A Collection of Writings and Briefs by Amos Bruce

Illusions of Taxation or, How Government Gets Everything for Nothing

This short note will attempt to illustrate, by common sense and basic logic, how government gets everything it requires for the purpose of discharging any programs it sees fit to institute, for absolutely nothing.

All things become utile only by human exertion. Without human exertion, we could not develop resources. Resources, in and of themselves, are of no value whatsoever unless they are developed by human exertion. Therefore, human exertion must be expended before value can be attached to anything whatsoever. Money motivates this human exertion.

The wealth of a nation is the goods and services produced by its people. Adam Smith, the purported father of economics, said it in 1776. This statement is widely accepted as true as pertains to a nation, or group of people. In other words, human exertion expended for production of goods and/or services and development of resources imparts to the fruits of human labor a certain value which should, as a matter of course, belong to its producers. All production is wealth and there can be no wealth without human exertion.

A nation banded together for social living adopts a government to keep things in order and to do for the people whatever the people request of it. In order to adequately perform these functions, government must be funded. Taxation, of course, is the means of funding. Logically, then, the reason for taxation is to support government. If government requires $1 million in order to function, it becomes incumbent upon government to enact tax legislation in order to raise the $1 million UNLESS they have the power to create the $1 million out of thin air.

If the fruits of labor belong to the people, it is axiomatic that the people must labor for government (through taxation). This is only necessary when the people are permitted to administer the fruits of their labor and retain absolute ownership of the medium of exchange which facilitates trading the fruits of their labor.

In the order of social living, money functions as a means of permitting the people to exchange among themselves the fruits of their labors according to their wants and needs. A productive person will normally produce more than he can consume. His surplus is used to exchange with someone else for something that is surplus, but utile, to the other person.

Throughout history, precious metals have been utilized to effect the means of trading private property among each other. When citizens are permitted to own these precious metals and utilize them as an exclusive medium of exchange, then taxation is an honorable thing because the people are required to surrender part of their production by giving up ownership of their medium of exchange to the extent of their obligation to support government. If the ownership of the medium of exchange is denied the people, then they no longer have full dominion and control over the fruits of their labor.

Removal of the precious metals as a medium of exchange from the hands of the people, coupled with the compulsion to accept a medium of exchange that has no intrinsic value, effectively removes from the hands of the people the actual control of their government. Their government then becomes controlled by that special group of people that are empowered to declare what shall circulate as a medium of exchange. Legal tender laws do exactly this. Legal tender laws impart to promises, or notes, the qualities of being money (even though the law says differently). Today’s medium of exchange consists of federal reserve notes (issued by private banking corporations) and demand deposits of private commercial banks. There was a time when our federal reserve notes were exchangeable for lawful money but, today, treasury officials say the federal reserve notes ARE the lawful money. Since the private banking corporations do not have the power to pass legislation declaring what shall be a lawful tender in payment for all debts whatsoever, it follows that only the government can declare what shall be a lawful tender in payment of all debts whatsoever. If something other than gold and silver coin are declared to be such a tender, a conflict arises with Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution. Exclusion of wealth (gold and silver coins) as a medium of exchange, coupled with the lack of intrinsic value of the pieces of paper representing the implied promise to PAY, effectively removes ownership and control of the medium of exchange from the hands of the people which results in government causing as much money it wants to be created by the private banking corporations for government’s benefit. This, in effect, is the basic cause of the burgeoning bureaucratic superstructure which controls our daily lives.

If the wealth of the nation is as stated earlier, the following should clearly illustrate to anyone that government gets everything for nothing without having to revert to or depend on taxation. Consider this: Money — coined and printed by the government — is merely a symbol of that wealth. Examine this statement carefully! You, through your human exertion, produce a product which is saleable to your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens must labor to obtain money (legal tender) with which to purchase your product. The money they obtain for their labors is pieces of paper called federal reserve notes which are designated to be legal tender for all debts, public and private. (They also obtain checks which are convertible into federal reserve notes.) These notes have been printed as a symbol of your product. Of course, when you accept the symbol of your product as the medium of exchange, you can pass that symbol to someone else in exchange for something they possess BUT you cannot get anything from the issuer of those symbols except more symbols. On the other hand, if the issuer of those symbols wants your product, all he need do is issue the symbols and give them to you for your product. He is not required to redeem those symbols in any kind of money or commodity other than the kind he has originally issued. Furthermore, he issues a few extra symbols to pay for the paper upon which the symbols are printed and to pay for the printing machines that printed the symbols and the wages of his employees that ran the printing presses to print the symbols. Therefore, he has obtained your product for absolutely nothing! If it is government that takes your product with this kind of money, their action creates a conflict with the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.

Since the de facto issuer of our money is the federal government (through the facilities of the Federal Reserve banking system) by virtue of their usurped power to declare what shall function as legal tender for all debts, public and private, there is no necessity for taxation at the federal level. The federal government has access to all the money it wants, or needs, at absolutely no cost! The money thus created is used in the discharge of their governmental functions. Everything, therefore, substantive or otherwise, obtained by the federal government for absolutely nothing equates to zero requirement in the way of money from the citizens, through taxation, for the purpose of discharging its functions. Government constitutionally has the power to tax the people only to the extent of their requirements to discharge their governmental functions.

The means of obtaining these monetary requirements adopted by Congress negates Congress’ right to tax the people because:

The bills of credit (today they’re called federal reserve notes) which were occasionally issued in 1775 and 1776 held fairly well, but by 1777, they were being issued at a much more rapid pace. During 1778, Congress authorized a new issue approximately every four weeks. Efforts were made to have the states provide revenue through taxation, but the state legislatures almost completely ignored the requests. Many congressmen realized that paper money itself was nothing but a form of disguised taxation. Said one legislator, The natural unavoidable tax of depreciation is the most certain, expeditious, and equal tax that could be devised. Every possessor of money has paid a tax in proportion to the time he held it.

From MONEY IN COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, page 33.

If we equate this statement to the weekly roll over of federal debt through issuance of treasury notes and bonds we can easily assume that zero requirement of funds from the public for the discharge of governmental functions divided into the entire population of the United States equals a zero tax liability for the citizens.

Under our present monetary system, why are we being taxed?

Statement of the Case

On November 4, 1981, NELLIE BABBS, d/b/a KTTL Radio, tendered to the Gray County (Kansas) Treasurer a Public Office Money Certificate denominated in $4,542.45 for the purpose of ultimately discharging her lawful debt established through the powers of the State of Kansas to lay and collect taxes for its support upon its citizens. The Gray County Treasurer's Office accepted this Public Office Money Certificate and issued, in receipt thereof, a CASH RECEIPT No. 1907, under the name of MARIE BABCOCK, Clerk of the District Court. Further, an additional receipt (No. 7279) was issued through the Office of County Treasurer, Gray County, Kansas acknowledging payment of certain taxes as specified on the receipt.

Subsequently, this Public Office Money Certificate was submitted to some commercial bank for collection and the bank returned same as being not a negotiable instrument.

Subsequent to return of the Public Office Money Certificate, County Attorney Curtis Campbell, on behalf of Gray County, Kansas, filed the instant action before this court. Pursuant to Chapter 79 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, a Motion for an order lifting the limitation on frequency of garnishments, pursuant to Rule Number 10 of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.

Nellie Babbs alleges that this is not a proper action in that the payment has been refused by the Gray County Treasurer's Office because of neglect on their part to tell Nellie Babbs just what she must lawfully and constitutionally submit to the Gray County Treasurer's Office for the purpose of totally discharging her debt liability established by the taxing code of the State of Kansas.

I

Respondent alleges that her tax liability has been placed in abeyance until such time as the Gray County Treasurer's Office informs Respondent that they have the power to compel payment in something other than gold and/or silver coin pursuant to Article I, Section 10, United States Constitution. This allegation is based on the holding of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hagar v. Land Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, wherein the Court held that:

The acts of Congress making the notes of the United States a legal tender do not apply to involuntary contributions in the nature of taxes or assessments exacted under State law, but only to debts in the strict sense of the term; that is, to obligations founded on contracts, express or implied, for the payment of money.

Hagar, supra, p. 706.

