                           Chapter 10:
                       The Fundamental Law
                                
                                
     The law  of presumption  is in  the class  of laws  akin  to
esoteric technicalities.   It is quite possible that we could get
along quite  well without  it.  The fundamental law, on the other
hand, is  just what  it says.   It is a law that is essential, of
central importance.   We  could not  get  along  without  it.  It
determines the  essential structure  and function of our society.
It serves  as an  original and  generating source.  A fundamental
right, for  example, is  one which  is innate to all free people.
When used  as a noun, the term "fundamental" refers to one of the
minimum constituents, without which a system would not be what it
is.   In Latin,  it is  the sine  qua non, without which there is
nothing.  What, then, is the fundamental law in our country?

     The fundamental  law in  America is the Constitution for the
United States of America.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
contains a definition of "fundamental law" as follows:


     Fundamental law.   The law which determines the constitution
     of government  in a  nation or  state,  and  prescribes  and
     regulates the  manner of its exercise.  The organic law of a
     nation or state;  its constitution.


     The Constitution  is a  contract of delegated powers.  These
powers flow  downhill, like  water down  a mountain  stream.  The
ultimate source  of all  power is  the Creator,  who endowed  His
creations with  certain unalienable  rights.   You and  I are His
creations, and  we receive  our power  directly from the Creator;
there is  nothing standing  between us  and the  Creator.  We the
people, in turn, delegate some of our powers to the States of the
Union.   We do not relinquish our powers;  we delegate them.  The
50 States  exist to defend our rights in ways which are difficult
if not impossible for individuals to defend those rights alone.

     Power from  the 50  States continues to flow downhill in the
form of  a contract  to the federal government.  The Constitution
for the  United States  is a  contract of powers delegated to the
federal  government   by  the  50  States,  to  perform  specific
enumerated services  which are  difficult if  not impossible  for
individual States to provide for themselves.  The fundamental law
is, therefore, a "law of agency" whereby the 50 States created an
agent in  the federal  government to  exercise a  limited set  of
government services  on behalf of the 50 States.  These States in
turn perform  a limited  set of  services for their creators, the
people, above whom there is nothing but the Creator.

     The fundamental  law is  the foundation  of our society.  In
the United  States of  America, it  is the Constitution.  Through
this document,  our fundamental  rights are secured and protected


                        Page 10 - 1 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


against infringement  by the  federal government and by the State
governments,  because   the  States  are  also  parties  to  this
contract.  To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, we hold
these truths  to be  self-evident:   that all  of us  are created
equal;  that   we  are   endowed  by  our  Creator  with  certain
unalienable rights;  that among  these are  the rights  to  life,
liberty, and  the pursuit  of happiness;  that  to  secure  these
rights, governments  are instituted among us, deriving their just
power  from   our  consent.   These   rights   are   unalienable,
fundamental, and inherent.

     The fundamental law is intimately connected with fundamental
rights, because  the ultimate  purpose of  that law is to protect
and defend  the fundamental rights of Sovereign individuals.  The
Supreme Court of the United States put it very eloquently when it
said:

     Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it
     is the  author and  source of law;  but in our system, while
     sovereign  powers   are  delegated   to  the   agencies   of
     government, sovereignty  itself remains  with the people, by
     whom and  for whom  all government exists and acts.  And the
     law is the definition and limitation of power.

                   [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
     Every  Sovereign  State  Citizen  is  endowed  with  certain
unalienable rights,  for the enjoyment of which no written law or
statute is  required.   "These are fundamental or natural rights,
recognized among  all free  people," wrote Chancellor Kent in the
case of  United States  vs Morris.   What  are the fundamental or
natural rights recognized among all free people?  Chancellor Kent
answered as follows:

     That the  rights to lease land and to accept employment as a
     laborer for  hire are  fundamental rights, inherent in every
     free citizen, is indisputable.

