Taxpayer for what purpose? I pay gasoline and cigarette tax, which may or may not be legitimate, grocery tax, etc. Therefore, I'm a taxpayer. But am I a taxpayer, or more appropriately, am I required to pay tax prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code?

You might want to take a little journey: At 26 U.S.C. 7321, you will find that Congress has vested the President with authority to establish internal revenue districts. When you consult the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules in the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, you will find that there are no general application regulations listed for the section. However, if you will look at 26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1, you will find that the President has delegated authority to establish internal revenue districts via Executive Order No. 10289. Statutory authority which prescribes how the President must delegate authority by Executive Order is at 3 U.S.C. 301; E.O. No. 10289 is published following this section, and you will find that the bulk of it pertains to tariffs, the Anti-Smuggling Act (maritime), and related matters. The original was amended to delegate authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to establish revenue districts.

By once again consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, we find that E.O. No. 10289 is listed, but the only authority is 19 CFR, Part 101, which is general authority for the United States Customs Service. The U.S. Customs Service has established ports of entry for import-export purposes in most States of the Union, but not internal revenue districts that extend into any of the several States.

Our conclusion, then, is that there are no internal revenue districts in the several States, per requirement of 27 U.S.C. 7621.

This might seem strange, but the research community has long known that the only delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who presides over IRS & BATF, is T.D.O. No. 150-42 (1956), as amended by T.D.O. No. 150-01 (1986). The original delegated authority in Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, etc., and removed authority over customs in insular possessions of the United States from district and regional offices in Florida, Georgia, and New York.

If you didn't know, IRS & BATF are successors of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, created by the provisional government of Puerto Rico in about 1900 to administer collection of internal revenue taxes in Puerto Rico, deposited in the Puerto Rico Special Fund (Internal Revenue), in 1934 redesignated Puerto Rico Trust No. 62 (Internal Revenue). Internal revenue districts under IRS administrative jurisdiction were established in accordance with T.D.O. No. 150-42 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in insular possessions of the United States.

The Internal Revenue Code is municipal law in territory subject to sovereignty of the United States under the territorial clause at Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 of the Constitution.

We might visit the question again: Are you a taxpayer as defined in the Internal Revenue Code?

The antecedent question is obviously this: Are you are a citizen or resident of an internal revenue district? Do you own taxable articles, conduct taxable trade or business, draw royalties, or have any other taxable enterprise in an internal revenue district? If so, the district director located in whatever State of the Union you have abode in should have a complete listing for your information. You might inquire.

/s/ Dan Meador

Governor Elect Mr. Jesse Ventura,

I heard your comments on meet the press, Sunday morning. When you gave the example that when you were mayor of Brooklyn Park, and the city council wanted to raise taxes by $360,000 saying they had a short fall on their "city budget for schools" and you looked into the "revenue structure of the city" and found $48,000,000 of investment funds in which the $360,000 could be satisfied from, when I heard you say that, I jumped in the air and stomped my feet on the ground, yelling out "good man, good man".

You are the first individual that I have heard in my lifetime, give a clear example within a show, produced by the syndicated national news media, as to the difference between the "budget" and the investment funds held separate from the budget.

After your comments went out across the country that morning, my phone began ringing five minutes after your comments until 2 in the afternoon from people across the land asking me if you had been speaking to me.

I would hope to have a phone conversation with you this upcoming week. What I proposed to Arkansas from a little radio station in Hot Springs, Arkansas may be the perfect plan at THIS TIME in Minnesota as the model for the rest of the country to follow. Please confirm your receipt of this E-mail by return E- mail and call me by phone as soon as soon as convenient to you at 520 445-3532 ....

The following is sent FYI.

Yours Truly,
Walter J. Burien, Jr.

Dear Mr. Burien,

Interesting that I would receive this e-mail tonight. I had a phone call just this evening about this CAFR thing. Can't say that the guy who called explained it very well, and after reading your e-mail, I still don't really understand what this is all about. Any "primer" on the subject available? I feel like I just walked in to a 3rd year Spanish class and I don't speak a lick of Spanish!

I am with the U.S. Taxpayers Party and am working on a number of political campaigns. I would certainly like to be able to pass on useful and pertinent information to the candidates.

Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Debbie Hopper

Debbie,

No espanol?

Well ... The foxes have been writing the laws on how many chickens they can eat from the hen house. At first, out of our 3000 chickens, we gave them 100 per year. They ate them and said they need 200. So we gave them 200. They ate them and then said they needed 400. So we gave them 400 but we started complaining saying enough is enough. So the foxes said they needed 440, justifying 440 with any logic available to them but realizing we were complaining about giving them 100, then 200, then 400, they, in their wisdom, started to put 150 aside each year in their own hen house held by them and undisclosed to us. Well after many a year, in the foxes own hen house they have collected 6500 chickens (total available revenue not tied in directly with the publicly known operating budget) as they continue to collect the now 510 (the disclosed operating Budget) as they cry to us saying they are barely getting by on the 510, but since we are complaining about the 510 they will cut back the annual take to 490 at great sacrifice to themselves, the foxes ....

Yours Truly,

Walter Burien

Dear Citizen,

VERY IMPORTANT Read the Notes in your Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

They should break down the allocations for investments. You may also find investments that are not disclosed and kept separate from the balance sheet on the same report. Make sure to have several other citizens learn with you, making the discovery along with you.

Guess what ... Most States are funding their own bond issuances, tagging the taxpayer for repayment of the bonds that are funded with their own state’s investment funds .... This being done under irrevocable trusts with the funds being taken off the balance sheets until maturity of the bonds. Look for the bond dividend yield which is mandatory for disclosure within the notes of the CAFR ....

Lee Tibler, who hosts a radio program out of Hot Springs, Arkansas, had a guest on 9/18/98, 9AM-11AM, show, Walter Burien, of Citizens Economic Victory Initiative (C.E.V.I.) of Prescott, Arizona.

Recently the citizens of Arkansas had developed an initiative calling for the abolishment of property taxes. The power structure of Arkansas government utilizing their leverage, moved through the courts to invalidate and block the initiative stating that they would have to shut down schools if the initiative was effected.

Several weeks ago, comes along Walter Burien on Mr. Tibler's show with disclosure as to the existence of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which showed within Arkansas, with a population of 2.5 million people who had a TOTAL assessed Property value of 18.3 Billion (1996), THAT just the state government CAFR report showed of in excess of 16 Billion in combined total liquid investment funds, verging on being equal to the total hard assets and wealth of the citizens of the state of Arkansas as determined by their property value. Teachers pension funds = to 5.7 Billion (how many teachers are there in Arkansas for the children of 2.5 M people ? ). State investment funds (Arkansas Development Finance Authority-ADFA, for issuance of bonds back to themselves or the local government = to 1.4 Billion. Total cash intake for the year 1.9 Billion NOTE: these figures are just for the state, not adding on for composite investment totals of Cities and Counties within Arkansas which would bring the total up to 26-28 Billion.