Many jurisdictions have held in the past that various rulings of the federal courts on this particular subject are binding on the states, rulings such as U.S. v. Ware (9th Cir.), Paly (8th), Benson (5th), Moon (8th), Hurd (9th), Wangrud (9th), Tissi (8th), Rifen (8th), Anderson (10th), Schmitz (9th), Whitesel (6th), all holding that claims predicated on the fact that the dollar was not redeemable in gold or silver coin relieved them of the obligation of filing a federal income tax return and also relieved them of the burden of paying federal taxes. But every one of these rulings pertained to a tender to the federal government. None of these cases can be persuasive or binding on this Court because they are all inferior to the United States Supreme Court which has held that what the states make a tender in payment of taxes is not a federal question! Hagar, supra, p. 704. The federal court has no jurisdiction to rule on the state question.

Respondent has made a tender to the Gray County Treasurer of a negotiable instrument and the Gray County Treasurer, after having accepted Respondent's tender, has not seen fit to follow the procedures for converting this negotiable instrument to a material acceptable to said treasurer. It is plainly stated on the face of the negotiable instrument that it will be paid in full in the money of account of the United States upon a proper determination of what that money is.

II

Plaintiff's attempt at garnishment is for the purpose of harassing the Respondent into waiving her constitutional right to demand that the State of Kansas meet its constitutional obligation of dealing only in gold and/or silver coin as mandated by Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The issue raised by Respondent herein is a very basic constitutional issue, to-wit: Does the constitution mean what it says in plain, ordinary words?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, PAR. 1:

No state shall …; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

In short. Art. I, Sec. 10 means precisely what it says: The States may make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, notwithstanding the powers of Congress over monetary matters in other respects. The various powers and prohibitions of Article I are of equal dignity, and neither must be enforced so as to nullify or substantially impair the other. Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 at 353 (1908).

In Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 570-71, the Court stated:

In expounding the constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning; and this principle of construction applies with peculiar force to the two clauses of the tenth section of the first article …, because the whole of this short section is directed to the same subject; that is to say, it is employed altogether in enumerating the rights surrendered by the states; and this is done with so much clearness and brevity, that we cannot for a moment believe, that a single superfluous word was used, or words which meant merely the same thing.

To construe the general powers of Congress as overriding the specific prohibition of Article I, Section 10 would be to neutralize [that] positive prohibition, and thereby not to give effect to the Constitution, but to destroy a portion thereof. South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 at 328 (1904).

Our present day fiat monetary system springs from Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421. Julliard did not deal with Article I, Section 10 at all and is no precedent for invoking its rule to support the theory that the question of paper money was put to rest long ago. Neither Julliard nor any other decision of the Supreme Court has sustained the constitutionality — for any purpose — of irredeemable, legal tender paper money. To the contrary: In every opinion on the subject, the Court has indicated the unconstitutionality of such currency.

Congress has authorized legal tender paper currency of one kind or another since 1862 (Act of 25 February 1862, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 345). But only in 1968 did its currency become irredeemable in both gold and silver coin. Irredeemability in gold became law in 1934, Act of 30 January 1934, ch. 6, sections 5-6, 48 Stat. 340, now 31 U.S.C. Sees. 315b, 408a (1976). Irredeemability in silver was enacted in 1967, effective 1968. Act of 24 June 1967, Pub. L. 90-29, Sec. 2, 81 Stat. 77, now 31 U.S.C. 405a-3 (1976). Only after 1968, then, has any paper currency issued under the purported authority of the United States both been made irredeemable in gold and silver coin and been declared a legal tender for all public and private debts. Compare 31 U.S.C. Sees. 405a-2, 408a (1976) with 31 U.S.C. 392 (1976). And, since 1968, the Supreme Court has had no opportunity to address the constitutional validity of such irredeemable paper currency.

Prior to 1968, the Supreme Court dealt with legal tender paper currency in several cases; but, in each of these, the currency sub judice was fully redeemable in gold, silver, or both. The Court sustained the constitutionality of the first congressional issuance of legal tender United States Notes in Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1870). These notes, however, were redeemable on their face, bearing the promise of the United States to pay (20 dollars, etc.) to the bearer. And, in an earlier opinion, the Court had described them as

… obligations of the United States. Their name imports obligation. Every one of them expresses … an engagement of the nation to pay to the bearer a certain sum. The dollar note is an engagement to pay a dollar, and the dollar intended is the coined dollar of the United States; a certain quantity in weight and fineness of gold or silver, authenticated as such by the stamp of the government.

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court had observed that [t]hese notes, until after the close of the [civil] war, were always convertible into, or receivable at par for bonds payable in coin, and bearing coin interest. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533, 537-538 (1869), citing Act of 11 July 1862, 12 Stat. 532, and act of 3 March 1863, 12 Stat. 710.

Thus, in Knox, the Court needed to answer only the question whether

Congress [can] constitutionally give to treasury notes the character and qualities of money? Can such notes be constituted a legitimate circulating medium, having a defined legal value?

Knox, supra, at 530

It did not have to consider whether Congress has power to give legal tender character to bank notes that have no defined legal value because they are irredeemable in any determinate weight of gold or silver. The Knox Court made this unequivocally clear when it said that

… [t]he legal tender acts [of 1862 and 1863] do not attempt to make paper a standard of value. We do not rest their validity upon the assertion that their emission is coinage, or any regulation of the value of money; nor do we assert that Congress may make anything which has no value money. What we do assert is, that Congress has power to enact that the government's promises to pay money shall be, for the time being, equivalent in value to the representative of value determined by the coinage acts, or to multiples thereof. *** It is, then, a mistake to regard the legal tender acts as either fixing a standard of value or regulating money values, or making that money which has no intrinsic value.

Id. at 553.

In addition. Justice Bradley’s concurring opinion emphasized that the power to make United States Notes legal tender

… is entirely distinct from that of coining money and regulating the value thereof. … It is not an attempt to coin money out of a valueless material, like the coinage of leather or ivory or kowrie shells. It is a pledge of the national credit. It is a promise by the government to pay dollars; it is not an attempt to make dollars. The standard of value is not changed. …

…

No one supposes that these government certificates are never to be paid — that the day of specie payments is never to return. … And their payment may not be made directly in coin, but they may be first convertible into government bonds, or other government securities. Through whatever changes they pass, their ultimate destiny is to be paid. …

…

So with the power of government to borrow money, … when exercised in the form of legal tender notes or bills of credit, it may operate for the time being to compel the creditor to receive the credit of the government in place of the gold which he expected to receive from his debtor.

Id. at 560, 561-62, 565.

Justice Bradley’s opinion is important, because he provided the decisive fifth vote in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender United States Notes. See also Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 17 N.Y. 400, 470 (1863) (opinion of Balcom, J.).

Similarly, in its next opinion on legal tender currency in Julliard v. Greenman, supra, the Supreme Court explicitly referred to the law by which holders of United States Notes could redeem them in specie. 110 U.S. 421 at 436-37 citing Act of 14 January 1875, ch. 15, 18 Stat. 296.

ARGUMENT

Respondent finds the issues so simple that they boggle the mind. The problem with society as a whole today (and most especially those of the judiciary), is that they suffer from cognitive dissonance, that is, their minds will not accept anything contrary to that which they have believed during their entire life. This state of affairs is quite analogous to the times of Galileo who became the symbol of the revolt of reason against the blind forces of authority and ignorance. He was arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned, all under the sanction of the all powerful Pope Urban VIII for, inter alia, proclaiming that the world was round. His proclamation did not square with dogma of the Church and thus shook the foundations of vested interests much like the vested interests of public officials today. Rather than face cold logic, those in authority and seats of high places continue to proclaim that a fantasy is not a fantasy thus flouting their ignorance for all the world to see.

Acceptance of the doctrine that Congress has full sway and control over our monetary system totally negates seventeen words of the United States Constitution, namely, No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. We must be ever mindful of the fact that the only mention of a tender in payment of debts appears in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The power to declare what shall be a legal tender in payment of debts was interpolated into our jurisprudence by a packed Supreme Court after such schemes were declared to be unconstitutional in Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. 603. The states are prohibited from coining money and Congress is given the exclusive power to coin money. Because of this absolute grant and prohibition, what do the words make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts mean? Obviously, they are meaningless since the states are prohibited from coining any coins which can constitutionally be declared a lawful tender in payment of all debts whatsoever.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states:

Congress shall have Power; … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

What is that … Standard of Weights and Measures that Congress has fixed as pertains to … coin[ing] Money? Is that standard the dollar? If so, what is the Measure? There is a difference!