           [United States vs Morris, 125 F.Rept. 322, 331 (1903)]
                                                                 
     One of  the most  precious  of  fundamental  rights  is  the
natural right  to enjoy  the fruits  of our  own labor,  our  own
"industry".   In the  year 1919,  the Secretary  of the  Treasury
recognized as "fundamental" the right of Sovereign State Citizens
to accept  employment as  laborers for  hire, and  to  enjoy  the
fruits of their own labor:

     Gross income  excludes  the  items  of  income  specifically
     exempt by ... fundamental law free from such tax.

                  [Treasury Decisions under Internal Revenue Laws
                       of the United States, Vol. 21, Article 71]



                        Page 10 - 2 of 14

                                              The Fundamental Law


In the  year 1921,  the Secretary of the Treasury reiterated this
statement concerning the fundamental law:

     Gross income  excludes  the  items  of  income  specifically
     exempted by  the statute  and also  certain other  kinds  of
     income by statute or fundamental law free from tax.

                      [Treasury Decision 3146, Vol. 23, page 376]
                                                                 
And again in the year 1924, the identical statement was published
concerning the fundamental law:

     Gross income  excludes  the  items  of  income  specifically
     exempted by  the statute  and also  certain other  kinds  of
     income by statute or fundamental law free from tax.

                      [Treasury Decision 3640, Vol. 26, page 769]
                                                                 
     The Constitution is, therefore, the fundamental law.  Within
the 50  States where  Congress is restrained by the Constitution,
"gross income"  excludes certain  kinds of  income which are free
from tax  under the fundamental law.  Labor is personal property.
The fruits  of labor  are personal  property.   A tax on personal
property is  a direct  tax, or  "capitation" tax.    Outside  the
federal zone,  Congress is  restrained from imposing a direct tax
on Sovereign  Citizens within  the 50  States, unless that tax is
apportioned (see  1:9:4 and  1:2:3).   Apportionment  is  a  very
simple concept.   If  California has  10 percent  of the nation's
population, then  California's "portion"  would be  10 percent of
any direct  tax levied  by Congress  (see Appendix Q).  Thus, the
income from labor is personal property, which is free from direct
taxation by Congress, unless that tax is apportioned among the 50
States of  the Union.   In  the  year  1895,  the  Supreme  Court
overturned an  Act of  Congress precisely  because  it  levied  a
direct tax without apportionment:

     First.   We adhere  to the  opinion already announced, that,
     taxes on  real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes
     on the  rents or  income of  real estate  are equally direct
     taxes.

     Second.   We are  of the  opinion  that  taxes  on  personal
     property,  or  on  the  income  of  personal  property,  are
     likewise direct taxes.

     Third.   The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-
     seven, inclusive,  of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on
     the income  of real estate and of personal property, being a
     direct tax  within the  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  and
     therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned
     according to  representation, all those sections, consisting
     of one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.

      [Pollock vs Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]


                        Page 10 - 3 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


The Pollock  case has  never been  overturned and  is  still  the
holding case law on direct taxes.  In light of some 17,000 State-
certified documents which prove that the so-called 16th Amendment
never became  law, the importance of the Pollock ruling is vastly
enhanced.   All direct  taxes levied inside the 50 States must be
apportioned, as required by the Constitution.

     The situation within the federal zone is entirely different.
Remember that Congress has exclusive legislative authority within
the federal  zone.  This means that Congress is not restrained by
the Constitution  within this  zone.   Therefore, Congress is not
required to apportion a direct tax within the federal zone.  When
it comes  to law,  the areas  inside and outside the federal zone
are heterogeneous  with respect  to each  other, resulting  in  a
principle of  territorial heterogeneity.   This  principle states
that areas  within the  federal zone  are subject  to one  set of
rules;   the areas  without the  federal zone  are subject  to  a
different set of rules.  The Constitution rules outside the zone;
the acts of Congress rule inside the zone.  (See Appendix W for a
summary of Downes vs Bidwell, the pivotal case on this question.)
In describing  the powers  delegated to  Congress by  Article  1,
Section 8, Clause 17 and by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the
Constitution, the  Supreme Court  has explained this principle as
follows:


     In exercising  this power,  Congress is  not subject  to the
     same constitutional  limitations, as  when it is legislating
     for the  United States***. ... And in general the guarantees
     of the  Constitution, save  as they are limitations upon the
     exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for
     or over  our insular  possessions, extend  to them  only  as
     Congress, in  the exercise  of its  legislative  power  over
     territory belonging  to the  United States**, has made those
     guarantees applicable.