As of September 18th, 1998, on Mr. Tibler's radio show, Walter Burien called for the citizens of Arkansas to determine if the Citizen's owned the government or if the government owned the citizens. What was proposed by Mr. Burien was that the citizens of Arkansas unify and put through for an emergency special initiative that would change the principle of operation of Arkansas government, City, County and State, whereby the initiative would call for and enact by law the following:

(1.) For the immediate down sizing by 25% of Arkansas state and local governments "revenue" structure for re-appropriation, annually, into the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. Whereby the citizen after 8-12 years participation in the "system", based on his or her interest and dividend yield from the Citizen's Trust Investment Account, would have no tax liability. After 12 years participation, the citizen, on top of having no tax liability would start receiving a dividend check which would increase throughout the remainder of his or her life. The last year of the citizen's life they would receive the biggest check. Citizen's who have already participated dearly for many a year in the "system" will be first line beneficiaries as of year one for full payment of interest and dividend yield from the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. With this structure in place the Citizen's Trust Investment Account becomes the largest investment fund in the state, of no equal, with the citizen being the " Beneficiary", not the inner circle of the "Boys" from government and their special interests. NOTE: the large investment banking and brokerage conglomerates, after examination of the Citizen's Trust Investment Account, should be all for it. They do not take a loss but in fact are offered by the citizen the largest investment account to manage, which if this becomes the standard across the country, will make the Citizen's Trust Investment Account the largest investment account on the face of this planet .... They now don't have to hide the revenue, but now perform the management in the open for public viewing of performance, growth and return to the citizen.

(2.) Under the initiative, The creation of a Citizens Appointed Review Panel (lawyers and politicians shall not be on the panel but only act as consultants, the panel will be made up of: the electrician, the plumber, the school teacher, the police officer, the sheriff, etc.. 250 individual citizens, with none having an income exceeding $75K / year) being empowered with full international discovery, disclosure and indictment rights with a small team of accountants that they select, for recommendation and direction capabilities for the re-appropriation of the 25% annual revenue into the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. NOTE: When the politicians say; we will have to close down the little old ladies home and shut down the schools, the Citizens Appointed Review Panel will say, no you’re not, the revenue will come FROM HERE!!!

(3.) Under the initiative, the government employee, City, County, and State will be offered 1/3 of 1% as a finders fee for pointing out and redirecting revenue which is "not directly benefiting the citizens" for re-appropriation into the Citizen's Trust Investment Account. NOTE: If that government employee, finds and recommends re-appropriation of say 150 Million which is not directly benefiting the citizen, 1/3 of 1% as a finders fee is a pretty nice check.. Any employee coming forward with a proposal who is retaliated upon, can report to the Citizens Appointed Review Panel, and the panel will take the appropriate action to protect that employee and hold those accountable for their unjust and criminal retaliation against both that employee and the citizens of the state ....

(4.) Under the initiative, No Further Debt Enacted, cash and carry. Existing debt will be enhanced for offset, until canceled, from 15% of the interest and dividend allocation from the Citizen's Trust Investment Account.

(5.) Under the initiative, criminal prosecution, with effective sharp teeth, towards any organization, governmental agency or department in whereby they intentionally try to, or in effect do circumvent disclosure to the Citizens Appointed Review Panel, of revenues, investment funds or cash controlled or maintained by the governmental bodies of the State, Counties or Cities.

In effect, we are changing the Principle of operation of the government. We are not changing a leaf or a branch or a tree in the forest, we are changing the forest of which will affect every leaf in the forest to make "We The People" the beneficiaries of the wealth of this country, which is truly ours, NOT the politicians who spend millions to get elected into their $60 K / year jobs to continue the inner circle ... of special interests and inflating their own pockets for doing so ....

I think the founding fathers of this country would be smiling in their graves right about now ....

The corruption, graft and payoffs disappear overnight. Its a little hard for the "Boys" to continue "Business as Usual" with 280 Million Americans watching over their shoulders as to where every $1 is spent, invested, moved or has been moved in the past, because "We The People" are now the beneficiaries of the wealth within the greatest country on Earth ....

Well, as I said in the beginning, we are about to find out if the citizen's own this country or if the government "THINKS" they own the citizens ....

The chains will be broken, and the citizens will be free and prosperous beyond their expectations. Woe to those who try to re-attach the chains. Call your neighbors, friends and business associates and pass the word.. Focus your eyes on Arkansas, for there is the start of the new beginning for the rest of us.

When the initiative goes for the vote of the citizens, I will be there. It will be a new Woodstock or Boston tea party. People will camp out five days in advance to be the first through the door to cast their vote. Citizens who have never voted before will register to cast their vote for the first time. It will be the largest voter turnout in that states history.

Have a good weekend, and future life ....

Yours Truly,

Walter J. Burien, Jr.

C.E.V.I.

P.O. Box 11444

Prescott, Arizona 86304

For print coverage of the CAFR, Check out The Spotlight, August 17^th (pages 11-14) & 24th, 1998 (pages 22 &23), October 5th, 1998 (page 19) for the CAFR report. The Contact News, American Bulletin, The AntiShyster, Media Bypass and The Free American. In the next 35 days, 30 million citizens will be reached by radio with this information ....

Get a team together and bring in a friend or two that are CPAs. Don't forget to look at other cities, counties and states CAFRs for comparison.

Add up the totals, Cities, County, State and Federal ownership within your State.

You will be learning from scratch one, I have looked at composite totals of government (States, Counties, Cities and Federal ) for 10 years now, and here is what I have totaled:

1. Stock ownership, composite totals............. = to: $32 Trillion +

2. Insurance Company equity participation.... = to: $8 Trillion +

3. Bond surety investment accounts............... = to: $5.5 Trillion +

4. Totals from all liquid investment funds....... = to: $60 Trillion +

The personal income from everyone in the USA (pre tax 1996) is = to 6.5 Trillion. In other words if every person living in this country gave every cent they made to government for 10 years, it would equal what composite government has amassed in their investment accounts, as of TODAY. Have You Gotten Your Wake Up Call...???

The corruption feeds off the revenue. Expose the revenue structure, and the beast dies of starvation. There are only a few thousand of them compared to many millions of us ....

Rip the head off the corruption, and the body dies ....

The Equivalent of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the composite totals of the majority of Federal Government agencies is called the Federal Government Combined Financial Statement.