Title 31, United States Code, Section 371 reads:

The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mill the thousandth part of a dollar; and all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.

Express is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed.) as: Clear; definite; explicit; unmistakable; not dubious or ambiguous. Expressed is defined as: Means stated or declared in direct terms, set forth in words; not left to inference or implication (same dictionary). This is what respondent is looking for, a clear, definite, explicit, unmistakable, not dubious or ambiguous answer to the question of WHAT IS THE MONEY OF ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IS EXPRESSED IN DOLLARS? Is it federal reserve notes or demand deposits of commercial banks? If it is, why don’t the courts so specifically state instead of ignoring the basic question by saying federal reserve notes are legal tender. Why don’t the courts just say: Federal reserve notes and demand deposits of the commercial banks are the money of account of the United States!

There is nothing particularly confusing or ambiguous about the sentence, The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths; Most of us learned how to parse sentences in the fourth grade. The subject is money, and the main verb is expressed; the verb, however, is incomplete without the modal shall and the auxiliary be. As a result, the structure of the sentence is declarative, but the tone is imperative; the assumption is that there is no question as to how the money shall be expressed — in dollars, etc. Account modifies money and the United States modifies account. The lengthy prepositional phrase that ends the sentence is used in an adverbial sense, indicating the various ways that money can be expressed. The only unclear element of the sentence is the main verb expressed; it is not possible from the context to determine exactly what the term connotes. Removal of the substantive standard of weights and measures as pertains to coining money is what makes the term unclear, thus conflicting with the definitions of express and expressed.

If the money of account is to be expressed in dollars, is dollars both the money and the expression? Common sense would dictate differently. For instance, the transmogrification of terms has clouded the minds of American citizens.

We were early trained to refer to a dollar of silver as a silver dollar. Everyone understands the expression but the mind would rebel if we used the expression milk quart. But it is just as accurate as the term silver dollar. Transmogrifying the words imparts to the word dollar the properties of being an entity as opposed to being an intangible unit of measurement. The silver dollar expression is best illustrated by the little girl in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. She recognized that the emperor was naked because she had not been educated into ignorance!

In the year 1792 the unit of measurement dollar was defined as being 371¼ grains of silver pure or 412½ grains of silver 90 percent fine. In later years it was redefined in terms of gold. Today there is no definition. Because of the lack of a definition, the term dollar has degenerated into a mere fiction.

From the very outset of this controversy. Respondent has continually objected to the use of legal fiction for the collection of a personal property tax by Gray County. It is very apparent in the light of past history that Gray County has entered this action against Respondent with dirty hands because of the prohibition contained in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

Would the Court disagree with an eminent Nobel Prize winning economist, namely, Milton Friedman, who made the statement in his book FREE TO CHOOSE that:

(T)he value of having a common money is so great that people will stick to the fiction even under extreme provocation — whence, as we shall see, comes part of the gain that issuers of the money can derive from inflation and hence the temptation to inflate. But neither is the fiction indestructible: the phrase ‘not worth a Continental' is a reminder of how that fiction was destroyed for the Continental currency issued in excessive amount by the U.S. Continental Congress to finance the American Revolution. Though the value of money rests on a fiction, money serves an extraordinarily useful economic function. (emphasis added)

Or can the Court ignore the very enlightening words of Henry C. Wallich, Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System at the M.B.A. Graduation Exercises of the Fordham Graduate School of Business, New York City on Wednesday, June 28, 1978, to-wit:

At this time, you are presumably looking at your future role in the world in the broadest possible sense, including a moral sense. Today I would like to talk to you about one aspect of your future that has a moral dimension, although it is technically an economic problem. I mean the breakdown in our standards of measuring economic values, as a consequence of inflation. Nothing that is stated about dollars and cents any longer means what it says. Inflation is like a country where nobody speaks the truth. Our failure to deal effectively with inflation results largely from our failure to regard it as a moral issue, (emphasis supplied)

Mr. Wallich further stated:

Inflation introduces an element of deceit into most of our economic dealings. Everybody makes contracts knowing perfectly well that they will not be kept in terms of constant values … We do not know whether the most valuable part of the contract may not turn out to be the paper it is written on. This condition is hard to reconcile with simple honesty.

…

If our contracts were made in terms of unpredictably shifting measures of weight, time, or space, as we buy food, sell our labor, or acquire real estate, we would probably regard that as cheating, and as intolerable. Yet the case is much the same when we are dealing with monetary values. (emphasis supplied)

Respondent respectfully asks the Court how such reality as set forth above squares with the constitutional mandate of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution which states that Congress shall have the power … to fix the standard of weights and measures as pertains to their power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Lack of a standard unit of value reduces our medium of exchange, expressed in dollars, to the realm of being a fiction.

Further quoting Mr. Wallich:

A government pretending to serve a nation's interest by, say, misinforming the people about its military plans would be harshly taken to task. Why should trading on the people's money illusion be regarded any differently? (emphasis supplied).

Again, Mr. Wallich spells out the fiction of our monetary illusion. These are facts that Respondent respectfully requests the Court to ponder before making a hasty decision in favor of the Plaintiff.

The growing tax revolt (IRS Training Manual 9974-02 [1-80]) is escalating because of these particular factors that citizens are beginning to suddenly realize. Mr. Wallich states it very clearly:

As it happens, the attempt to trade on money illusion has backfired because labor turned out not to be money blind. Mounting inflation was increasingly perceived and as it came to be perceived, to accelerate. In consequence, we got both high inflation and high unemployment. Deceit revealed and rejected nevertheless remains deceit. (emphasis supplied)

This Court has an excellent opportunity to expose this deceit by ruling according to the Supreme Court in the case of Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410 at 435 that ONLY THE STATES HAVE THE POWER TO DECLARE WHAT SHALL BE A LEGAL TENDER WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BORDERS.

One can readily understand the position of Curtis Campbell who is young, embarking on his lifetime career, possibly with aspirations of eventually being honored by a position on the Supreme Court. Such attitudes could (through human frailties) cause him to completely ignore his oath to uphold the constitution and instead blindly follow the irrational decisions of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals whose reputation is viewed by prominent attorneys throughout the country as being one of depravity. In this light. Respondent quotes a prominent attorney and law professor who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons:

Dear Mr. Bruce:

Thank you for the materials you recently sent me on the money issue. The Motion for Rehearing by the Court En Bane in United States v. Moon goes far to confirm my own experience that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit shrinks from no absurdity or dishonesty in covering up for sacred cows in contemporary society — be they the IRS or powerful unions such as the National Education Association.

The oath of office taken by this Court does not state that it must blindly, without common rationale, follow the utterings of such a depraved court as set forth above. But then, in this light, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has never ruled that the word dollar is NOT a fiction of law. Instead, they have legislated that federal reserve notes are taxable dollars without any enactment of Congress whatsoever to substantiate such a ruling. See United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111.

The growing tax revolt is becoming very widespread and judges throughout the country are extremely unhappy about being saddled with cases bringing up the legality of our present day monetary system. Most, Respondent is sure, are well aware of the fallacies which they perpetuate by convicting honest and upstanding citizens of crimes on such frail pleadings of the Internal Revenue Service, perhaps more through fear of the Internal Revenue Service themselves. In order for any court in this land to be able to make an honest ruling as pertains to our present day monetary system. Congress should exempt the judiciary from all taxes which would completely remove the fear of judges to rule against the Internal Revenue Service.

This Court is in a position to vindicate the 140 judges in the case of Adkins et al. v. The United States of America, U.S. Court of Claims, Docket No. 41-76 (1976) wherein the judges, through their pleadings, recognized the fiction of the word dollar. Perhaps it is not the Internal Revenue Service or various county and state tax collectors that are actually the oppressors of citizens of these United States but those within the judiciary that permit them, by closing their eyes to the prevailing fiction, because of fear of the IRS or loss of vested interests.

A ruling in Respondent's favor would force Gray County to appeal this Court's decision but such a ruling by this Court would then shift the burden of proof from a single citizen to Gray County and Gray County would then be compelled to wash its dirty hands before proceeding on the theory that the United States Legislature has the power to negate the absolute prohibition of Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution. This Court is in a position to rule in ITS wisdom and is not restricted to parroting rulings of the 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals which are based on false premises mostly because the issues were mispleaded by the Defendants.

