and malicious injuries”.]

3. FindLaw Case

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/213.html

[This case under “SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES”]

… … credit is] obtained by” fraud. The phrase thereby makes clear that the share of money, property, etc., that is obtained by fraud gives rise to a nondischargeable debt. Once it is established that specific money or property has been obtained by fraud, however, “any debt” arising therefrom is excepted from …

[Again, issue of fraud would seem to implicate a nondischargeable debt. The common denominator between “fraud” and the “willful and malicious injuries” in case # 2 (supra) would seem to be the element of INTENT. There can’t be “intent” in the fictional realm—only conduct or perhaps “effects”. Intent could only be committed only by living men (not legal fictions or even double personalities). Thus, any question of intent would implicate a living man necessarily acting on The State and perhaps give rise to at least the option to sue for damages/ debts payable in specie rather than legal tender.

This implies that “actual” and “intentional” necessarily implicate the “real” and natural world (laws of nature and nature’s God) of “The State” while “constructive” implicates “this state”/legal fiction.]

… a ‘fine, penalty, or forfeiture’ ”). Because each use of “debt for” in §523(a) serves the identical function of introducing a category of nondischargeable debt the presumption that equivalent words have equivalent meaning when repeated in the same statute, e.g., Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 143 …

4. FindLaw: Case Num. 97115

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/523/57.html

[“U.S. SUPREME COURT”]

… in civil actions for ” ‘willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another‘ “? Id. , at 480. The Tinker Court held such an award a nondischargeable debt. The Kawaauhaus feature certain statements in the Tinker opinion, in particular: “[An] act is willful . . . in the sense that it is intentional and …

5. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. SOTELO, 436 U.S. 268 (1978)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/436/268.html

[“U.S. SUPREME COURT”]

… was to limit the nondischargeability of certain debts. And yet the Court holds today that the enactment of 17a (1) (e) of that statute results in a nondischargeable debt without regard to whether that debt would have been totally nondischargeable before the passage of 17a (1) (e) – that is, without the slightest …

[Bankruptcy Act à 11 USC 17a(1)(e)]

Filed under "The State" vs. "this state", Money

May 29, 2008

Location of the Debtor

080528

TITLE XXXIV-A
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

CHAPTER 382-A
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

ARTICLE 9
SECURED TRANSACTIONS

Part 3
Perfection and Priority

Subpart 1. Law Governing Perfection and Priority

Section 382-A:9-307

382-A:9-307 Location of Debtor. –

[The critical word appears to be “location”.]
(a) “Place of business.” In this section, “place of business” means a place where a debtor conducts its affairs. [This, in turn, implies that all businesses are debtors and/or that all who engage in business must be debtors. To engage in “business” and/or business “affairs” is to be a debtor. Perhaps, “business” is defined as only possible “in this state”; perhaps all “business” is conducted in terms of legal tender, and all legal tender implicates “this state”. Thus, any “place of business” must be “in this state”. That, in turn, implies that all who enter “this state” may be presumed to be debtors. Perhaps there are no “creditors” “in this state”. Maybe “this state” is only for “debtors” while “The State” it the “place of lending” (rather than “place of business”/ “place of debtors”). This would imply that the fiction “ADASK” is always deemed to act “in this state” and is always acting as a debtor. If so, then the man “Adask,” conversely, would then have to be the eternal “creditor” living/existing “within The State”.]

(b) Debtor’s location: general rules. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following rules determine a debtor’s location:
(1) A debtor who is an individual is located at the individual’s principal residence. [Residence is only for “individuals”? To have a “residence” is to be an “individual”? To be an “individual” means you must be also be a “resident”?]
(2) A debtor that is an organization and has only one place of business is located at its place of business. [Apparently, “business” is associated with an “organization”. To be “in business” implies the existence of an “organization”. If I had guess, I’d bet that the “business organization” includes a bank account. I.e, even if you are a “self-employed” tradesman, if you have a business bank account, that would be part of your “organization”.]
(3) A debtor that is an organization and has more than one place of business is located at its chief executive office.

(c) Limitation of applicability of subsection (b). Subsection (b) applies only if a debtor’s residence, place of business, or chief executive office, as applicable, is located in a jurisdiction [this state?] whose law generally requires information concerning the existence of a nonpossessory security interest to be made generally available in a filing, recording, or registration system as a condition or result of the security interest’s obtaining priority over the rights of a lien creditor with respect to the collateral. If subsection (b) does not apply, the debtor is located in the District of Columbia. [This implies that all debtors are either 1) in Washington DC; or 2) in a “jurisdiction” whose law generally requires information concerning the existence of a nonpossessory security interest to be made generally available in a filing, recording, or registration system . . . .”. This implies that each instance of “this state” may be or include such a “registration system”. Therefore, if you 1) deny that you are located in DC; and 2) deny that your “security interest” is established under such a “registration system”—you might be able to defeat the presumption or declaration that you are a debtor.]

(d) Continuation of location: cessation of existence, etc. A person that ceases to exist, have a residence, or have a place of business continues to be located in the jurisdiction specified by subsections (b) and (c).

[Once a “person” (not necessarily a man) establishes “existence,” “residence” or “place of business” in jurisdictions (b) or (c), that establishment appears to be permanent and survives his “cessation” (not necessarily death), movement to another residence or place of business in another jurisdiction. This implies that if a person “ceases” to “exist,” that may preclude such person from “establishing” a new existence in some other jurisdiction, but cessation of residence or place of business is irrelevant; and you can have several residences, even if you’re only occupying one.

