Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Income Tax: Are You Lie-Able ?

Epistomology refers to the study of knowledge and economics is the science of wealth distribution. In this science money is the context in which this is spoken. Is money wealth ? Can it be used logically in the payment of debt ? Is the basis for the study of economics under our present monetary system false ?

In the context of private matters, money represents labour. If you borrow $20.00 from a friend, you are borrowing his/her labour and should pay it back.

Lets think about the income tax for a moment. You get an income tax "bill" in the mail and are expected to send money. In the world of debt slavery and macro-economic analysis of our current government, almost no one laughs out loud except a few, me included, and here is why:

This paper money is not money - its the opposite of money - its debt !!! Any dollar in existence is there because it was borrowed at some point - it was born when it was borrowed. Technically it was birthed into merchant/admiralty law.

If I borrow your car and smash it up then borrow someone elses car, can you ask me for that someone elses car to replace yours ? No way, BUT I could voluntarily give it to you and deal with that someone else later (this is what actually creates our balloning "debt"). So how can you be forced to pay a "tax" with "money" that is already spoken for ? (ie previously borrowed to even exist)

You cannot be forced to pay a debt with a debt and only people that are lie-able and agree to have elected representatives re-present them as slaves to the Crown banks are required to pay income "tax" (its not a tax really- its a "return"). The income tax does not pay for roads and hospitals - it pays for the interest on the debt, the debt that really doesn't actually exist in the first place- the money doesn't represent any value until someone agrees to work for it, but that is not the idea behind this argument.

In the case of government employees, the money was borrowed to pay their salaries, therefore they may be forced to pay it back. Government employees are required to pay income tax by law.

If you work for a private company, the money paying your salary was borrowed elsewhere and therefore is already spoken for. It may have been borrowed by paying customers to buy the product your company sells, borrowed by stockholders to buy your company's stock or have been borrowed from a bank by the company's owners to pay you, or from another source. No one therefore has the right to demand that you use this "money" as payment for another debt.

Voluntary slavery is legal and we have a system for it that people call the "legal system". Its a system and its legal (because we agree to operate under its terms) but they cannot force you into it, they trick and intimidate you into volunteering by getting you to be re-presented from a "unfeathered wide nailed biped with the faculty of reason" to being a "person" (read corporation) in their courts and under their legal system (the system that happens to be legal) and thus lie-able and to therefore operate as if the debt money was wealth (the lie).

The trick is not to be lie-able and not let the attorneys re-present you to the banks (courts= bench = bank) whether they are in government or in a court of (merchant) law.

A trust has been created in your name to accept these liabilities and protect the PTB from being accused of forced slavery. Its evidenced by the birth certificate, which they have and you have a certified copy to prove that they hold the corporation (person) papers and are thus liable for the debt.

Its all a great big bad joke. It exists so our real wealth can be attorned to the Crown banks.

Keep in mind that an Act of congress or parliament is just that - an ACT. Its not real unless you are in the play. In the play you are a slave. There is a bill associated with the Act and the bill must be paid if you are lie-able. Breaking the rules in this system that is legal (due to your acquiescence) leads to charges (demands for "money"). Non payment of charges puts you in debtors prison. All prisoners are in debtor prisons.

Its a house of smoke and mirrors, not forced slavery. It works because our legal system is adversarial. The other side doesn't have to tell you that you are being tricked.

A discussion of macro-economics in the context of "money" is empty. There is no logical possible obligation and the money in no way represents wealth and thus cannot be used to pay debts. Not only is payment of a debt by creating another debt un-enforcable, but the very money lent has no intrinsic value and therefore the only thing that gives it value is the willingness to work for it.

The payment of taxes is required for government to operate and any group of people that decide to live together must live by rules and a government is necessary to enforce these rules. But the payment of what we refer to as income "tax" is not really a tax at all because it doesn't pay government expenses.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Greatest Threat

Introduction To The Treasonous International Bar Association

By Harsha Sankar
February 26, 2005

March 2003

All Americans need to be introduced to the Treasonous International Bar Association. In its role as a dual membership organisation, comprising 16,000 individual lawyers and 180 Bar Associations and Law Societies, the International Bar Association (IBA) influences the development of international law reform and shapes the future of the legal profession. Its Member Organisations cover all continents and include the American Bar Association, the German Federal Bar, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, the Law Society of Zimbabwe and the Mexican Bar Association.

The IBA, based in London, states it works to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide. If one believes this, then he or she must also believe in non-democratic governance. If the law is left to any special elitist groups, then imperialism will result no matter how noble their stated intentions may be.

Americans currently live in a faceless, nameless, and decentralized bar associations kingship. Their dictatorship has derailed the rule of law and has rendered the People helpless. They have been lawyered to abject submission by this subtle yet sinister totalitarianism. Moreover, these unaccountable associations which desire to internationalize their aristocratic clutches are affiliated with the unelected International Bar Association. The IBA obviously does not need to respect The Bill Of Rights.

The IBA is the foulest form of the New World Order. Concerns about the Iluminati, the Bilderbergs, and The Council Of 300 need to be momentarily cast aside. This Association is actively seeking conquest of the entire world's legal system like thieves in the night and priests during the day. All three government branches and all its personnel must serve the People only. One cannot have two masters. One cannot cannot have a spouse and a whore and expect to receive credit as a good spouse. All Americans pledge their allegiance solely to this nation and its republic under God.

These conflicting loyalties of lawyers is the gravest threat yet to the liberty and security of all citizens. This collaboration is treacherous, traitorous, and wholly destructive of representative self-rule. This complicitity is still another a despicable crime, taken to the next level, against the Constitution and the People. The voices and genuine rights of the individual are one the verge of being drowned by this nexus. The three branches of government will soon no longer need the consent of Americans to operate. Please review for more information.