Any simple reading of the history of our country readily illustrates the unlawfulness of our present monetary system; how our monetary system has degenerated into a fiction. The history of the United States during the Constitutional Convention clearly spells out the fact that the intent of the convention was to absolutely and unequivocally crush paper money. By giving Congress the power to coin money in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and reserving to the states in Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1 the power to declare what shall be a legal tender within their borders was meant to be a failsafe device against the federal government ever reverting to a paper standard such as that forbidden in the case of Knox v. Lee, supra.

As noted, supra, today’s upholdings of a paper standard emanate from Julliard v. Greenman wherein the court upheld the validity of U.S. Treasury notes as a legal tender. This case was specifically grounded on the fact that the certificates were evidence of actual specie borrowed under the borrowing clause of the United States Constitution to borrow MONEY on the credit of the United States. In order for today’s interpretation of Julliard to be valid, it would be necessary for Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 to read: Congress shall have the power to borrow credit on the credit of the United States.

Referring back to Atkins, et. al., if judges are suffering from the effects of spiraling inflation, they need look no further than their own courtrooms for both the cause and the remedy. In recent years, federal district and appellate judges have had ample opportunity to solve not only their own personal financial dilemma but also that of the United States; instead, they have chosen to brandish their ignorance as a blunt weapon and use it to inflict pain upon bright and courageous citizens who have sought answers to our worsening economy and have found them in the United States Constitution.

Three self-evident truths must be stated: first, that the erosion of the purchasing power of a medium of exchange is brought about by inflation; second, that inflation is the issuance of money substitutes in amounts far in excess of the specie they purport to represent; third, that whereas the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not deny Congress the power to emit bills of credit, they unanimously assented to prohibit the states from making any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. The intent of this provision, if the notes of James Madison can be trusted, was for crushing paper money forever. The debts of Congress might be circulated by its creditor as paper currency, but if this currency ever pretended to evolve into an irredeemable fiat monetary system, no state could order any citizen to pay a debt denominated in such currency. Has our judiciary forgotten that the sole purpose of the 1787 Convention as recited by Andrew Jackson in his 8th Address to the Congress in 1836, was to establish a monetary system based on the precious metals by fixing a permanent rule forbidding the more pernicious expediency of a paper currency? There have been many instances, even outside the State of Kansas, in which the judiciary has recently been given the chance to encourage the lawful cure for inflation, and thus for the stagnant compensation for judges, but declined to do so. Was it through fear of the Internal Revenue Service?

CONCLUSION

This Court is not bound by any federal ruling as pertains to Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 because there is no federal question involved.

Plaintiff’s petition should be dismissed as an improper procedure until such time as Plaintiff demands that Respondent honor her promissory note and Respondent refuses. A question of garnishment should not be before this Court at this time because Plaintiff has not established that Respondent has refused, or even intends to refuse to pay any lawful tax liability. The County Treasurer holds the key to payment by merely requesting an opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Kansas as to What is the money of account of the United States that is expressed in dollars pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 371.

Respectfully submitted:

Index to Welty case

1. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
2. MEMORANDUM AT LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
3. PROSECUTING ATTORNEy’s REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS.
4. JUDGE'S RULING ON PROSECUTOR'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS.
5. DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO STATE'S MOTION TO OVERRULE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS.
6. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO STATE'S MOTION TO OVERRULE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS.
7. NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER RECEIPT OF COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Comes now defendants, CARLOS W. and WANDA WELTY, Pro se, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 55.27(a)(6) and moves the Court for a dismissal of the above captioned cause for failure of plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Respectfully submitted:

CARLOS W. WELTY, Defendant Pro se, and for his wife,

WANDA WELTY, Defendant,
Route 2,
Qulan, Mo., 63961
TELEPHONE: 328-4552

Plaintiff's petition is predicated on a fiction of law. Plaintiff has prayed the Court for judgment in the amount of $409.96, $20.50, $84.54 and $515.00, the artificial sign $ being universally understood to mean U.S. Dollar.

Currently, the word dollar has been reduced to a fiction of law by repudiation of the standard unit of value. In today’s society it is accepted by the citizenry because of their residual memory of the time when it was a fixed standard unit of value representing a specific weight of gold and/or silver.

In order for Plaintiff to base a claim of tax liability against Defendants herein, a standard unit of value is necessary by which Plaintiff can measure said tax liability. During the period upon which Plaintiff's claim is based, the year 1974, the existing standard unit of value was the dollar of gold consisting of 12.632 grains of gold 90% fine. Title 31 U.S.C. 314. However, Defendants were precluded from utilizing the standard unit of value as a medium of exchange because of the prohibition enacted by the United States Congress on June 5, 1933 in House Joint Resolution #192 declaring it to be against public policy to use gold as money.

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1, United States Constitution, provides that no state shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

Chapter 408, Section 408.010, RSMo. 1969 states that, The silver coins of the United States … at their par value … shall be a legal tender within the State of Missouri.

As of June 24, 1968, the United States Treasury abrogated its duty to mint silver coins by which the State of Missouri could constitutionally declare a legal tender in payment of debts.

The State of Missouri has no standard against which they may assess an income tax liability against Defendants herein. The demise of the standard unit of value from the statutes of the United States Code in no way relieved the states of the constitutional mandate to make no Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

Defendants object to the imposition upon them of a paper standard as a medium of exchange. In light of today’s society, they are forced to accept paper for their transactions.

The State of Missouri is constitutionally prohibited from any choice as to whether or not they may conduct their business on a paper standard. Absent object of those doing business with the state, it is legal for the parties to transact their affairs in such a medium of exchange. However, when an objection is entered by the citizen, the state is prohibited from compelling the citizen to tender any Thing but gold and silver coin in payment of debts. Baily v. Gentry, 1 Mo. 164 (1822); Lowry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835).

Does Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution preempt Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution? Defendants think not. The line of cases emanating from Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) down through Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio RR., 294 U.S. 240 (1935) which have been relied upon to impose a fiat currency system and a paper standard upon the citizens of these United States were all decided in diversity, required payments which transcended state boundaries and necessitated the support of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to support their theories and decisions. Both cases were narrow five to four decisions. Were it not for the diversity nature of the cases, the federal courts would not have had jurisdiction to hear them in the first instance. The present case at bar is not a case in diversity nor is it a case involving interstate commerce but a case arising within the exclusive borders of the State of Missouri. Only the STATES_ shall have power to declare what shall be a legal tender within their respective borders, Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410 at 435 (1822), and, by terms of the United States Constitution, they are limited to no Thing but gold and silver coin in that choice. Baily, supra.

Furthermore, the State of Missouri HAS declared what shall be legal tender within the state and that declaration is: The silver coins of the United States…at their par value.. Chapter 408, Section 408.010 RSMo. 1969. It is no fault of the Defendants that the State of Missouri has permitted the U.S. Congress to abrogate their duty to furnish the State of Missouri with a constitutional tender. The federal government is devoid of power to impose a fiat monetary system upon the states within their respective borders since this is a right reserved by the people pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Craig, supra, conceded in Julliard, supra.

In order for the State of Missouri to make a determination that Defendants had an income tax liability in 1974, it was necessary that a standard unit of value be available for the state to make such a determination.

The position adopted by Defendants herein would appear to be one of wanting their cake and eating it too. This is not the case. Defendants herein are genuinely concerned about the state of the economy and have pursued the course they have because of their unalienable right to accept something other than gold and silver coin during the course of their transactions and have elected to hold the state within the constitutional mandate that the state make no Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. This is the prerogative of the Defendants. It is their way of attempting to compel state authorities to demand of the federal government COINED MONEY which has the constitutional attributes of being declarable as a tender in payment of debts by the Missouri State Legislature in accordance with Article 1, Section 13, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution.

In the light of Title 31 U.S.C. 371, which states:

The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, mills or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mill the thousandth part of a dollar; and all accounts in public offices and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation. (emphasis supplied)

Defendants question as to whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to make a determination of a dollar liability against them since there is no existing standard unit of value predicated in terms of gold and/or silver coin upon which the Court could, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1, U.S. Const., declare to be a legal tender in satisfaction of any liability that the Court might determine.

Furthermore, without reverting to the Delphic oracle tradition. Defendants request that this Court inform them as to what is the money of account of the United States that is expressed in dollars?

