All categories of Law (whether Common, Maritime, Admiralty, Statutory, Civil, Bankruptcy, or another) are based in Equity, which is not a separate body of Law but is the stated intent and purpose of Law. Law may change but Equity does not. Justice is always just. In addition, all Law is nothing more than fast-tract Equity, and that is why it is said that Equity follows Law, since as has already been stated, Equity is the purpose of all Law. Furthermore, Equity considers done what ought to be done, and relative to our Union (the United States of America), what Equity considers done is for the United States government to fulfill its fiduciary duty, which as stated in the preamble of the Constitution is to establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and perhaps most importantly, to secure the People’s Blessings of Liberty. Is this what the federal government is doing today? The simple answer is no, it is not. It is doing quite the opposite. In fact, the federal government is in breach of its fiduciary duty and in violation of multiple Laws due to its abuse of power, in areas that it has no vested authority in.
Which begs the question: How did this happen? I will not address the variety of possible motivations behind what we see happening today, but I will say that said motivations are based on the federal government’s overt actions designed to subjugate the People to its will. To accomplish this, the federal government has deviously and cleverly subrogated the People’s position as beneficiary and has assumed that position for itself. The government’s intention to do this has existed from the very beginning, but the sails of this intent really caught wind at the close of the Civil War. (Refer to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts , and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions response).
A Brief Historical Overview
From before the formation of the First Continental Congress in 1774, the elite people in this nation decided that remaining under British rule was not in their best interest. This led to what we know of as the War with England (1775), the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Articles of Confederation (1781), the Treaty of Paris (1783), the North West Ordinance (1787) and the Constitution (1787). The Constitution was the document whereby the People granted their newly created federal government for their Union, which was created via their Articles of Confederation, with expanded and expressly stated fiduciary duty and authority to manage and regulate certain public-sector affairs on their behalf without interfering with their private-sector affairs. Congress was to make Law and have general oversight, the Executive was to manage national and international federal affairs within the confines of expressly vested constitutional authority (which included implementation of Congress’ enactments), and the Judiciary which was to adjudicate controversies resulting from congressional enactments focusing on rendering Justice/Equity and to ensure the actions of the other two branches complied with their respective vested constitutional authority.
Until the Civil War, with the exception of certain transgressions by the federal government and the continual intrusion into our Union’s affairs by the International/National Banking Families in their attempt to control the issuance of our money, our Republic grew to a population of thirty-one (31) million and was rapidly becoming the envy of the world. The Union’s Civil War was an economic and political war between the North and the South and had little to do with the abolitionist movement, though that was used as the instigating catalyst. The real intention for the war went far beyond the political and economic disagreements between the North and South. It’s real and unspoken purpose was to break our Union’s resistance to the International/National Banking Families’ effort to take control of issuing our money, which President Andrew Jackson had completely quashed some years prior.
After the war ended in 1865 the Reconstruction Period began. It lasted until Congress enacted the final version of its Revised Statutes at Large in 1878. The 1878 version was an update to Congress’ 1874 version; its enactment included all enactments made as of December 1, 1873, just as the 1874 version did. It appears nobody during this time period ever challenged (or even questioned why) Volumes 1-17 of Congress’ prior enactments had to be revised, even after reading said Revised Statutes at Large and finding that much of the original Law in Volumes 1-17 was omitted without being properly repealed. Congress did manage to cover its derriere by including section 5596 in its Revised Statutes at Large, which reads:
All acts of Congress passed prior to said first day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, any portion of which is embraced in any section of said revision, are hereby repealed, and the section applicable thereto shall be in force in lieu thereof; all parts of such acts not contained in such revision, having been repealed or superseded by subsequent acts, or not being general and permanent in their nature; Provided , That the incorporation into said revision of any general and permanent provision, taken from an act making appropriations, or from an act containing other provisions of a private, local, or temporary character, shall not repeal, or in any way affect an appropriation, or any provision of a private, local or temporary character, contained in any of said acts, but the same shall remain in force; and all acts of Congress passed prior to said last-named day no part of which are embraced in said revision, shall not be affected or changed by its enactment.