             [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 653 (1945)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
Without referring  to it  as such,  author Lori Jacques describes
the principle of territorial heterogeneity as follows:


     The  "graduated   income  tax"  is  not  a  constitutionally
     authorized tax within the several states;  however, Congress
     is apparently  not prohibited  from levying that type of tax
     upon the  "subjects of the sovereign" in the Possessions and
     Territories.  The definitions of "United States" and "State"
     are stated  "geographically to  include"  only  those  areas
     constitutionally  within   congress'  exclusive  legislative
     jurisdiction upon whom a graduated tax can be imposed.

            [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 54]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                        Page 10 - 4 of 14

                                              The Fundamental Law


     The limitation against direct taxes without apportionment is
not the  only limitation  on Congress  outside the  federal zone.
There are  many other  limitations.   The most famous of these is
the  Bill   of  Rights,   which  recently  celebrated  its  200th
Anniversary (with  little if  any fanfare  by federal  government
officials).  The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the
U.S. Constitution.   There  is a widespread misunderstanding that
the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights, is the source
of those  rights which are enumerated in the first 10 amendments.
Even Black's  Law Dictionary  makes this  "fundamental" error  as
follows:


     Fundamental rights.   Those  rights which have their source,
     and are  explicitly or implicitly guaranteed, in the federal
     constitution.


     The rights  enumerated in  the Bill  of Rights  did not have
their source in the federal Constitution.  If this were the case,
then our  unalienable rights  would not  have existed before that
Constitution was  written.   Of course,  this is  nonsense.   The
Declaration  of   Independence  existed   long  before  the  U.S.
Constitution.  One has only to read that Declaration carefully to
appreciate the source of our fundamental, unalienable rights.  We
are endowed  "by our  Creator with  certain unalienable  rights".
These rights  are not  endowed by  the Constitution.    They  are
inherent rights  which exist  quite independently  of any form of
government we might invent to secure those rights.  We relinquish
our rights  if and  only if  we  waive  those  rights  knowingly,
intentionally and  voluntarily, or  act  in  such  a  way  as  to
infringe on the rights of others.  As the Supreme Court has said:


     ... [A]cquiescence in loss of fundamental rights will not be
     presumed.
                       [Ohio Bell vs Public Utilities Commission]
                                                   [301 U.S. 292]
                                                                 
                                                                 
     Unfortunately, public  awareness of the Bill of Rights is in
a sorry  state.   The following  article was published in the San
Francisco Chronicle  on the  200th Anniversary  of the signing of
the Bill of Rights:

     The right to be ignorant

          A new survey shows most Americans don't know much about
     James Madison's handiwork or the legacy he left them.

          The poll,  commissioned by the American Bar Association
     in honor of the Bill of Rights' 200th birthday, found that:




                        Page 10 - 5 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


          >  Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed don't know the
     Bill  of   Rights  is   the  first   10  amendments  to  the
     Constitution.   That's worse  than the 59 percent found in a
     similar survey  in 1987,  when the  five-year celebration of
     the Constitution's bicentennial started.

          >  Only 10 percent know the Bill of Rights was approved
     to protect  individuals and  states against the power of the
     federal government.

          >   More than half are willing to give up some of their
     Fourth Amendment  protections against  search and seizure to
     help win the war on drugs.

          >   51 percent  believe government should prohibit hate
     speech that  demeans someone's race, sex, national origin or
     religion, despite First Amendment free-speech protections.