Respectfully submitted:

CARLOS W. WELTY, Defendant Pro se, and for his wife

WANDA WELTY, Defendant
Route 2
Qulan, Mo., 63961
TELEPHONE: 328-4552

This is a typed facsimile of the prosecuting attorney’s reply to Mr. Welty’s brief

MARK A. KENNEDY
Prosecuting Attorney
Butler County Court House
Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901
785-2709

July 21, 1981

The Honorable William C. Batson, Jr.
Associate Circuit Judge
Division II
Butler County
Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901

Re: Director of Revenue vs. Carlos W. & Wanda Welty,

#CV-3-81-200

Dear Judge Batson:

In response to the above defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum I submit the following for your consideration:

The defendants' argue that they are not obligated to pay the various amounts of income tax due because the word dollar or $ has no definition and is not a fixed standard of value. No such definition is necessary. The U.S. Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender, 31 U.S.C. Section 392, and federal reserve notes are taxable dollars. See, United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (1973, 8th Cir.). The specific answer to the Defendant's argument is that Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts. United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (1978, 8th Cir.). Congress has the constitutional power to make the treasury notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of debts. The Legal Tender Case, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

Wherefore, Plaintiff moves this Court to overrule the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed herein.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Guy H. Richardson,

Asst. Pros. Atty.

This is a typed facsimile of the judge's ruling on the prosecutor's letter

WILLIAM C. BATSON, JR.
Associate Circuit Judge
Division II
Thirty-Sixth Judicial Circuit
Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901

July 30, 1981

Mark Kennedy
Prosecuting Attorney
c/o Butler County Courthouse
Poplar Bluff, Missouri

In re: Director of Revenue vs. Carlos and Wanda Welty

#CV-3-81-200

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

The Court, after studying briefs of Plaintiff and Defendant, overrules Defendants motion to dismiss and further rules in answer to Defendants motion for a determination of the substance of the money of account of the United States, ruses (sic) for that purposes of this cause of action, that Federal Reserve notes are legal tender and are legal taxable dollars.

The case is set for the 5th day of August, 1981, at 9:00 a.m.

Yours truly,

/s/ Wm. C. Batson, Jr.,

Division II Judge

cc: Carlos and Wanda Welty

Defendants respectfully point out to the Court the errors contained in State's Motion to Dismiss, to-wit:

Defendants do not … argue that they are not obligated to pay the various amounts of income tax due because the word ‘dollar' or ‘$' has no definition and is not a fixed standard of value. Defendants' specific argument is that a determination of a tax liability by the State of Missouri, in the light of Art. I, Sec. 10, Para. 1, cannot be made in that no standard exists upon which the State can make such a determination.

The State attempts to invoke the aid of federal jurisdiction by quoting certain federal cases to substantiate its rebuttal of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In order for a Court to rule on a particular matter, it must first and foremost have jurisdiction to hear the issues joined by the adversaries. Consider: The Federal District Court would have no jurisdiction to hear the instant cause. Therefore, federal decisions can have no bearing on the issue. The Federal Government is not bound by Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution and, not being thereby bound, can make a determination of what is due the federal government within their jurisdiction and by what means the federal government will permit its citizens to discharge that due. Such latitude is not granted the individual states. Paly and Rifen have abso­lutely no bearing on the issues involved herein.

The State attempts to support its Motion to Dismiss by citing Legal Tender Cases, U.S. 421 (1884) to the effect that Congress has the constitutional power to make the treasury notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of debts. Accepting, arguendo, that this may be so (but Defendants do not subscribe to this posture), treasury notes do not circulate in today’s society. The circulating medium of exchange is predominately demand deposits of commercial banks and a small fraction of federal reserve notes and cupro-nickel clad coins. Specifically relating treasury notes to federal reserve notes, the treasury notes were declared by the Supreme Court to be a tender in payment of debts whereas federal reserve notes are supposedly a tender for all debts, a very wide distinction. The State of Missouri is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution from making federal reserve notes or demand deposits of commercial banks a tender in payment of debts.

The Defendants in this case are pro se litigants and as such have not taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Defendants respectfully remind the Court that this Court has taken such an oath as has State's advocate.

A fourth grade level of education comparison of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution unequivocally spells out the fact that the federal government is required to furnish the states with gold and/or silver coin in order for the states to lawfully declare a tender in payment of debts within their respective borders. Craig v. Missouri.

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5 reads:

The Congress shall have power: … To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights of measures;

Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 reads:

No state shall … coin money; emit bills of credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

Article I, Section 10 removes the power of the individual states to coin money and additionally prohibits the states from permitting any Thing but gold and/or silver coins to be used as a legal tender (Op. Public Law Institute, University of Tennessee, Sequence 0816). This statement alone raises the question of why should there be any prohibition of what the states can make…a tender in payment of debts… if they are prohibited from coining money in the first instance? In order to impart meaning to the words … make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts…, the states would have to be vested with power to coin money themselves. Otherwise, the quote becomes meaningless and surplusage. This is contrary to law. If the monetary powers of Congress could override the textually absolute prohibitions of Article 1, Section 13, Paragraph 1, simply because the Constitution confers power on Congress to coin money, there would be no need for the prohibition against the states from make(ing) any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. To thus negate the impact of the express prohibition would be to violate a basic canon of constitutional interpretation.

In Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 570 (1840), the Court held:

In expounding the constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. (emphasis supplied)

The Legal Tender Cases, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, utilized an interpolation of an unenumerated power, namely, the power to declare a legal tender, by combining three different clauses contained in the Constitution, i.e., coin, commerce and borrow. Furthermore, the Julliard case was a diversity case. Otherwise, the District Court would not have had jurisdiction to hear it in the first instance. The same holds true for Knox, which was a companion case thereto.

The State's argument would have the Court accept a precedent on a non-litigated issue, i.e., are federal reserve notes and demand deposits of the commercial banks the same as those monetary instruments sanctioned by the Julliard Court? Ob­viously not because federal reserve notes were not even in existence at that time. Furthermore, Julliard held that the U.S. Treasury notes, being evidence of actual money (specie) borrowed could circulate as legal tender aided by the borrowing clause of the Constitution. Federal reserve notes do not carry that distinction. Their issue is not dependent on any money (specie) borrowed but come into existence by extension of credit. In order for federal reserve notes to fall within the meaning of the Julliard case, the Constitution would have to read: The Congress shall have power…To borrow credit on the credit of the United States. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that A national bank has no power to lend its credit. Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield National Bank, W. Va., 11 F.2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

It is obvious that if the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars that there must be a money of account of the United States to be so expressed, it cannot be both the thing and the measurement no more than the quart can be the milk. The only definitions, fixing the standard of weights and measures for the money of account of the United States as designated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, were definitions of specific weights of gold and/or silver coins. Repudiation of these standards effectively placed the country on a paper standard which is specifically forbidden. See: Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1870).

Milton Friedman, noted Nobel Prize winner and former employee of the United States Treasury Department (1943-1944) summed the matter up very succinctly in his book, FREE TO CHOOSE:

… (T)he existence of a common and widely accepted medium of exchange rests on a convention that owes its existence to the mutual acceptance of what, from one point of view, is a fiction.

The convention or the fiction is no fragile thing. On the contrary, the value of having a common money is so great that people will stick to the fiction even under extreme provocation — whence, as we shall see, comes part of the gain that issuers of the money can derive from inflation and hence the temptation to inflate. But neither is the fiction indestructible: the phrase not worth a Continental is a reminder of how that fiction was destroyed for the Continental currency issued in excessive amount by the U.S. Continental Congress to finance the American Revolution.

This fiction cannot override the absolute prohibition set forth in Art. I,, Sec. 10, P. 1, U.S. Const. This was precisely what Section 10 was designed to prohibit.

The State erroneously cites the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Julliard v. Greenman (The Legal Tender Cases) for the proposition that Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 is not binding in the instant cause. In this assertion, the State is doubly wrong. First, Julliard did not deal with Art. I, Sec. 10 at all and is no precedent for the application of that provision. Second, neither Julliard nor any other decision of the Supreme Court has sustained the constitutionality — for any purpose — irredeemable, legal-tender paper-money. To the contrary: In every opinion on the subject, the Court has indicated the unconstitutionality of such currency. Congress has authorized legal tender of one kind or another since 1862. But only in 1968 did its currency become irredeemable in both gold and silver coin. Only after 1968, then, has any paper currency issued under the purported authority of the-United States both been made irredeemable in gold and silver coin and been declared a legal tender for all public and private debts. Compare 31 U.S.C., Sees. 405a-2, 408a (1976) with 31 U.S.C. 392 (1976). And, since 1968, the Supreme Court has had no opportunity to address the constitutional validity of such irredeemable paper currency.