To download the US Federal Government Combined Financial Statements for 1997, 96 & 95 go to this site:

<http://www.fms.treas.gov/cfs/index.htmlhttp://www.fms.treas.gov/cfs/inde x.html>

Read the last page first. It shows what agencies are included in the combined statement and those that are excluded. You will see the ones excluded from the report as being the primary cash and investment agencies. Are they worried that if they were included that the balance sheet would show positive assets in the trillions ?? hmmm ....

To see the requirement recommendation submitted by GFOA to the Feds in 1979 of which was enacted in 1982 through transmittal letter 1, requiring local governments (City, County and States) not already having a CAFR to prepare a CAFR report go to this Internet site:

<http://www.financenet.gov/data/welcome/statloc/prof/gfoa/policies/accounting.ghttp://www.financenet.gov/data/welcome/statloc/prof/gfoa/policies/accounting.gop

To get some of the City, County and State CAFR reports available for downloading go to this Internet site:

<http://financenet.gov/financenet/state/cafr.htmhttp://financenet.gov/financenet/state/cafr.htm

If your State or County is not listed, send an E-Mail to a neighboring State saying that you have their State CAFR report, and you would like to do a comparison study of your State's CAFR report, and would they please E-Mail you back with the department, telephone number and contact name in YOUR State + Counties + large Cities to get their CAFR report. The States all share each other’s CAFR reports for comparison.

The foundation of the Corruption is starting to quiver based on the fact that the word is getting out quickly ... as to "The biggest game in town" ....

Both the News Media and Governments dilemma here, that will clearly expose them, is that the citizens are not looking for the needle in the haystack but the haystack sitting on the needle. Qualify what the forest is, and stop looking at the leaves in the forest. What is important here is understanding the principle of operation that has lead to this financial takeover. When seen you will understand the motives and propaganda that is rammed down your throat by the News Media and Government which keeps you looking in right field as they conduct their criminal business as usual activities in left field.

The "CAFRs" shows the created through restriction by statute revenue structure which allows the wolves to walk among the sheep in obscurity, as they devour the sheep, fulfilling their appetite in a orgy of neo-capitalistic gluttony. With the surviving sheep saying "what happened", "who were they", "is something wrong", "there is a problem here, but we just can't put our finger in it" ....

To date, I have been contacted by many from across the Land who now have been unified through disclosure for one common purpose " making the citizen the beneficiary of the wealth" not those "Sharp Little Crackers".

I have received phone calls from across the country and have briefed; 15 running for congress, 7 running for senate, 5 running for governor of their state, 4 running for sheriff. All were not aware of the composite structure. The now have their own Wake Up Call ....

Yours Truly,

Walter J. Burien, Jr.

Wake up and smell the roses ... or should I say skunk weed ... Disclosure of the "CAFR" for viewing and comprehension by the public will end their game Cold in its Tracks ... When you see the total moneys, you can backtrack to see where they came from and where they are currently are being used ....

I guess the public can't see the trees through the forest, or is it they can't see the forest through the trees. Or is it they can't see the mountain in front of them as the rocks from the mountain fall on them .... Don t feel bad, the Boys controlling this multi trillion dollar syndicated national financial takeover have spent billions to keep you in the dark and to distract your attention elsewhere .... They are smart and have accomplished their goal.

(WAKE UP) ... The revenues I speak of are NOT off budget funds but revenues masterfully controlled and developed by the Boys outside of the public’s awareness and view.

THE INTENTIONAL REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND "THEIR PARTNER" THE MEDIA (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and national News Papers) TO MAKE SIMPLE AND CONSPICUOUS MENTION OF THIS REPORT AND THE COMBINED REVENUE BEHIND IT COULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE RICO ACT AS PERPETUATING AND ASSISTING A CRIMINAL SYNDICATE.. SOME CASE LAW FROM ARIZONA WHICH SHOWS LAW PERTAINING TO DISCLOSURE AND EVIDENCES SILENCE FOR NONDISCLOSURE AS BEING FRAUDULENT MISCONDUCT IS AS FOLLOWS;

A. "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. vs Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021, U.S. vs Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299-300.

B. "Fraud may be committed by failure to speak, but a duty to speak must be imposed." Dunahay v. Struzik, 393 P.2d 930, 96 Ariz. 246 (1964).

C. "Fraud" may be committed by a failure to speak when the duty of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely." Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57 Ariz. 239. (1941).

D. "When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth." State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155, 135 Ariz. 480. (Ariz. App. 1983). (Many more law sites not included for brevity.)

Gods Speed and a wake up call to you ....

Sincerely,

Walter J. Burien, Jr.

The primary purpose of this transmission is to provide notice that my research treatise pertaining to what we know as the United States Code is complete, but because it has expanded to 26 printed pages, it is posted on the Kay County Patriots web site on the "Dan Meador," page: http://idt.net/~tmccrory/HOTITEM.HTM

For those wishing to understand the Federal side of what is today known as Cooperative Federalism, download the first two pieces: "United States Code Isn't Law in the Several States" (26 pages), and "Institutionalized Tyranny: The Character & Color of Authority" (112pages).

Thanks to Ralph Winterrowd of Anchorage, we presently have the rare 1934 edition of the "Code of Laws of the United States of America", and the Revised Statutes of 1878. The 1878 revision provided the foundation for the United States Code, first published in 1926. These and other books will be on display at the meeting, so those who attend will have the opportunity to see firsthand how key statutes were tracked in both directions from the 1934 Code to prove that what we know as the United States Code is actually the Code of Laws of the United States of America. The Code is municipal law in the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States. It is not law in the Union of several States party to the Constitution, and for the most part, isn't even legal evidence of laws of the United States in lawful courts of the several States.

The 26-page treatise on the United States Code is a stand-alone effort which is supplemental to the longer work. Conclusions in Institutionalized Tyranny remain valid. The second, shorter work reinforces and clarifies conclusions in the first.

A few of the documented conclusions are as follows: The "United States of America" designated as principal of interest in Federal civil and criminal prosecution is a political coalition or compact of Federal territories, and as such, is a government foreign to the United States and the several States. This entity, formalized some time after 1909, is defined as an agency of the United States. It does not have constitutional or statutory standing in the several States party to the Constitution, or in Article III district courts of the United States.

Addressing law so people who aren't versed in legalese is quite a task. For the two months I was in a Tulsa halfway house prior to release from Bureau of Prisons custody (Oct. 2, 1998), I worked for Dale Pond, doing research under his supervision. The first portions of Institutionalized Tyranny were written with Dale's continuing editorial assistance, so the effort is considerably more "humanized" than many works of the same nature. It can be difficult not to assume readers know principles of law and legal jargon. Others, including Tim McCrory, Bobby Jenkins, Steve Pond, Paul Mitchell, and my wife, made editing corrections and otherwise provided constructive criticism prior to the current version being posted. People from across the country made editing contributions after the original of the current revision was posted.