          >   Forty-six percent  think Congress should be able to
     ban media  coverage of  any national  security issue  unless
     government gives  its  prior  approval,  despite  the  First
     Amendment's free-press guarantee.

                                        [San Francisco Chronicle]
                                   [December 16, 1991, page A-20]

     The Bill  of Rights  must be  viewed as a set of rules which
constrain Congress  from  passing  laws  which  infringe  on  our
unalienable rights.   The  Bill of  Rights does  not say that the
Constitution endows  us with  the right to freedom of speech.  It
does say  that "Congress  shall make  no law  ...  abridging  the
freedom of  speech, or  of the  press."   There  is  a  world  of
difference between  these two  views.   Similarly, it is a common
mistake to  believe that  we enjoy  only those  rights which  are
enumerated in  the Bill  of Rights.   This  is also a fundamental
error.  The rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights are
not the only rights which we enjoy.  This is clearly expressed by
the 9th and 10th Amendments:


     The enumeration  in the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights,
     shall not  be construed to deny or disparage others retained
     by the people.

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                                                [Ninth Amendment]

     The powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the
     Constitution, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                                                [Tenth Amendment]



                        Page 10 - 6 of 14

                                              The Fundamental Law


     With this  in mind,  it is  important to  appreciate how the
Bill of  Rights can  be utilized  to restrain  federal government
agents outside  the federal  zone.   The IRS  does operate  as an
"agency" of  the federal  government.   The right to be secure in
our persons,  houses, papers and effects is guaranteed by the 4th
Amendment:

     The right  of the  people to  be secure  in  their  persons,
     houses, papers,  and effects,  against unreasonable searches
     and seizures,  shall not  be violated, and no Warrants shall
     issue,  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  Oath  or
     affirmation, and  particularly describing  the place  to  be
     searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                                               [Fourth Amendment]

     Similarly, the rights against self-incrimination and of due
process of law are also guaranteed by the 5th Amendment:

     ... [N]or  shall any  person be subject for the same offense
     to be  twice put  in jeopardy of life or limb;  nor shall be
     compelled in  any criminal  case to  be  a  witness  against
     himself, nor  be deprived  of life,  liberty,  or  property,
     without due  process of  law;  nor shall private property be
     taken for public use without just compensation.

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                                                [Fifth Amendment]

     The  Internal   Revenue  Service  is  well  aware  of  these
amendments to  the U.S.  Constitution.  For example, many persons
are incorrect  to believe  that the  IRS has  authority to  force
disclosure of private books and records.  Even though the IRS may
have authority  to issue  a summons  in certain circumstances, it
has absolutely no authority to compel disclosure of private books
and records.   This  means that  you must  bring your  books  and
records to  an audit,  if lawfully summoned to do so, but you are
under no obligation to open those books and records, or to submit
them to  the Internal  Revenue Service.   As  amazing as this may
seem, this  restraint is documented in the official IRS Tax Audit
Guidelines (IR Manual MT 9900-26, 1-29-75), as follows:

     242.12  Books and Records of An Individual

     (1)  An individual  taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his books
          and  records   for  examination   on  the  ground  that
          compelling him to do so might violate his right against
          self-incrimination  under   the  Fifth   Amendment  and
          constitute an  illegal search  and  seizure  under  the
          Fourth Amendment.   However,  in the  absence  of  such
          claims, it  is not error for a court to charge the jury
          that it  may consider  the refusal to produce books and
          records, in determining willfulness.