As an example of the aforementioned omission, I cite a commonly used prima facie U.S. Code which the U.S. Courts use to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, any grievance against the IRS, which is the so-called Anti-Injunction Act at 68A Stat 876 (26 U.S.C. §7421(a)). Tracing this code back to Congress’ self-authenticating competent evidence of Law (9 Stat 76, section 2) we find the following:
68A Stat 876 (26 U.S.C. §7421(a)) derives its authority from section 3653(a) of the Internal Revenue Act of 1939, which derives its authority from section 3224 of the 1874 & 1878 Revised Statutes at Large, which authority rests with Congress’ superseding self-authenticating competent evidence of the Laws of the United States in all Courts of the United States at 14 Stat 475, section 10, which amended section 19 of 14 Stat 152, which states:
“And be it further enacted, That, no suit shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, until appeal shall have been duly made to the commissioner of internal revenue according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary in pursuance thereof, and a decision of said commissioner shall be had thereon, unless such suit shall be brought within six months from the time this act takes effect: Provided, That if said decision shall be delayed more than six months from the date of such appeal, then said suit may be brought at any time within twelve months from the date of such appeal.”
It is clear from the above unrepealed self-authenticating competent evidence of Law the U.S. Courts cannot dismiss a grievance against the IRS for lack of jurisdiction under 68A Stat 876 (26 U.S.C. §7421(a)) if an appeal/notice was sent to the Commissioner. However, as we all know, they do it all the time because nobody includes Congress’ self-authenticating competent Law shown above in their complaints. Therefore, the People unknowingly authorize the U.S. Courts to use their most powerful weapon against them, which is discretion. Self-authenticating competent Law removes the U.S. Courts’ ability to use discretion because it is binding upon all U.S. Courts and there are no exceptions to this mandatory requirement. Our supreme Court apparently agrees with this, as evidenced by its primary holding in its landmark case, Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984):
“A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a Law. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress”.
The hierarchy of Law in our Union, in ascending order of authority, is as follows:
- Prima facie evidence of the Law (U.S. Code).
- Legal evidence of the Law (Revised Statutes at Large & U.S. Code enacted into positive law).
- Self-authenticating competent evidence of the Law. Refer to 61 Stat 638, section 204 (1 U.S.C. §204), 61 Stat 636, section 112 (1 U.S.C. §112), and 61 Stat 636, section 113 (1 U.S.C. §113).
It is my feeling that Convention of States could enhance its efforts to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government by having its members utilize Congress’ self-authenticating competent evidence of Law (Volumes 1-17) in all their administrative and judicial proceedings.
Also, regarding the "necessary and proper" clause in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 of the federal Constitution, I will say this: the case that turned this clause on its head is the Knox v. Lee case (1870), in which Justice Strong’s artful logic, supported by the majority, overturned the Hepburn v. Griswold case regarding the legal tender act of 1862. This case unconstitutionally opened the door for the federal government to issue paper money with no specie backing, under the guise of being "necessary and proper". This case established a mindset precedent that assisted future passing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which loosened the strings that bound U.S. currency to gold, the Gold Clause Repeal Act of 1933 which removed gold as settlement of debt domestically, the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 which authorized the 12 FED banks to issue Federal Reserve Notes based on so-called good assets, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which transferred the FED gold reserves to the U.S. Treasury and prohibited the U.S. Treasury and financial institutions from exchanging dollars for gold. The backing for this so-called money, which is the legal tender of the United States, is "the good faith and credit of the United States", which ultimately is the People. However, the People are not regarded as the creditors (which they are), they are regarded solely as the sureties for the debts of the federal government. All of the above is the result of a mindset instilled via the Knox v. Lee case, which unconstitutionally applied the "necessary and proper" clause of the People's Constitution.