It should not be overlooked by this Court that Julliard explicitly referred to the law by which holders of United States Notes could redeem them in specie.

Once again. Defendants specifically reiterate that they do not claim that they are not obligated to pay the various amounts of income tax prayed for by the State but that their specific claim is that the State is without means of constitutionally assessing a tax liability against them. In the absence of a means of assessing a liability against them, they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Respectfully submitted:

CARLOS W. WELTY, Defendant Pro se, and for his wife,

WANDA WELTY, Defendant,
Route 2,
Qulan, Mo., 63961
TELEPHONE: 328-4552

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded by prepaid United States Mail to Guy H. Richardson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Butler County Court House, Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 63901, this day of July, 1981.

CARLOS W. WELTY

The Court has made a ruling overruling Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction without permitting Defendants to respond to State's letter requesting that the Court overrule their motion. Such action is a denial of due process to the Defendants in that they have not been given fair chance to respond to the Plaintiff's prayer.

Defendants respectfully remind the Court of that portion of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states:

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's; and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

Deuteronomy, XVI, 19. (emphasis supplied)

Defendants further respectfully remind the Court that it has taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri and not the rulings of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Defendants quote a very prominent attorney. Ph. D., J.D., professor of a prominent Law School in the State of Maryland, who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons:

Dear Mr. Bruce:

Thank you for the materials you recently sent me on the money issue. The Motion for Rehearing by the Court En Banc in United States v. Moon goes far to confirm my own experience that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit shirks from no absurdity or dishonesty in covering up for the sacred cows in contemporary society — be they the IRS or powerful unions such as the _____.

Defendants would further respectfully request the Court to inform them of the following:

1. Will the Court specifically tell the Defendants that the word dollar and its counterpart sign $ is NOT a fiction of law?
   (a) And if not, what statute defines the word dollar and its counterpart sign $?
2. Will the Court specifically tell the Defendants by what Act the United States Congress has … fix(ed) the standard of weights and measures in conjunction with their power … To coin money … pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution?
   (a) And if so, what is that standard of weights and measures and by what statute is it so fixed?
3. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants that Art. I, Sec. 10, Para. 1 of the United States Constitution is null and void as pertains to this Honorable Court?
   (a) And if not, would the Court please inform Defendants as to the lawful meaning of the words, … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts?
4. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants what the Missouri State Legislature has enacted to be Legal Tender within the borders of Missouri other than The silver coins of the United States as described in Chapter 408, Sec. 408.010, RSMo. 1978?
   (a) And if so, what is that Thing and what statute so defines it?
5. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants where the State of Missouri is to obtain the coins to make a tender in payment of debts if not from the United States Government?
6. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants how the words …make any Thing other than gold and silver Coins a Tender in Payment of Debts could possibly have any meaning if there were no gold and silver coins available to the State of Missouri to so declare?
7. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants that the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court in the case of Baily vs. Gentry, 1 Mo. 164 has no force and effect within the State of Missouri?
8. Will the Court specifically state that it firmly believes that the United States Congress is empowered by the Constitution to impose a paper standard upon the citizens of these United States?
9. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants that the ruling in Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Pet. 420 at 435 stating that only the STATES shall have power to declare what shall be a tender in payment of debts within their respective borders has no force and effect today?
10. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants as to just what is the money of account of the United States that is expressed in dollars?
11. Will the Court specifically inform the Defendants that the word dollar is both the expression of the money of account and the money of account itself?
    (a) If so, since milk is expressed in quarts, would this Court accept a quart in lieu of the drinkable liquid of the cow?

Respectfully submitted:

CARLOS W. WELTY, Defendant Pro se, and for his wife

WANDA WELTY, Defendant,
Route 2
Qulan, Mo., 63961
TELEPHONE: 328-4552

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Insert

After receipt of Mr. Welty’s Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Batson disqualified himself. The case was subsequently heard on January 17, 1982 and on January 18, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff but directed the plaintiff to submit the findings of facts and conclusions of law as pertained to the case. This the plaintiff has never done.

After the court's ruling of 1/18, Mr. Welty filed his Notice of Intent to File Motion for Reconsideration After Receipt of Court's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. These have never been handed down.

Today the case hangs in limbo.

DATED: March 18, 1982

Come now Defendants in the above styled cause and ack­nowledge receipt of Court's Order dated January 20, 1982, sans findings of facts and conclusions of law.

Defendants wish to inform this Court of their intent to file motion for reconsideration after receipt of the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and, in the event of an adverse ruling by the court. Defendants further, prematurely, file their notice of intent to file appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield Division.

Respectfully submitted:

CARLOS W. WELTY,
Defendant Pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded by prepaid United States Mail to Guy H. Richardson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Butler County Court House, Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 63901, this __ day of January, 1982.

CARLOS W. WELTY

Comes now Defendant, AMOS W. BRUCE, Pro se, and respectfully advises the Court of a Jurisdictional Defect which prohibits the Court from proceeding in the instant cause:

1. Plaintiff has failed to observe the Local Rules of Court as pertains to the posting of securities for costs before proceeding;
2. Plaintiff may not proceed without posting said securities for costs without first obtaining a grant from the Court to proceed in forma pauperis or unless the Court waives the posting of said costs;
3. Defendant questions as to whether or not Plaintiff has posted said securities for costs consisting of gold and/or silver coin pursuant to the mandate thus contained in Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution in conjunction with Chapter 408, Section 408.010, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1978;
4. Defendant further questions the power of the Court to make a determination of a dollar liability against Defendant herein in that the present monetary structure utilized by the citizens of the United States has been reduced to a fiction of law.

THEREFORE, Defendant suggests that this Honorable Court make inquiry of the Clerk of the Court to verify the securities for costs deposited by Plaintiff herein.

Respectfully submitted:

AMOS W. BRUCE, Defendant Pro se,
P.O. Box 10744
St. Louis, Mo., 63129
TELEPHONE: 846-8076

Hand delivered to counsel for Plaintiff in open court, this 17th day of April, 1981.

AMOS W. BRUCE

Defendant denies jurisdiction of the Court in the instant cause. Defendant's only present claim before the bar is that the Court has not properly acquired jurisdiction which would permit it to reach the matters alleged in Plaintiff's petition.

The Court may not inquire into the controversies between private parties until such time as jurisdiction has been properly invoked by the Petitioner. The jurisdiction of a court is not prima facie.

A man must assign a good reason for coming (to the court). If the fact is denied, upon which he grounds his right to come (into this court), he must prove it. He, therefore, is the actor in the proof; and, consequently, he has no right, where the point is contested, to throw the onus probandi on the defendant.

Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 U.S. 308 (emphasis supplied).

On April 17, 1981, at the first calling of the instant cause. Defendant submitted his Notice of Jurisdictional Defect to the Court and Plaintiff met Defendant's Notice with the statement that said Notice was patently absurd.

Upon initial argument before the Court, the Court declared that the question raised by Defendant was close. The Court took Defendant's Notice under submission and continued the matter until May 1. The Defendant informed the Court that he would submit a supporting brief within five days and requested that Plaintiff be ordered to do the same. The Court stated that Plaintiff may submit a brief if he wanted but was not so required. As matters now presently stand, the question of jurisdiction is being contested and the onus probandi has been thrown upon the Defendant. Maxfield's Lessee, supra. There­fore, it is Defendant's contention that should Plaintiff fail to come forward with the burden of proof that he has properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court, such jurisdiction must necessarily be denied him by reason of forfeiture.

Argument

The Court may proceed with a matter by three separate courses: (1) After deposit for costs are made with the clerk of the court; (2) by the Court's granting permission for the Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis; (3) by waiver of costs. Local Rules of Court, Rule 3. Certain cost schedules have been published for different classes of cases, said cost schedules being denominated in dollars. It is the belief of Defendant that none of these three courses have been instituted by the Plaintiff in order to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in that Defendant has not been given proper notice of same.

On April 17 the Court asked Defendant if he was alleging that Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed because he had paid the fees by check? This is exactly what Defendant contends because checks are not money nor do they order payment in gold and/or silver coin.

The word dollar, in which checks are denominated, is an expression of the … money of account of the United States. Title 31, U.S.C.A., 371. Only two specific items have ever been declared to be the money of account of the United States, namely, gold and silver coin. Coinage Act of 1792.

