My opinions only. I am not a scholar, a gentleman, a lawfag and my ex sister in law never worked for clowns in action.

The act of 1871 was developed to form a municipal government. This summary is good: http://annavonreitz.com/actof1871.pdf And here is a link to the written law: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=454

So is the DC corporation a bait and switch or obfuscation? Maybe both?

What does the constitution say about the "federal government"? https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ The US is a republic that consists of a group of sovereign states. The legal authority of congress to make laws is external to the US (foreign policy including by other means), between states and to ensure that the basic liberties of the people that pre existed any government will not be infringed by any government authority. Article one sections 8, 9 and 10 pretty well spell it out along with the first ten amendments.

So how does congress pass laws that interfere in every aspect of peoples lives?

The commerce clause was misused from the stacked supreme courts of FDR. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/752

From this time forward it would appear that "commerce" means whatever congress wants it to mean! Even though it explicitly says in the Article 2 section 8, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Additionally, the 9th and 10th amendments explicitly prohibit this sort of federal government overreach and are part of the original constitution since the states would not have ratified the constitution without the bill of rights added as an attachment.

So are we ruled by the original constitution, a new one or something else? Maybe. When Article 3 section 2 says:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; —to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; —to Controversies between two or more States;

So how does the state of Texas (and about 17 other states that joined) not have standing in the US Supra in a dispute arising from election irregularities between states? If Texas has no standing, then maybe they were pursuing the matter in a court that masquerades as the constitutional supreme court but is really only a supreme court of the District of Columbia. I believe this is where the bait and switch comes in since Congress has the authority, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States”.

CONT

>>12684629

On to another interesting topic, sovereign citizens, admiralty law and “fiat money”.

Some basics in common law are that crimes exist when one person defrauds another person or initiates violence against them. Sovereign citizens seem to think they can do anything because they are, like, sovereign! Well, this is sort of true til you get caught, ask king Charles the first. Government is force and legitimacy is the ability to maintain the monopoly of force within an area This is obvious when king William the first invaded Britain. Whether government acts justly is a factor in the governments longevity.

Just like being sovereign does not mean you can sign a document with a bank for a home loan and then claim you will retain the property without paying as per the agreement that was freely signed!

But, but, the money was never loaned, it was created out of thin air! Not really. The “money” was created by monetizing the property title that the bank owns as per the agreement.

Property has value and that value is what the bank owns until the loan agreement is fulfilled. The money was not created out of thin air, it was temporarily introduced into the monetary supply with the loan and removed from the monetary supply when the loan is paid off. The interest paid over the loan term remains in the money supply and is what creates inflation.

When you pay off the loan, you collect the title. Is the title of your now “free and clear” property also used as a collateral in another loan the government entered into that is hidden? Now that is an interesting question and one that we should all look into!

Just like a sovereign citizen can not defraud a lending institution, would it also follow that government entities are prohibited from defrauding their citizens? How about slavery or serfdom? What about foreign enemies? Are citizens of the US considered foreign enemies? The 13th amendment says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

So slavery would be lawful as punishment for a crime.

Trading with the enemies act and war powers act: http://congressionalresearch.com/95-753/document.php FDR used this act in March 33 to declare all citizens enemies and steal their gold. Five days after FDR was sworn in – in March! The above congressional paper tap dances around the ethics and lawfulness of this by stating that it was a banking emergency. He goes on to obfuscate by declaring that it has been repealed except in time of war. Well the US is in a state of declared war. Why not get rid of all of the war power acts? Because the US government, as it operates now, would be illegal if constrained by the constitution.

Here is an excellent paper written after the TEWA acts were, “streamlined” in 1976: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?=1&article=1079&context=iustitia

One comment is interesting: “The Department of the Treasury was an avid supporter of exempting the Trading With the Enemy Act from the provisions of the National Emergencies Act. The Treasury Department's argument was that, although the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the taking of property without due process of law, including just compensation, the Trading With the Enemy Act permits such action with respect to foreign property during a national emergency. As a Treasury Department official testified before the Special Committee, constitutional problems might arise with respect to the validity for continued blocking of assets of foreign countries if all national emergencies or authorities thereunder were terminated. The problem is the protection of the fifth amendment against the taking of property without due process of law, including proper compensation”.

Most taxes are voluntary. If they weren’t they would be slavery. Sales tax? Don’t buy things. Whiskey tax? Don’t make quantities over personal amounts. Your labor? What? THAT would be slavery. Unless you were an enemy, or unless it only applies to corporations and not to natural persons.

So for me the questions are:

Are natural persons subject to a tax on their efforts (slavery / serfdom)? Can a human being hold property free of taxes or, are natural persons prohibited from owning property (if the property is used as collateral for a loan to a government entity surreptitiously it would be similar to the fraud the sovereign citizens try to pull)?

More digging into this would be a good thing.