Bar is an acronym for British Accredited Registry or British Accredited Regency. A young M. Gandhi, an Indian subject of the British Empire, passed the Bar Exam in 1893 to become a Bar attorney and member. So a question that has to be asked is why American legal professionals belong to an organization with a foreign name. Another question which requires an answer is why lawyers are called esquires despite the Constitutional ban on Titles Of Nobility.

All laws should no longer be written exclusively by attorneys in "legalese".They should be written by non-judicial advocates in plain English.Also judges and prosecutors should be banned from belonging to organizations comprising only of judicial advocates due to obvious conflict of interest.

Hiding Behind the BAR: Why Attorneys are not Lawyers

Author Unknown
Posted March 13, 2005

Forward courtesy of Dr. Kanya <>

In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another? What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney?" This credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State Bar License number. As we are about to show you, an ‘attorney’ is not a ‘lawyer,’ yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.

In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it’s necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S. courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning. It's important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.

The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word "bar" is of British origin:

BAR. A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails: one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers." The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).

From the definition of ‘bar,’ the title and occupation of a "barrister" is derived:

BARRISTER, English law.

1.A counselor admitted to plead at the bar.

2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar.

3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar.

4. Vacation barrister, a counselor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house.

5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes himself as an apprentice of the common law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

BARRISTER, n. [from bar.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to please at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish the from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to please within the bar, as the
king's counsel are. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator's gallery. This will be explained more as you read further. As with the word ‘bar,’ each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:

1). From the word "solicit" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘solicitor’; one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.

SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin solicito]

1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking ...

2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

2). From the word "attorn" is derived the name and occupation of an ‘attorney;’ one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.

ATTORN / v. Me. [Origin French. atorner, aturner assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.]

1. v.t. Turn; change, transform; deck out.

2. v.t Turn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign.

3. v.i. Transfer one’s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one’s tenancy (to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy ( to a new landlord). - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another; formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

3). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.

ADVOCATE, v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.]
To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

4). From the word "counsel" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘counselor’ or ‘lawyer’; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law;

COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor - one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor - one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer - [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister - one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate - one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney - one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).

Feudal Tenancy

If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land. You will almost always find the words "tenant" or "tenancy." The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.

A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior. A feudal tenant is a legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another's land. The land has been conveyed to the tenant's use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior. If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he's legally defined as a "feudal tenant," not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant - person pays him to occupy the land.

This is the hidden Feudal Law in America. When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person, partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior. If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?

We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise. It's no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man. The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.

Are you the entity the other person claims you are? When you "appear" before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise. You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are. Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition?

British Accredited Registry (BAR)?

During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.

When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.

Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?

Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner.

Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder.

The official duties of an Esquire

Let's not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of "esquire." This word is a derivative of the British word "squire."

SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield - bearer, f. scutum shield: see - ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire - was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served. Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall.

The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That's why they deliberately call themselves "Esquires" and "Attorneys at law." It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.

Knowing these simple truths, why would anyone consider the services of BAR Attorney-Esquire as his representative within the ruling courts of America? Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE.

They are sworn oath officers of the State whose sole authority is to transfer your property to their landowner-employer. Think about this the next time you enter their courtrooms. From now on, all Americans should refuse to enter past the outer bar when they are called. Who would voluntarily want to relinquish all he has by passing into their legal trap that exists inside that outer bar?

We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can't plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Let the BAR Attorneys continue in their jobs as property transfer agent-officers for the State, but if no defendant hires them, they'll have to get new jobs or they'll starve. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar.

Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys. Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial position by being a State Officer through his BAR licensure. This is an unlawful monopoly of power and commerce.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law

Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful definition. An Esquire is an officer of the State with the duty to carry out State activities, including "attornment."

State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over land transfers.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Plato & The Law Merchant

Most of the law that people consider as actually law is really statutes given by what is commonly called "The Law Merchant" (banksters). The merchant / bankers have owned our governments since before 1933, consequently our courts are all merchant courts. Socrates explains the futility of the legal system that is likely to evolve below. (edited by Allan Bloom, book 4 sect 425 d)

.."And in the name of the gods" I (Socrates) said "what about that market business- the contracts individuals make with one another in the market, and, if you wish, contracts with manual artisans, and libel, insult, lodging of legal complaints, and the appointment of judges, and, of course, whatever imposts might have to be collected or assessed in the markets or habours, or any market, town, or habour regulations, anything else of the kind-shall we bring ourselves to set down laws for any of these things ?"

"It isn't worth-while," he (Adeimantus) said "to dictate to gentlemen. Most of these things that need legislation, they will, no doubt, easily find for themselves"

"Yes my friend", I said "provided that is, a god grants the preservation of the laws we described before"

"And if not," he said "they'll spend their lives continually setting down many such rules and correcting them, thinking they'll get a hold of whats best"

"You mean," I said "that such men will live like those who are sick but, due to licentiousness, aren't willing to quit their worthless way of life"

"Most certainly"

"And don't they go on charmingly ? For all their treatment, they get nowhere, except of course, to make their illnesses more complicated and bigger, always hoping that if someone would just recommend a drug, they will be-thanks to it- healthy"

"Yes," he said, "The affections of men who are sick in this way are exactly like that".....


About Me

My photo
Author of "Power Outage", available on Smashwords. I am a 50 year old free market libertarian who has had the time to read and consider the nature of globalism and the big machine that is surrounding us. I have participated in politics by running at the Fed level and debated Agenda 21 and 9-11 truth in front of large audiences. My background is in engineering and software creation. My business has provided me with significant time and freedom to learn the truth about the world around us. My goal is to expose Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development and Cultural Marxism.