                        Page 10 - 7 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


     (2)  The  privilege   against  self-incrimination  does  not
          permit a  taxpayer to  refuse to  obey a summons issued
          under  IRC   7602  or   a  court  order  directing  his
          appearance.   He is  required to  appear and cannot use
          the Fifth  Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so,
          although he may exercise it in connection with specific
          questions.   He cannot refuse to bring his records, but
          may  decline   to  submit   them  for   inspection   on
          Constitutional grounds.   In  the Vader  case [U.S.  vs
          Vader, 119 F.Supp. 330], the Government moved to hold a
          taxpayer in  contempt of  court for  refusal to  obey a
          court order  to produce  his books  and  records.    He
          refused  to   submit  them   for  inspection   by   the
          Government, basing  his refusal on the Fifth Amendment.
          The court  denied the  motion to  hold him in contempt,
          holding that  disclosure of  his assets would provide a
          starting point for a tax evasion case.

                                                 [emphasis added]

     Note, in  particular, where  this IR  Manual uses the phrase
"in the absence of such claims".  In general if you do not assert
your rights,  explicitly and in a timely fashion, then you can be
presumed to  have waived  them.  There's the "law of presumption"
again.   You can,  therefore, assert your rights under the Fourth
and Fifth  Amendments to  the Constitution, by refusing to submit
your books  and records  for inspection,  even though  you cannot
refuse to  bring those  books and  records to an audit.  This may
seem like  splitting hairs.   However,  if the federal government
could compel  your submission of books and records to IRS agents,
then the  federal government could compel persons to be witnesses
against themselves.   This  would violate  the  Fifth  Amendment.
Similarly, the  federal government  could compel  the search  and
seizure of  books and  records  without  a  warrant  issued  upon
probable cause  and describing  the place  to be searched and the
persons or  things to  be seized.   This would violate the Fourth
Amendment.  Agencies of the federal government are constrained by
law to  avoid infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

     How do  you assert  your rights  in a  polite yet convincing
way, so  that everyone who needs to know is placed on notice that
you have  done so?   One  of the most effective ways of asserting
your rights  is to  become totally  alert to every document which
bears your  signature, past,  present and future.  Know that your
signature is  the touch  which magically transforms common pieces
of paper into commercial contracts, or "commercial agreements" as
they are called in the Uniform Commercial Code.  Always sign your
name with the following phrase immediately above your signature:


           With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights
               and Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207



                        Page 10 - 8 of 14

                                              The Fundamental Law


The use  of this  phrase above  your signature  on  any  document
indicates that  you have  exercised the "Remedy" provided for you
in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in Article 1 at Section 207.
This "Remedy"  provides a  valid legal  mechanism  to  reserve  a
fundamental, common  law right  which you  possess.    Under  the
common law,  you enjoy  the right  not to be compelled to perform
under any  contract or  commercial agreement  which you  did  not
enter knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.

     Moreover, your  explicit reservation of rights serves notice
upon  all   administrative  agencies   of   government,   whether
international, national,  state, or  local, that  you do not, and
will not  accept the  liability associated  with the  "compelled"
benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements.  As you now know
from reading  previous chapters, the federal government is famous
for making  presumptions about  you, because your signature is on
documents which  bind you to "commercial agreements" with tons of
unrevealed terms  and conditions.   Think  back to  the terms and
conditions attached  to the bank signature card, for example.  An
unrevealed term  is proof of constructive fraud, and constructive
fraud is a legal basis for cancelling any written instrument.

     Last but not least, your valid reservation of rights results
in preserving  all your rights, and prevents the loss of any such
rights by  application of  the concepts of waiver or estoppel.  A
"waiver" has  occurred when  you sign  your name  on an agreement
which states  that you  knowingly, intentionally  and voluntarily
waive one  of your fundamental rights.  Kiss it goodbye.  As long
as you  are not  infringing on the rights of others, only you can
waive one or more of your fundamental rights.  In law, "estoppel"
means that  a party  is prevented by his own acts from claiming a
right, to the detriment of another party who was entitled to rely
on such  conduct and  who has  acted accordingly.  If all parties
were acting  in good  faith, for  example, estoppel  prevents you
from changing  your mind  and claiming a right after the fact, in
order to get out of an otherwise valid contract.  The doctrine of
estoppel holds that an inconsistent position or course of conduct
may not be adopted to the loss or injury of another.  However, if
the  other   party  has   been  responsible   for  actual  fraud,
constructive fraud  or  deliberate  misrepresentation,  then  the
estoppel doctrine  goes  out  the  window  and  the  contract  is
necessarily  null   and  void.    And  there  is  no  statute  of
limitations on fraud.