This is very strange. It reminds me of the IRS being allowed to send notice to “last known address” even if the recipient has been gone for years. There is an implication that the term “located” can or must apply to fictions; that once a fiction is found in jurisdiction (b) or (c) it’s there “forever”.

But, unless existence, residence and place of business really are “forever” (at least in “this state”) there must be a process to “officially terminate” one’s “location” in the fiction.

“Location” appears to be the critical term. Black’s 8^th defines:

“location. 1. The specific place or position of a person or thing. 2. The act or process of locating. 3. Real estate. The designation of the boundaries of a particle piece of land, either on the record or on the land itself. . . . [“The record” is “in this state”? The land is within “The State”?] 4. Mining law. The act of appropriating a mining claim. . . . 5. The claim so appropriated.—Also termed (in senses 4 & 5) mining location. 6. Civil law. A contract for the temporary use of something for hire; a leasing for hire. See LOCATIO.”

]

(e) Location of registered organization organized under State law. A registered organization that is organized under the law of a State is located in that State.

(f) Location of registered organization organized under federal law; bank branches and agencies. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (i), a registered organization that is organized under the law of the United States and a branch or agency of a bank that is not organized under the law of the United States or a State are located:
(1) in the State that the law of the United States designates, if the law designates a State of location;
(2) in the State that the registered organization, branch, or agency designates, if the law of the United States authorizes the registered organization, branch, or agency to designate its State of location; or
(3) in the District of Columbia, if neither paragraph (1) nor paragraph (2) applies.
(g) Continuation of location: change in status of registered organization. A registered organization continues to be located in the jurisdiction specified by subsection (e) or (f) notwithstanding:
(1) the suspension, revocation, forfeiture, or lapse of the registered organization’s status as such in its jurisdiction of organization; or
(2) the dissolution, winding up, or cancellation of the existence of the registered organization.
(h) Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
(i) Location of foreign bank branch or agency if licensed in only one state. A branch or agency of a bank that is not organized under the law of the United States or a State is located in the State in which the branch or agency is licensed, if all branches and agencies of the bank are licensed in only one State.
(j) Location of foreign air carrier. A foreign air carrier under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, is located at the designated office of the agent upon which service of process may be made on behalf of the carrier.
(k) Section applies only to this part. This section applies only for purposes of this part.

Source. 2001, 102:25, eff. July 1, 2001.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXIV-A/382-A/382-A-9-307.htm

TITLE XXXIV-A
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

CHAPTER 382-A
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

ARTICLE 9
SECURED TRANSACTIONS

Part 3
Perfection and Priority

Subpart 1. Law Governing Perfection and Priority

Section 382-A:9-307

382-A:9-307 Location of Debtor. –
(a) “Place of business.” In this section, “place of business” means a place where a debtor conducts its affairs.
(b) Debtor’s location: general rules. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following rules determine a debtor’s location:
(1) A debtor who is an individual is located at the individual’s principal residence.
(2) A debtor that is an organization and has only one place of business is located at its place of business.
(3) A debtor that is an organization and has more than one place of business is located at its chief executive office.
(c) Limitation of applicability of subsection (b). Subsection (b) applies only if a debtor’s residence, place of business, or chief executive office, as applicable, is located in a jurisdiction whose law generally requires information concerning the existence of a nonpossessory security interest to be made generally available in a filing, recording, or registration system as a condition or result of the security interest’s obtaining priority over the rights of a lien creditor with respect to the collateral. If subsection (b) does not apply, the debtor is located in the District of Columbia.
(d) Continuation of location: cessation of existence, etc. A person that ceases to exist, have a residence, or have a place of business continues to be located in the jurisdiction specified by subsections (b) and (c).
(e) Location of registered organization organized under State law. A registered organization that is organized under the law of a State is located in that State.
(f) Location of registered organization organized under federal law; bank branches and agencies. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (i), a registered organization that is organized under the law of the United States and a branch or agency of a bank that is not organized under the law of the United States or a State are located:
(1) in the State that the law of the United States designates, if the law designates a State of location;
(2) in the State that the registered organization, branch, or agency designates, if the law of the United States authorizes the registered organization, branch, or agency to designate its State of location; or
(3) in the District of Columbia, if neither paragraph (1) nor paragraph (2) applies.
(g) Continuation of location: change in status of registered organization. A registered organization continues to be located in the jurisdiction specified by subsection (e) or (f) notwithstanding:
(1) the suspension, revocation, forfeiture, or lapse of the registered organization’s status as such in its jurisdiction of organization; or
(2) the dissolution, winding up, or cancellation of the existence of the registered organization.
(h) Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
(i) Location of foreign bank branch or agency if licensed in only one state. A branch or agency of a bank that is not organized under the law of the United States or a State is located in the State in which the branch or agency is licensed, if all branches and agencies of the bank are licensed in only one State.
(j) Location of foreign air carrier. A foreign air carrier under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, is located at the designated office of the agent upon which service of process may be made on behalf of the carrier.
(k) Section applies only to this part. This section applies only for purposes of this part.

Source. 2001, 102:25, eff. July 1, 2001.

Filed under "The State" vs. "this state", Fictions

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have".

Thomas Jefferson

by Ben Taylor

There has been a concerted effort for most of the past century in America (as well as Canada, Mexico, and around the world) to wrest control of the land and ultimately the production of food from the hands of the small family farmer and rancher, as well as any kind of self-sufficiency from the common people.