With posting of "United States Code Isn't Law in the Several States", I've staked out ground: I challenge the nation's leading researchers, whether attorneys, non-attorneys, law professors, or government officials, to attack the work to break it down. Very probably the effort will be enlarged so far as particulars of historical event and the evolution of Cooperative Federalism are concerned, and details of law will probably be refined, but I am convinced that the body of the work and all significant conclusions will stand.

Anyone who wishes is welcome to access these two discourses, post them wherever they want, quote from, paraphrase or otherwise utilize the material in any given forum. However, in order to preserve integrity of the work, editing and critical commentary should be sent to me so I can make necessary revisions and text corrections. We can link files to e-mail transmissions in Word for Windows or Lotus Word Pro, but would prefer that the material be downloaded from the web site. Revisions that incorporate significant correction or expansion will be announced when posted.

Tim has posted several of my memorandums, pleadings, and letters written prior to June 1997, and some constructed while I was in prison. I haven't gone through the material so those who access it should realize that research in nearly all areas addressed in older compositions has been advanced since original documents were written. The constitutionalist research community is making strides at a pace probably more rapid than the advent of new computer technology. Elements and underlying principles of dated material may still be valid, but every effort should be made to access current research on any given subject.

Several people have engaged the dialogue from the perspective of war and emergency powers and implications of martial law rule. I will attempt to briefly explain my current position relative to this subject.

I have specifically identified the umbrella conspiracy that encompasses State and Federal governments: In the 1960's, the Supreme Court coined the term "Cooperative Federalism" to describe its workings. Governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions, including county and city governments, school districts, offices of district attorneys, etc., operate as instrumentalitys of the United States subject to sovereignty of the United States in the same sense the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc., are subject to Congress' plenary power in territory belonging to the United States.

The unique thing about the scheme is this: Not only is Cooperative Federalism unconstitutional, there is no State or Federal law facilitating it. It operates somewhat the way a pregnant woman feeds and vacates waste from the unborn baby in her womb. While the mother's blood system delivers oxygen and nutrition to the baby's blood system, the two blood systems never mix. Therefore, those who cross the line to deprive the sovereign people of life, liberty or property do so at considerable risk. The only protection they respectively have is unified political will, they do not have protection of law. They can be held accountable in civil and criminal forums.

In our system, tyranny never stands on one leg. It requires perpetrators by intent and perpetrators by consent. The perpetrator by intent is obvious -- he or she is fully aware of the workings and objectives of Cooperative Federalism. The perpetrator by consent is a functionary or uninformed principal. When the functionary and uninformed principal cease accommodating the perpetrator by intent, Cooperative Federalism will fall on its face. I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand people understand the workings, objectives, and effects of Cooperative Federalism, so we must construct a sound platform of law and fact to inform the rest. Only after they are informed can those who accommodate by consent reasonably be held accountable for their respective actions even though the letter of the law says ignorance of the law is no excuse.

My perspective is governed by certain givens. The first is good faith. The Cooperative Federalism scheme is so convoluted that it is nearly impossible for people of ordinary intelligence to figure out. The scheme evolved and matured in the hundred years following the Civil War, so we have no living memory of how and when it began. Most people in active public service are blinded and conditioned by what amounts to ritual magic, and even independent professionals are educationally and practically dysfunctional. Collectively, those who accommodate tyranny by consent are decent people who carry out their respective roles without evil or malicious intent. Only after they are provided good faith notice of law, and they subsequently elect not to comply with law, am I willing to pursue prosecution for evil and malicious intent.

We addressed these matters in the Nuremberg trials following World War II. In the trials, German judges who imposed Nazi law after 1935 were prosecuted, and civil authorities such as prison camp guards were tried, convicted and prosecuted for their respective roles in dismantling the German domestic population, the Holocaust, and war crimes. The reason principals and functionaries were both prosecuted is this: There are certain indispensable principles necessary to maintain free peoples and nations. Any law contrary to these principles, real or imagined, or any law which attacks the basic dignity of man, is by nature evil and of no effect.

The second given is this: We are at the brink of an economic crucible that will drive political events. In retrospect, the coming collapse will make the 1930's great depression seem like little more than a dress rehearsal for the real thing. We will be able to pull the fat from the fire, and salvage the constitutional republic, only if we are soundly secured in law and historical fact and can objectively demonstrate how and why the collapse occurred. Even if lawful remedies aren't immediately available, they will be in the reasonably near future if the constitutionalist community will construct a solid foundation today.

War and emergency powers? Martial law? There is no doubt in my mind, or the mind of anyone else who has studied the subject, that the American people are being subjected to institutionalized tyranny. However, both the perpetrator by intent and the perpetrator by consent act without force of law. Therefore, they act independently and privately even if individual actions are in concert and thereby have the appearance of legitimacy. Beyond the wall of political will, none enjoys the cloak of government immunity. They must and will be prosecuted individually as the choice of lawlessness always incurs personal liability.

A few have difficulty with my attitude toward the subject, but I refuse to dignify tyranny with the illusion of legitimacy. Pirates have no authority other than self-will and personal gain. Those who knowingly and willingly plunder countryman and kin cannot be dignified with even the connotation of character other than that of the reprobate. Emergency powers, martial law ... these terms have the faint ring of legitimacy. They sound formal, official -- that which is necessary in the course of some great cause. But those who perpetrate and knowingly accommodate Cooperative Federalism have no great cause other than transient, self-serving ends. They are individually and collectively in rebellion against man, nature and God, and in due course, should be prosecuted as common criminals.

Time to get an account offshore, eh!

Thomas Edison biographers claim that he made 10,000 light bulbs before getting what he wanted. Several of the earlier versions worked, in that they gave light, but Edison's goal was to be able to read newspaper print by the light his light bulb gave at a distance comparable to the width of a normal room.

I don't disagree with versions of the early "Federalism" initiative accounted for in this discussion. In fact, the incursion commenced before the Civil War. Crop failures in 1857 created a food panic -- there were flour riots in New York City and Canadian cities. This general broadside set a seven-year economic depression in motion, and the congressional delegations in the North, under influence of the major financial institutions, trade interests, and industrial magnates, pushed legislation that did considerable injury to the South, which was primarily agrarian and otherwise relied on natural resource production. If you will read Jefferson Davis' farewell speech delivered as Southern Congressional Delegations departed, you will see that "Federalism" economic incursions were the primary cause of Southern secession -- Davis barely made mention of the slave issue.