     The remedy  provided for  us in  the Uniform Commercial Code
was first  brought to  my attention  by a  Patriot  named  Howard
Freeman, who has written a classic essay entitled "The Two United
States and  the Law".   This  essay  does  an  excellent  job  of
describing the  tangled legal  mess that  has resulted  from  the
bankruptcy  of   the  federal   government  in   the  year  1933.
Specifically, the  Supreme Court  decision of  Erie  Railroad  vs
Thompkins in 1938 changed our entire legal system in this country
from public  law to  private commercial  law.  Prior to 1938, all
Supreme Court  decisions were  based upon  public law,  i.e., the


                        Page 10 - 9 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


system of  law that was controlled by Constitutional limitations.
Ever since the Erie decision in 1938, all Supreme Court decisions
have been  based upon  what is  termed "public  policy".   Public
policy concerns  commercial transactions  made under  the Uniform
Commercial  Code   (U.C.C.).     Freeman  describes  the  overall
consequences for our system of government as follows:


     Our national  Congress works for two nations foreign to each
     other, and  by legal  cunning both  are  called  The  United
     States.   One is  the Union  of Sovereign  States, under the
     Constitution, termed  in this article the Continental United
     States***.   The other  is a Legislative Democracy which has
     its origin  in Article  I,  Section  8,  Clause  17  of  the
     Constitution, here termed the Federal United States**.  Very
     few people, when they see some "law" passed by Congress, ask
     themselves, "Which  nation was  Congress working for when it
     passed this or that so-called law?"  Or, few ask, "Does this
     particular law  apply only  to residents  of the District of
     Columbia and  other named  enclaves, or  territories, of the
     Democracy called the Federal United States**?"

                                           [emphasis in original]

     The "Federal United States**" to which Freeman refers is the
federal zone.   Because  of its  sweetheart deal with the Federal
Reserve, Congress  deliberately failed  in its  duty to provide a
constitutional medium  of exchange  for the  Citizens of  the  50
States.   Instead of  real money,  Congress created a "wealth" of
commercial credit  for the federal zone, where it is not bound by
constitutional limitations.  After the tremendous depression that
began in  1929, Congress  used its  emergency authority to remove
the remaining  real money  (gold  and  silver)  from  circulation
inside the  50 States,  and made  the  commercial  paper  of  the
federal zone  a legal tender for all Citizens of the 50 States to
use in  discharging their debts.  Freeman goes on to describe the
"privilege" we  now enjoy  for being  able to discharge our debts
with limited  liability, that  is, by  using worthless commercial
paper instead of intrinsically valuable gold and silver:


     ... Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations
     the "benefit"  of limited  liability in the discharge of all
     debts by  telling the  citizenry that  the gold  and  silver
     coins of  the Republic were out of date and cumbersome.  The
     citizens were  told that  gold and silver (substance) was no
     longer needed  to  pay  their  debts,  that  they  were  now
     "privileged" to  discharge debt  with this more "convenient"
     currency,   issued   by   the   Federal   United   States**.
     Consequently, everyone  was forced  to "go  modern," and  to
     turn in  their gold as a patriotic gesture.  The entire news
     media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be
     a forward  step for  our democracy,  no longer  referring to
     America as a Republic.


                       Page 10 - 10 of 14

                                              The Fundamental Law


     You are  strongly encouraged  to read  and  study  Freeman's
entire essay,  which can  be obtained  by writing Howard Freeman,
c/o P.  O. Box 364, Lusk, Wyoming.  A copy of this essay can also
be obtained  from  the  Account  for  Better  Citizenship.    The
compound metaphor  of "Two United States" is rich in meanings and
long on prophetic insight.