Currently, the word dollar has been reduced to a fiction of law by repudiation of the standard unit of value. In today’s society it is accepted by the citizenry because of their residual memory of the time when it was a fixed standard unit of value representing a specific weight of gold and/or silver. The standard unit of value's demise in no way relieved the states from the absolute prohibition contained in Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution.

This Court may not accept jurisdiction of a controversy based on a fiction:

No Court in America has ever yet thought, nor, I hope, ever will, of acquiring jurisdiction by a fiction.

Maxfield’s Lessee, supra (emphasis supplied).

Plaintiff's posture that Defendant's contention is patently absurd is based on Plaintiff's indefensible position in the light of his oath to uphold the Constitution of the united States upon his application for admittance to practice before the bar. It is an indefeasible fact that Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution is current and binding upon the State of Missouri simply because it has never been amended, has full force and effect and not subject to being annulled or made void by this Court.

Does Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution preempt Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution? Defendant thinks not. The line of cases emanating from Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) down through Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 294 U.S. 240 (1935) which have been relied upon to impose a fiat currency system and a paper standard upon the citizens of these United States were all decided in diversity, required payments which transcended state boundaries and necessitated the support of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to support their theories and decisions. Both cases were slim 5 to 4 decisions. Were it not for the diversity nature of the cases the federal courts would not have had jurisdiction to hear them in the first instance. The present case at bar is not a case in diversity nor is it a case involving interstate commerce but a case arising within the exclusive bounds of the State of Missouri. Only the STATES shall have power to declare what shall be legal tender within their respective borders, Craig v. issouri, 4 Pet. 410 at 435, and by terms of the United States Constitution, they are limited to GOLD AND SILVER COIN in that choice. Bailey v. Gentry, 1 Mo. 164 (1822). Furthermore, the State of Missouri HAS declared what shall be legal tender within the state and that declaration is The silver coins of the United States at their par value … Chapter 408, Section 408.010, R.S.Mo. 1978. The federal government is without power to impose a fiat monetary system upon the states within their respective borders since this is a right reserved by the people pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Craig, supra.

Plaintiff is not estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court because the silver coins of the United States are still available for Plaintiff to obtain.

Conclusion

This Court is without power to permit Plaintiff to proceed without first meeting the criteria for jurisdiction.

This Court is constitutionally estopped from permitting Plaintiff to proceed by declaring that checks may be accepted as a tender in lieu of silver coins of the United States as promulgated in Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution and Chapter 408, Section 408.010, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1978.

Respectfully submitted:

September 6, 1981

Hon. Robert G. Dowd, Chairman
Board of Retirement & Discipline Civil Courts
Bldg. Tucker Blvd. & Market St.
St. Louis, Mo., 63101

In Re; Code of Judicial Ethics

Concerning; Dennis J. Quillin, Assoc. Judge, St. Louis County Circuit Court

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This complaint springs from a case which was transferred to Judge Quillin after the court, Hon. Samuel J. Hais, disqualified himself, on the Court's own motion, from hearing the matters. Complainant specifically states that Judge Hais was courteous, patient, and afforded complainant full opportunity to address the court concerning matters within the four corners of the controversy. Judge Quillin conducted himself in an exact opposite manner, to-wit:

First appearance before Judge Quillin was on 8/4/81. At this particular hearing, the judge prevented complainant from speaking in his behalf as pertained to the controversy before the Court.

Second appearance before Judge Quillin was on 9/1/81. Prior to litigants approaching the bench, during call of the docket, Plaintiff announced ready to present his motion for summary judgment and stated that said motion would probably take about ten minutes. Defendant announced that his response would probably take about 35 minutes whereupon the Court, Judge Quillin, stated that it would probably be more like five minutes. In the eyes of this complainant, such a statement would indicate that the Court had preconceived notions as to his ruling without permitting Defendant (complainant in the instant cause) an opportunity to present issues raised in his defense.

Complainant specifically charges Judge Quillin with violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics, to-wit:

1. Judge Quillin preferred to listen diligently to all words uttered by attorney David J. Kozeny whereas he would not even permit Defendant time to present his views to the Court;
2. The Court's remark pertaining to the time for disposal of the issues was a specific indication of preconceived notions already adopted by the Court without permitting a pro se litigant to present his statements and his citations of law in support thereof;
3. Judge Quillin prevented Defendant, a person legally interested in the proceeding, a full right to be heard according to the law;
4. Complainant suspects that Judge Quillin has a personal bias against Complainant herein and further that Judge Quillin had personal knowledge of the disputed evidentiary facts concerning the matters before the Court.

Complainant again reiterates that this complaint does not pertain to the decision rendered by the Court in that Complainant is well aware of the fact that judges have as much right to rule wrong as they do to rule right. The question which was pending before the Court pertained to whether or not the Court had jurisdiction to proceed in the instant matter.

Complainant respectfully hereby requests that you look into this matter. The complaint embodied herein is not intended as an appeal of the decisions reached by Judge Quillin but to initiate either a reprimand of Judge Quillin's conduct during the course of the matter or to elicit an apology from Judge Quillin for prohibiting Defendant to properly present his arguments opposing Plaintiff's petition.

Respectfully submitted:

AMOS W. BRUCE, Complainant
P.O. Box 10744
St. Louis, Mo., 63129
TELEPHONE: 846-8076

Defendant's special request to court

Defendant feels very strongly about the issue in this. cause and, motivated by these strong feelings, takes this opportunity to make a special request to the Court, namely, that it take cognizance of the presentation of defendant with a totally open mind.

Certain issues are raised in this appeal which is common knowledge to our elected officials (and rapidly becoming common knowledge to the ordinary citizen) but, because of vested interests, those elected officials choose to close their eyes to the particular issues presented herein by defendant.

Defendant, by intimate knowledge of this Court's past rulings as pertains to tax protesters strongly believes that this Court has a closed mind on the issues of a fiat monetary system and because of defendant's strong belief in this matter, respectfully requests that the Court put aside its personal prejudices on the subject and view the presentation of defendant in the light of common sense or in the manner of addressing the issue as chosen by the little girl in the fairy tale of The Emperor's New Clothes wherein, having not been educated into ignorance, startled the emperor's subjects by spontaneously declaring that the emperor was naked!

Because of this request, defendant respectfully requests that the Court's full authority in determining the issues herein not be delegated to its law clerks for determination. It is fairly common knowledge that the law clerks are the persons responsible for the forming of the Court's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and, if that law clerk is highly esteemed by the Court he serves, the Court, as a general rule, will sign the findings of the law clerks without diligently pursuing the matter themselves. It could be suspect that these law clerks might supply to the Court what they think would actually reflect the frame of mind of the Court merely for self-serving purposes.

Defendant would further request that the defendant, in the event of a ruling against his appeal, be granted the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's findings with rebuttal to the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests that the Court, and not the law clerks, make the determination of Facts and Conclusions in this matter and that the Court grant defendant's request to rebut the findings of the Court.

Respectfully requested:

TIMOTHY J. WEIR,
Defendant Pro se

Price spiral

Part I: Money and the price spiral

In the absence of a 100% redeemable currency, the Legal Tender laws of the United States force producers to exchange their production by use of a false medium of exchange expressed as money.

Most of the mystery surrounding what we call money results from the illusion that money, in itself, is something: in reality money, in itself is nothing.

Money, which has no value of its own, being nothing, is therefore the opposite of wealth which is a tangible something. Money is only an imaginary medium and it expropriates wealth in proportion to the holdings of money by people who exchange goods and/or services for it.

Inflation, even if correctly anticipated, reduces the wealth of money holders in proportion to their holdings of money.

The St. Louis Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Feb., 1975, p. 19.

Increasing the amount of money in circulation creates a condition which is purposely mislabeled as the price spiral. This so-called price spiral is further misinterpreted as inflation. In reality, it is the money that IS the inflation per se. With the above in mind, it becomes obvious that money expropriates wealth.

Let's take a scientific look at this price spiral which has been misinterpreted as inflation. We should begin by acknowledging the obvious: Items purchased today have no more value to us today than they did ten years ago. A pound of ground round was just as important to us in 1970 as it is today. In the elapsed eleven years between 1970 and 1981, the medium of exchange (money represented by currency, checks and credit) has fallen in parity to the items which we purchase. It's doubtful that the word was commonly used by our pre-constitution ancestors who dealt with the Continental Dollar. All their references to what is known today as the price spiral were made by referring to the depreciation of the currency. ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, __, p. 196.