With this in mind, there is no doubt that research pertaining to West Virginia, etc., is correct. The admission of West Virginia was under convoluted terms. After 1871, Congress began retaining lands set aside for Indian reservations, and unappropriated public lands -- national parks and forests. But the Supreme Court continued to hold ground, so was a persisting thorn in the side of those who wanted a general Federal takeover. The key platform was this: Once the Constitution has been extended to any territory, whether a State of the Union, the District of Columbia, a territory of the United States, or whatever, it cannot be withdrawn. In other words, to argue that constitutionally secured rights, privileges and benefits can be derogated or otherwise compromised once Congress has extended authority of the Constitution to a territory is absurd. Either territory is under constitutional rule or it isn't. It's like the pregnancy test -- either she is or she isn't.

This changed with cession of the Spanish provinces of Puerto Rico and the Philippines following the Spanish-American war in 1898. The cession treaty did not extend the Constitution to these newly acquired insular possessions, or the people. That's what the insular tax cases were about. In many respects, the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and subsequently the Virgin Islands, Guam, etc., were construed as being "foreign" to the Union of several States as they were "unincorporated" territories of the United States. They were of a completely different class from the several States, territories of the United States where the Constitution was extended, and the District of Columbia.

It is this "unincorporated territory" concept which ultimately prevailed as the foundation of Cooperative Federalism. It was the "light bulb" bright enough to read by. And it is under this auspices that the "United States of America" entity, now defined as an agency of the United States (see notes following 18 U.S.C. 1001 & 18 U.S.C. 6), came into being.

Look on the face of any Federal Reserve Note you have in your pocket: It is legal tender for payment of debt, and is identified as currency of the "United States of America".

If you read Article I, Sec. 10, cl. 1 of the Constitution, you see clearly that governments of the several States are prohibited from making anything a tender for payment of debt other than gold and silver coin. Consequently, it is impossible for the FRN to be legal tender for payment of debt in the original "United States of America" formally established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation, and mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. It is part of the grand Cooperative Federalism deception.

Certainly I don't dispute that admission of all States to the Union since the Civil War has been convoluted, but let's look at the axiom from the opposite end: Do any of the original thirteen States act different, or are they treated different than States admitted to the Union since? No, they are equal -- governments of each of the several States, regardless of when they were admitted to the Union, are acting in concert to undermine sovereignty and solvency of the nation. Is IRS less a tyrant in New York? Pennsylvania? Georgia? Maine? Tell me where those folks aren't a pain in the butt.

We might turn to a historical page in the 1790's. It seems that Thomas Jefferson constructed a document styled, "The Kentucky Resolutions" that led the charge to turn back Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. Then we can go to 1803: Thomas Jefferson argued that there must be a constitutional amendment in order to incorporate the Louisiana Purchase into the constitutional scheme. But Congress ignored clear intent of the Constitution, and left it to Chief Justice John Marshall to rationalize in Am. Ins. Co. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton in 1828.

What I am attempting to do here is focus you on things as they are -- what current statutes and regulations of the United States portray as facts of law. There is continuum in the Cooperative Federalism scheme dating from about 1898. We can look back to the Revised Statutes of 1878 and see early elements of it, but the constitutional coup de grace was in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act, in 1933 with the Roosevelt New Deal, in 1938 with Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins, and ultimately in 1948 when private United States District Courts were instituted in the several States. These are known, documentable events along a continuing course that doesn't have to be constructively discerned and hypothecated.

Jay Rutledge wrote:

The original thirteen were Free and Independent States before Union. From West Virginia onward, states are made from territories of the United States and do not enter the Union from a Free and Independent status. This New States Union is made upon the military power of the federal government and the states admitted to representation in this Union are provisional instrumentality’s. Any explanation of our condition which does not explain the regional organization of the federal and New States Union and the military power or war or emergency power need of a regional venue is partial. Congress has exclusive power to legislate for the District of Columbia and exclusive veto over the legislation of the governing body in the District. It seems to me this is the clause, applied by war power and combined with the clause guaranteeing a republican form of government and supplemented by the new legislative power in the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments and by treaty, by which Congress extended the jurisdiction of its Acts into the States. The United States District Courts are simply Congressional tribunals exercising judicial power under Congressional regulation. Note that Puerto Rico and other insular possessions also have been admitted to representation in Congress.

The Union into which they have been admitted of representation is yet another Union. If the Acts of Congress that have extended jurisdiction are municipal law, then it seems to follow that the United States District Courts are municipal courts, not territorial courts. Municipal courts are created by legislative, not constitutional power, and have only such judicial power as the legislature grants. These legislative tribunal "courts" sit in New States and take jurisdiction and cognizance of matters arising under Acts of Congress. They do so in a venue called to order under a war flag. They do so under rules which are distinguished from the rules for territorial courts such as that for the Virgin Islands. In Cooperative Federalism the federal and New States federal instrumentalitys are in a state of war with the other sovereign on this continent, the people. Their statutes have the effect of alienating the people from the land. A resident is an alien who is allowed to domicile in a place for commerce that inures to the benefit of the permitting Sovereign. An alien has not the right to title of land. Their statutes also have the effect of alienating the people from their natural rights and constituted rights. Any explanation of our condition which does not explain the role of artificial persons in the Cooperative Federalist scheme of statutory governance is partial. Dan Meador

Subject: Re: ComLaw LOPEZ decision and IRS/FDA/Motor Vehicles

I've watched this discussion with interest, and would like to make a small contribution: Under the Cooperative Federalism scheme, formerly known as Corporatism, Congress moved virtually all Federal government under the territorial clause. Definitions of interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18 of the U.S.C. are among the keys to verification of this. See the definition of "United States" in Title 18, and the definition of "State" and "Act of Congress" in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Jay Rutledge wrote:

Subject: Re: ComLaw> LOPEZ decision and IRS/FDA/Motor Vehicles

There is some misunderstanding in this message. In Art. I Sec. 8 Congress is delegated power to regulate only interstate commerce, but it was also delegated power to tax all commerce, both interstate and intrastate. There is some error in this statement. First a seemingly minor, but possibly significant point. The Power to regulate was precisely to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; The point I wish to make here is difficult to grasp if the point is valid. It seems regulating interstate commerce would include setting load limits, hours of work without sleep, etc., while regulating commerce among the several States would be more limited to the interchange of merchandise. Proper regulation of commerce would result in fair trade. Other provisions add to understanding the function and purpose of the power delegated. Article I. Section 9, Clause 5: No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given for any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. The power to tax all commerce was not delegated. Taxing exports from a State was forbidden. I would like to hear some other opinions but It seems the only way to tax without taxing exports from a State would be to tax only foreign imports.