     America is now submerged in a tangled legal mess which began
in 1901  and reached critical mass in 1913.  This mess is due, in
large part,  to systematic efforts to destroy the Constitution as
the fundamental  law in  this country,  and to devolve the nation
from a  Republic into  a Democracy  (mob rule)  and eventually  a
socialist dictatorship.   The  Supreme Court  gave  its  official
blessing to the dubious principle of territorial heterogeneity in
the Insular Cases.  These controversial precedents then paved the
way for  unrestricted monetary  devolution under a private credit
monopoly created  by the  Federal Reserve Act;  this Act followed
closely behind  the fraudulent 16th Amendment in order to justify
"municipal" income  taxation (two pumps, working in tandem).  The
Supreme Court  stepped into  line  once  again  when  their  Erie
decision threw  out almost  100 years  of common  law  precedent.
Echoing Justice  Harlan's eloquent  dissent in Downes vs Bidwell,
author Lori  Jacques identifies  territorial heterogeneity  as  a
root cause of the disease she calls "governmental absolutism":


     There has  been no  cure for  the  disease  of  governmental
     absolutism  introduced   into  our   body  politic   by  the
     acquisition  of  Dependencies  and  the  subsequent  alleged
     Sixteenth Amendment.   ...  [T]hrough Rules  and Regulations
     meant for the Territories and insular Possessions, which are
     not limited  by the Constitution, Congress has extended this
     limited legislative  power into the several states by clever
     design thereby  usurping the  states' right  to a republican
     form of  Government and  virtually destroying the concept of
     Liberty of the individual. ...

     Until the  person who  receives benefits from the Government
     is not  permitted to  vote, or  buy himself  benefits to the
     detriment of  another, the Liberty of the Individual will be
     denied.  "Benefits" granted by the Government are the rights
     transferred by  the Individual  to the  Government and  then
     returned  as   "privileges"  by  its  formula  of  felicific
     calculus.

      [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, pages 145-146]


These efforts  to destroy the Constitution have not been entirely
successful, however.   Due  to  the  concerted  efforts  of  many
courageous Americans  like  Howard  Freeman,  the  United  States
Constitution is  alive, if  not well, and remains the Supreme Law
of the  Land even  today.   Any statute,  to be valid, must be in
agreement with the Constitution and, therefore, with all relevant


                       Page 10 - 11 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


provisions for  amending it.   It  is  impossible  for  both  the
Constitution and  a law  violating it  to be  valid;    one  must
prevail.   That "one" is the Constitution, the fundamental law in
these United States.  This is succinctly stated as follows:


     The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though
     having the  form and  name of law, is in reality no law, but
     is wholly  void and  ineffective for  any  purpose;    since
     unconstitutionality dates  from the  time of  its enactment,
     and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
     An unconstitutional  law,  in  legal  contemplation,  is  as
     inoperative as  if it had never been passed.  Such a statute
     leaves the  question that  it purports  to settle just as it
     would be[,] had the statute not been enacted.

     Since  an   unconstitutional  law   is  void,   the  general
     principles follow  that it  imposes no  duties,  confers  no
     rights, creates  no office, bestows no power or authority on
     anyone,  affords   no  protection,  and  justifies  no  acts
     performed under it ....

     A void  act cannot  be legally  consistent with a valid one.
     An unconstitutional  law cannot  operate  to  supersede  any
     existing valid  law.   Indeed, insofar  as  a  statute  runs
     counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded
     thereby.

     No one  is bound  to obey  an unconstitutional  law, and  no
     courts are bound to enforce it.

                               [Sixteenth American Jurisprudence]
                                    [Second Edition, Section 177]
                                                 [emphasis added]






















                       Page 10 - 12 of 14

                                              The Fundamental Law


Reader's Notes:























































                       Page 10 - 13 of 14

                                                The Federal Zone:


Reader's Notes:























































                       Page 10 - 14 of 14