Parity is the value of one thing expressed in terms of another thing, i.e., one pound of ground round = $1.69. since sixteen ounces of ground round is still sixteen ounces today, the same as it was in 1970, why does it cost 80 cents more per pound than it did eleven years ago? The answer is simple. It's because our modern non-redeemable money system frees the creators of money from the discipline of being liable (in real wealth) for all the money they have created, be it repre­sented by currency, checking account balances (demand deposits) or lines of credit thus generated by the money creators. This is clearly illustrated in the following quote taken from a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:

Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but far less than their face amount.

What, then, make these instruments — checks, paper money, and coins — acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence the people have that they will be able to exchange such money for real goods and services whenever they choose to do so.

Modern Money Mechanics, p.3 (emphasis added).

It is important to note here that currency and coin physically represent only a small percentage of the total amount of this modern money. The vast majority of that which we have been trained to call money (76%) is made up merely of numbers on ledger cards in banks (checking account balances and lines of credit). Numbers only! These numbers are transferred back and forth between banks by our use of checks, credit cards and other negotiable instruments.

So, with money in all of its representative forms being created in ever larger amounts, we then have the situation where an ever increasing amount of money is needed to buy the same pound of ground round. When we begin to complain of this unsettling situation, deception is used to mislead us as to the real cause.

Instead of being told correctly that the money has depreciated through increased bidding versus the ground round, resulting in a net decline in parity of the monetary unit (purchasing power if you will), we are told that beef prices went up and we naturally look to the producers and marketers of beef as the cause of our discomfort.

Another deception on this score is the Keynesian canard that a non-redeemable currency and its total fiat money system is viable since the money system is backed by the Gross National Product. Well, that sounds good, but the Gross National Product consists in large part of consumable goods.

Let's look at this deception fully. Money (again, only represented by currency, coin and checks) is created based upon the production of goods and/or services, including our pound of ground round (which is now on the barbecue). Money supposedly backed by consumable goods and/or services does not cease to exist, even after the product backing it has been consumed (we just ate the hamburgers and washed ‘em down with a cold one). What then?

Being non-redeemable, these units of modern money once created and then no longer backed by the portion of the GNP which has been consumed are then used in their ever larger quantities by producers in bidding for the production of others.

Looking around the market place and seeing that it takes even larger amounts of money to buy the goods and services needed for production, the producer anticipates a continuing increase in his costs. He begins to lose confidence that he will be able to exchange … such money for real goods and services the next time around, so he too raises the price of his production. This is the so-called price spiral which is really a depreciated money parity caused by the additionally created money, the money itself BEING the inflation.

Part II: Production and the price spiral

Even more misunderstood is the relation of productivity to the price spiral. The dictionary defines:

PRODUCTIVITY: power of producing; state or quality of being productive.

PRODUCTIVE: having the power of producing; fertile; producing good crops; bringing into being; causing to exist; (pol./econ.) producing commodities of great value; adding to the wealth of the world.

Item appearing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 15, 1971, on page 10:

Once again Washington is trying to come to grips with productivity, a slippery concept that not even the most erudite economists entirely comprehend. The upshot is sure to be confusion and controversy and, very possibly some serious damage to the economy.

How would productivity be determined? Well, you would divide the total wages paid by the number of hours worked to get the cost per hour of production. You would then divide the GNP (the total of all goods and services) by the cost per hour of production to arrive at productivity — expressed in monetary terms.

Both wages and the GNP are expressed in money terms. As things are now presented, how can productivity be expressed in any other term than a money term?

As we see from the definition above, productivity, when expressed in money terms is a contradiction. By definition (the Federal Reserve's own definition at that), money, as previously pointed out in Part I, is valueless, in and of itself. Money, according to the Federal Reserve, has only psychological value. Yet production, by definition, is … adding to the wealth of the world.

Money is created by non-producers (banks) and its creation expropriates (steals) wealth from the economy (through interest rates) as it is created and spent into the economy. This drain on the productive quantity (decline in GNP) is what erudite economists say can be overcome by increased productivity! In other words, producers should increase production at no increase in return to themselves in order to make up for the stealing!

This truth is not made clear to the producers. Since it remains a well kept secret of the money creators and their kept economists, the economists can quote all kinds of productivity figures and make the figures fit any occasion. Such figuring certainly gives credence to the axiom that: Figures don’t lie, but liars will figure.

Since money expropriates wealth, how could an expression of productivity in monetary terms reflect the true productivity in wealth terms? It cannot! But the public can be (and is) confused and confounded by simple manipulation of reports to reflect rising or falling productivity. For example, if productivity is calculated just after general price increases and before resulting wage increases, the report would show increased productivity. On the other hand, if productivity were figured just after wage increases and just before the resulting price increases, the report would show decreased productivity.

No amount of seasonal adjusting could turn a monetary productivity calculation into an accurate representation of the true state of WEALTH productivity. But, such monetary reporting does not support the false premises that there are cost-push and demand-pull causes of inflation. Such flim-flam hides the fact that in 5,000 years of recorded history, inflation and its resulting price controls (actually people controls) result ALWAYS in ever increasing shortages!

In fact our first history of wage and price controls occurred 5,000 years ago when price controls were imposed in the fifth dynasty of ancient Egypt … and from the fifth dynasty of ancient Egypt to President Nixon's Phase IV price controls, all of these experiences have one thing in common — not one has ever worked … they simply turn price increases into shortages and stifle the incentive to produce, therefore causing output to fall.

When the Federal Government, in June 1969, stopped trying to do anything about in­flation it turned its activities toward developing scapegoats in order to get Americans to blame their neighbor for their problems. Had the scapegoat strategy not been so effective, it would have been humorous.

The St. Louis Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Feb., 1975, p. 4.

We are conditioned to blame each other for causing inflation, complaining about wage increases and price increases and mismanagement, using any excuse given to us via the media and the academia. Another boogeyman is the multi-national conglomerates, who in fact are also struggling to survive and probably have little or no idea that a non-redeemable money system is the real destructive force.

The economists (all Keynesian) offer indexing to balance the increasing cost of living. Indexing wages to compensate for increased costs of goods manufactured and services rendered creates the proverbial vicious circle, because the indexed wages are added to the cost of goods and services, etc., etc., etc. Taxes rise as a result of indexing for both consumer and producer alike and only the federal government benefits by its misapplication of the borrowing clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In the midst of what is supposed to be an economic recovery the money flow is very high, but the increase in actual goods produced is non-existent, and the volume of goods in inventory (warehoused) continues to shrink.

So, where is this increase in productivity?

The distinction between free men and slaves is whether or not they are paid for their labor. The only purpose of legal tender is to avoid payment for labor. The insidious thing about legal tender is that its victims care not that the first users of it always get it for nothing; the last user always gets nothing for it and it is forbidden by God and our Constitution. There are no better defenders of legal tender slavery than the victims themselves who insist that it works while it works them out of life, liberty, and property, and they punish other victims who refuse to waive their rights on 1040 confession forms.

Dave Wilber

PLEASE order catalogue on Monetary Realism for listing of books and tapes by Amos Bruce, Dave Wilber, and Merrill Jenkins, Monetary Realist who taught both.

Single tape by Merrill Jenkins who was the only speaker at United States Taxpayer's Union meeting in Sacramento to get a standing ovation, 3-79. ….3 bucks.

2 tape set by Amos Bruce and Dave Wilber made in Milwaukee, 3-82. ….6 bucks.

#1 tape of 8 tape set by Stuart Crane, PhD made in New Brighton, PA, 5-81.

…. 3 bucks or complete set for 24 bucks.

#1 book on monetary understanding, Everything I Have Was TheIR$, by Merrill Jenkins with copies of letters to the Treasury, IPS, Congressmen, Federal Reserve and others including 75 pages of letters explaining why all monetized debt units paid since 1968 should be refunded. This book will prove you have no tax liability. …. 20 bucks.

Anti-Economics and Monetary Realism, a collection of articles by Dave Wilber and others concerning our moneyless monetary system. …. 10 bucks.

Credit, Is Debt, Is Slavery, by Bruce G. McCarthy. …. 5 bucks.

Be sure to order free catalogue

Liberty Books