A key distinction that needs to be understood is that in the original Constitution (before the dubious income tax amendment), excise taxes, duties, tariffs, etc, could only be indirect taxes. That is, only taxes on a business which can pass on the tax to a customer as a higher price. A tax which cannot be passed on, but which is borne by an individual taxpayer, is a direct tax, and it must be apportioned by the population of a state. I cannot say authoritatively that a direct tax is not what is alleged here, but I believe it is not. Before I get into this question I would like to know of an example of a direct tax that was by apportionment. If there has never in the history of the United States been an apportioned direct tax, I will insist the Constitution was not followed, and the meaning of direct tax subverted. Can any one give me a historic example? The original concept of a direct tax only contemplated an ad valorem property tax and a head tax, that is, a flat tax of so much per person. Of course, a tax on the value of property could be on land not used to produce a product for sale, but a tax on the product sold of land used as a business would be taxable. Not constitutionally if the product was an export from a State.

By this distinction, there can be excise taxes on the income of a sole proprietary business, such as on its rents, dividends, interest, or capital gains (which is the decision in the Brushaber case), but not on wages for labor, because the former is indirect and the latter direct. Of course, the prohibition of a direct tax not apportioned by population seems meaningless as no power to impose a direct tax was delegated. It seems to be a way of saying that excise taxes, duties, tariffs, etc, could only be on the sales or income of businesses, and not on the value of things or on persons or their wages.

There are two other issues related to the commerce clause. One is whether the power to regulate something implies, under the necessary and proper clause, the power to prohibit something, or the power to impose criminal penalties (disablement of life or liberty) or only civil penalties (disablement of property). One of the Principles of '98, set forth in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, was that it did not include criminal penalties. Other sources show that the power to regulate is not the power to completely prohibit something in some form, under some conditions. In other words, to regulate means being able to legitimately prescribe the form, manner, route, timing, condition, measure, labeling, etc., but anything has to eventually be allowed in some form, in some manner, along some route, on some schedule, in some condition, in some measure, with some labeling, etc. Fair trade among individual States being the purpose of the power granted I would think proper regulations would give those who suffered loss due to violations of the regulations, grounds for suits in law and equity, against the violators. It is not reasonable to believe the United States was delegated authority to create new crimes that were not crimes before, when the United States was not even delegated authority to try criminal cases. Only cases in law and equity extending to specified parties. Constitution Society

In his research, John tracks the basic alliance as being the "Declaration of Interdependence" signed January 22, 1937, with a second such instrument issuing January 30, 1976. My research suggests that there was a predecessor signed in Denver in 1935.

The statement in the first line of the paragraph above conveys what should be self-evident: Those who participated in the compact, most of whom were elected and appointed officers of Federal, State, county, and local government units, mutually pledged to displace and subvert the Constitution of the United States in order to substitute what in their respective and collective minds is a more perfect union. To see the flavor of objectives this message conveys, read President Franklin Roosevelt's 1934 State of the Union Address -- he openly championed the Socialist agenda, and warned "partisans" who might insist on preserving the constitutional republic.

In this particular submission, we might examine how this compact came to pass. The control provision is at Article I, Sec. 10, clause 3 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty on Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit to delay."

The original enactment which authorized compacts relating to criminal enforcement was the Act of June 6, 1934, ch. 406, 48 Stat. 909. The section was originally classified as Sec. 420 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 1940 ed., but was moved to Title 4 of the United States Code by Act of May 24, 1949. The little darling, as amended several times since, is now at 4 U.S.C. § 112:

"Sec. 112. Compacts between States for cooperation in prevention of crime; consent of Congress

"(a) The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and in the enforcement of their respective criminal laws and policies, and to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts.

"(b) For the purpose of this section, the term "States" means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia."

Also in the 1991-92 edition, in an article titled "Interstate Compacts and Agreements", by Benjamin J. Jones and Deborah Reuter, the following is said about compacts established under the above authority:

"A compact has both the effect of a statute in each state and the features of a binding, legal contract. Therefore, when a state adopts a compact, the state may not renounce or leave the compact except as may be provided for by compact provisions providing for withdrawal. As contracts, interstate compacts take precedence over laws that conflict with their provisions. When these characteristics are taken into consideration, it is apparent that interstate compacts are the most binding legal instruments establishing formal cooperation among states."

John cited another section from the 1991-92 edition, and it so happens that Gail, my wife, purchased that particular edition for half a dollar when the local municipal library was clearing out old books. The Federal Depository Library at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, has all editions of the "Book of the States" beginning with the 1935 edition, and other Federal Depository Libraries across the country should keep them, too. As research into Cooperative Federalism, the newly created Federal "United States of America", and other relevant subjects gets into the meat of things, this particular series of books will be invaluable for tracking sources and the corpus of social-economic engineering that has compromised sovereignty and solvency of the nation.

Over the last couple of years, my focus has been primarily on the Federal side of Cooperative Federalism, but here are a couple of threads people researching the State side might follow up: In Oklahoma, elected and appointed officers take an oath prescribed in the Oklahoma constitution, then a second statutory oath that is to the "Constitution of the United States of America" (Constitution of the United States is the law of the land in Oklahoma). Additionally, our original cession laws which authorize cession of land for purposes set out at Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, provide for ceding land to the "United States", where later laws in this category provide for lands owned by the "United States of America". State, county, and municipal employees other than elected and appointed officers take only the statutory oath.

The obvious flaw in this scheme is that Congress may not amend the Constitution of the United States by treaty, and governments of the several States may not exceed authority delegated by or amend constitutions of the several States by compact or contract. In the constitutional system, government officials may exercise only powers delegated by their respective and applicable constitutions.

One of the more obvious examples of unlawful enactment’s is the Uniform Commercial Code, which was adopted by legislatures of each of the several States by 1966: The UCC is to the best of my knowledge the only "law" on the face of the earth that acknowledges the Federal Reserve Note as a legitimate medium of exchange -- the "money or money's worth" notion. Article I, Sec. 10, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits governments of the several States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender for payment of debt. Therefore, the UCC stands contrary to the "law of the land" and can have no lawful effect. Legislatures of the several States clearly usurped power in the face of a strict constitutional prohibition, so the capacity in which they respectively acted can legitimately be described as "outlaw". The compact, contract, statute, or whatever which exceeds constitutionally enumerated powers has the same legitimacy as me signing President Clinton's name to something would. An elected or appointed public servant in our system has no authority other than authority vested in him by the sovereign people he serves. If and when he usurps power by exceeding constitutionally enumerated powers, he is in breach of the public trust, and has forfeited the cloak of governmental immunity.

In the closing paragraphs of his discourse, John states another obvious conclusion: All trails lead to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank or simply Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF or Fund). By way of their respective charters, the Bank and Fund are autonomous -- they are not subject to direction of any State or Nation. These entities were established under auspices of the United Nations in the wake of World War II, and in my opinion, they are the hinge pins to the gates of modern Babylon. /s/ Dan Meador.

This morning's news announced a plan for ALL banks to make accounts available to American's receiving ANY/ALL forms of money from the FEDERAL government (SOCIAL SECURITY, RETIREMENT ETC. ETC.), and currently do not have a bank account. They claim 10 million Americans are without bank accounts, and the FDIC is suggesting those new accounts be set up with a 3.00 monthly fee with no minimum balance for all Americans who cannot afford and do not currently to do business with a bank! They also mentioned that REGULATIONS will be available in the spring! This bit of news will REALLY strike home after you read the following article.

Dear Friends:

I have just finished analyzing a 29 page document obtained from a U. S. Congressman who, for the moment and at his request must remain anonymous.

The document is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) document and is entitled Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance.

To set the tone for the following discussion let me remind you that since January 1992, the Federal Government has set its sights on establishing federal controls over EVERY ASPECT of every individual American’s personal life and liberties. For example:

1. The federal government has established PROFILES for various so-called criminally inclined personalities. Now as one travels about the country, especially in air ports, the government spies look you over and if you happen to resemble one of those criminally inclined personality profiles, in appearance, conduct or mannerisms, YOU are taken into police custody and then you are required to prove that you are indeed not a criminal or even a potential criminal.

2. Even our school children are now being profiled so that the federal government can identify those children who, in the opinion of certain government agents, require psychological evaluation and subsequent psychological treatment (reprogramming) in order to instill in that child government standards of behavior to prevent that child from committing criminal acts later in life (so they think).

3. NOW the Federal Government, working through the FDIC, plans to PROFILE YOUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

The following is direct quote from the first page of FDIC document (6174-01) (12 CFR Part 326) Notice of proposed rule making.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is proposing to issue a regulation requiring insured nonmember banks to adopt and maintain Know Your Customer programs. As proposed, the regulation would require each nonmember bank to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' sources of funds; determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers; monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions; and report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FDIC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulation.

The things to be very concerned about in this case are the PROFILE PARAMETERS that in turn define the various limits that when exceeded, qualify as an exception to the norm and thus must be reported to another federal agency, as a suspicious transaction. There is virtually no limit to the number or type of profile parameters that can be established. For example, is the customer an 8 foot tall white male weighing in excess of 400 pounds or is the customer a four foot tall black female weighing less than 90 pounds. The question or questions (and there are many questions) then becomes, who will be responsible for establishing, defining and controlling the limitless number of possible profile parameters? Who will be responsible for adding, changing and deleting established profile parameters? Who will be responsible for insuring that this awesome and massive capability will not be misused and abused by the various departments of the Federal Government. In other words, is the 8 foot tall white male an exception to the norm or is the 4 foot tall black female the exception or, are both the upper limit and the lower limit considered as an exception to the norm. How about all those in between?

As noted in the quoted SUMMARY of the document identified above, the key operative statements are as follows:

1. Identify its customers.

2. Determine its customers' source of funds.

3. Determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers.

4. Monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions.

5. Report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious.

Before we briefly examine the five individual requirements noted above, and so that you will understand where I am coming from, please be aware of the fact that, in addition to being a Baptist Preacher, I have been a Data Processing Systems Analyst for some 48+ years. At least half of that time was spent working for the Federal Government, designing and installing total Data Processing Facilities, from the Presidents Battle Staff, to the Congress, to the Department of defense, to the local Church name and address data base. I have written and taught several college courses; (a) Management of Data Processing Facilities and (b) Systems Analysis. One of the first things that I always tell the new students in my Systems Analysis class is in the field of electronic data processing, your only limitation is your own imagination. If you can rationalize it in your mind, 'electronic' data processing can do it.

Now, given that background and qualifications let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, -- I know exactly what the Federal Government is up to. I know exactly what information they are looking for; I know exactly how to get that information and I know exactly how they plan to eventually use that information.

Requirement # 2: Determine its customers' source of funds. This I have a BIG problem with. Even though the government would like for you to believe that this requirement is related to identifying possible illegal money laundering by drug traffickers, that is not the only reason they want to know the source of your finances. Remember now, the ultimate objective of the vast majority of government regulations and programs are directed at controlling the individual. This item required that you advise the bank of all the sources that you will be receiving money from that you will be depositing in this particular account. We will expand this item in more detail below.

Requirement # 3. Determine the normal and expected transactions of its customers. For purposed of this discussion we will consider only four primary parameters related to deposits and withdrawals against this particular account.

First: When you established a new checking account you will be required to identify the number of deposits you expect to make each month and the average amount of each deposit. For example (a) military retirement pay = $2,000.00, (b) Social Security Income = $400.00, (c) Rent from income property = $750.00, (d) Interest from stocks & bonds = $ 300.00, and so on.

Second: You will be required to identify the number of withdrawals you expect to make each month from this account and the estimated amount of each withdrawal. For example; (a) Mortgage payment = $800.00, (b) Car Payment = $250.00, (c) College tuition = $ 1,000.00).

Once the average number of deposits and the average amount of each deposit has been determined and the average number of withdrawals and the average amount of each withdrawal has been established, it will be very easy to identify all transactions, in and out, that exceed the established norms for this particular account. For example should you find a paper bag on the side of the highway containing 10,000 well used one dollar bills, or Aunt Sue passed away and left you 10,000 well used one dollar bills and you deposited that windfall in your checking or savings account, that would immediately be detected as exceeding the established norms for your account.

Requirement # 4. Monitor account activity for transactions that are inconsistent with those normal and expected transactions. This requirement establishes the requirement that each financial institution establish a procedure to monitor your financial accounts on a regular basis for any transactions that exceed the established norms as illustrated above.

Requirement # 5. Report any transactions of its customers that are determined to be suspicious -- -. This requirement requires that all financial institutions immediately report any and all suspicious transactions detected as a result of deposits or withdrawals that exceed the established norms for your account.

As I was reviewing the aforementioned FDIC document, as quoted above, I called a long time friend of mine who is vice president of a local bank that I do business with. I ask my vice president friend to identify the government agency(s) to which he would report such a suspicious transaction. His response was, the IRS and the FBI, at the national level.

My friends, as a long time ADP/EDP Systems Analyst I want you to pay particular attention to the following.

Whenever a good and successful Information (Data) Processing Systems Analyst designs a large scale information processing system, such as what we have been talking about above, he will ALWAYS allow for future expansion of existing applications and processing capabilities and his design work will also allow for additional applications and processing capabilities to be added with a minimum of additional effort and cost.

Based on my 48+ plus years in the business, let me tell you what you can expect in the very near future if the proposed rule making provisions as defined in the FDIC document identified above are allowed to be implemented. Please, read the following very carefully because it lays out the route our government is taking toward a cashless society as required by the design of a one world government under the United Nations.

1. PRESENTLY ALL recipients of military retirement pay MUST have a bank account into which their monthly retirement pay is electronically transferred. The government will no longer pay individual retirees directly, or send their retirement pay to a home address. This is part of an over all plan to extend more absolute control over the individual. It has absolutely nothing to do with economy as the government would have you to believe.

2. In the very near future look for legislation that will require ALL government employees, federal, state and local, to have a bank account into which their salary will also be electronically transferred, just like the retired military. In as much as most government employees already have the direct deposit option available, it requires only vary simple legislation to complete this phase of the plan.

3. Next you will see legislation that will outlaw the direct payment of all wages or salaries to any individual, by an employer. All employees who work for a wage or salary, will also be required to have a bank account into which the employer will be required to direct deposit their salary. And once again the legislation necessary to accomplish this phase of the plan is very simple and easy to implement, simply because most businesses would welcome the reduced payroll cost.

The government’s objective here is to eventually make the local financial institution the only source of legal tender for the individual. At this point and for the purpose of this paper, legal tender is defined as dollars, debit cards or other credit cards. When objectives 2 & 3 above have been fully accomplished, it will then be a very simple matter to implement the rest of the plan. Let me explain it this way. The total plan equates to $1.00 (One dollar) When steps 2 & 3 have been fully implemented, as step 1 has already been accomplished, that will equate to $ .95 cents of that $1.00. The rest of the plan equates to only 5 cents out of that one dollar.

And just what is the rest of the plan? It's very simple.

After steps 1, 2 and 3 as noted above have been fully implemented, the only thing left to do then would be to outlaw all cash transactions and require all transactions now involving cash, be accomplished through the use of checks or smart cards followed by the eventual elimination of the checks.

At that point the federal government can then trace, track AND CONTROL ALL TRANSACTIONS, simply because all transactions will then be processed by massive computer systems controlled by the federal government. Given the above accomplishments and current electronic capabilities, the ability to exercise absolute control over individuals provided by the additional five cents noted above are absolutely mind boggling.

There are many, many more reasons that all Americans should and must oppose implementation of the five (5) requirements identified above. There are TWO things that every American should do, immediately.

First: All Americans should send a letter to the FDIC expressing their STRONG objection and opposition to the plan to PROFILE individual bank accounts for what ever purpose. The FDIC will be accepting public comments until December 27. Send your comments to:

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary

Attention: Comments/OES, FDIC

550 17th Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20429

Be sure to include the following information at the top of your letter:

6374-01

FDIC 12 CFR 326

Minimum Security Devices and Procedures and Bank Secrecy Act

Compliance

Notice of proposed rule making

Second: All Americans should immediately destroy ALL debit cards and credit cards and revert to using cash (dollars) in all business transactions instead of checks, debit cards and credit cards.

Please forward this alert to the maximum extent possible.

Rev. Curt Tomlin

Major USA Ret

President TCAN Inc.

***********

It's the "freedom-loving, lower-tax, smaller government" Republican Congress which has given us the new National ID cards, the so-called national "deadbeat dad" and "child immunization" tracking centers to track ALL Americans, national gun registration (coming Dec. 1), limits on how much cash you can withdraw from your own bank account without explanation to the government, new laws which will soon allow armed soldiers to patrol our airports with M-16s, looking for "drug smugglers and terrorists" (the former harmless, the latter non-existent ... so far), armed ATF agents murdering California gun store owners in their shops, armed U.S. Marines murdering little shepherd boys in Texas ... and which in its spare time has passed the Clinton-Feinstein "gun-free school zone" bill ... twice.

I did not support the socialist Democrat. I voted for the Libertarian. If a plurality of Nevadans voted socialist, it's not my responsibility. I keep shouting as loud as I can, every week. If given the choice between feeding your children to a bear or a tiger, are you telling me you would dutifully make that choice as ordered -- that it would never even occur to you to shoot the bear, the tiger, AND the guy who told you only had two choices?

Which are the proud successes of four years of GOP congressional control -- in terms of restoring our lost liberties -- to which you would proudly point? Name any.

In fact, I recently wrote a column on the "six brightest new faces" in Nevada politics in election 98, and not one was a Libertarian; every one was a Republican.

On Nov. 3, all but one of those six lost -- and that one got elected to the entirely ceremonial post of lieutenant governor.

It’s not my fault these Republicans decided not to run on the kind of libertarian issues (however modest and watered-down) that worked so well for them in 1994. Many of us URGED John Ensign and Don Chairez to run on issues like property rights and restoring the Second and 10th amendments. But they (or their assigned handlers from the Republican National Committee) were afraaaaid. They didn't want to be called "far-right wackos." So they ran by claiming they wanted to "protect Social Security" and "make public education better." In other words, they ran on the platform of the WRONG PARTY.

At which point, having declined to identify themselves with any popular libertarian issues (these guys weren't even willing to openly embrace medical marijuana, a "controversial" measure which Nevada voters approved by a whopping 59-to-41 percent margin), they opened themselves to being defined by their opponents as nothing but "Democrats who hate homosexuals and want to ban abortion." Oh, there's a winning formula!

As another commentator said last week, "When you hold an election between a Democrat and a Democrat, you can pretty much assume it'll be won by a Democrat."

Usually, the real one. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com.

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872

Biosphere maps can be found on this web site. I think this is what you were asking about with the biodiversity map. UN Heritage Sites and UN Biospheres are under United Nations ownership. Any way I can help I will be happy to. Try Yahoo search engine.

Kathy

http://www.nwi.org/Maps/Wilderness.html

(Author's Note: The following is extremely timely for America at this time. Pay close attention to it. Nothing of the sort being talked of the Y2K "bug" is possible unless somewhere the decision was made to "permit" it to happen. By "permit", I mean that someone, somewhere, made the active decision to "help" the bug along. Is it going to be as bad as portrayed? I do not know, but I would hate to bet the lives of my family on it not being this bad.)

To test a water treatment plant, the plant management rolled the clocks ahead to 2000 to see how the computer systems of the plant would react. The computer responded by immediately dumping all the chemicals it had into the water supply instead of slowing dispensing the chemicals as it was supposed to do. The water was then poison and unusable. (Author's Note: Public drinking water is basically unusable now, due to the same chemicals mentioned above. It is just that the slow poisoning is not noticed by the people.)

The point that should be made here is how this ties into the desire of some to eliminate the transfer of information between people, particularly over the Internet. To understand what is coming in America, simply look at China. There, access to the Internet is strictly controlled, and violators are picked up and put into prison. I am quite sure that the wide use of computers will be blamed for the coming problems and those who use them demonized eventually. Only the "state" has the "ability" and the "necessity" to use computers wisely.

Also, the firm we use off-shore has the above problem in mind, and is taking steps to avoid it.