Unruly State of Affairs in the United States of America

USOA v2.0 -- April 2025 -- Education & Outreach Committee -- HelpDesk Support is available... Click here to visit the Contact Page...

 

By: James Allen Homyak

 

Here are my several convincing arguments to help you prove it to yourself and report to everyone that you and I can practice Law in our own defense (not Pro Se) as our common and unalienable right (in Sui Juris). You can’t make this stuff up, folks!  Also note where certain words below are both verbs and proper nouns.

1. WHEREAS, The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right (endowed to us by our Creator). (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)); and

 

2. WHEREAS, No State may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a License and fee for it. (Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943)) (the same goes for using your Automobile); and 

 

3. WHEREAS, The practice of Law cannot be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 (1957)); and 

 

4. WHEREAS, Should any State convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a License for it, one may ignore the License and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs. City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962)); and 

 

5. WHEREAS, “If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” (U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346), as “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”(Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489).; and 

 

6. WHEREAS, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)); and 

 

7. WHEREAS, Should any State convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a License and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, void, and without effect in Law. (Marburry vs. Madison 5 US 137 (1803)); and 

 

8. WHEREAS, “All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our Laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The Laws of nature are the Laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on Earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his Laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our Courts of justice.” (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)).; and 

 

9. WHEREAS, The Supreme Court has warned, “Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be Law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.” (U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187), the general misconception among the Public being that any Statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of Law constitutes Law.; and 

 

10. WHEREAS, a Statute is not a “Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not “a Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), nor is ‘Code’ “Law” (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) these being defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as rebuttable prima facie, or superficial, evidence of Law, a facade, represented by ‘Public Policy,’ being color-able, or ‘Color of Law,’ being ‘counterfeit or feigned’ as defined.; and 

 

11. WHEREAS, “The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the Law of nature for his rule.” – Samuel Adams; and 

 

12. WHEREAS, ‘Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings’ (Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar 377 U.S. 1; Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425), and ‘Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers (hey, I’m a competent non-taxpayer) may assist other members of the group [family, association, or class] achieve the goals of the group in Court without being charged with “Unauthorized practice of Law.” ‘ (NAACP v. Button 371 U.S. 415; United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969).; and 

 

13. WHEREAS, “Each citizen acts as a ‘Private Attorney General who ‘takes on the mantel of sovereign’ ” (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972; Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973). “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” (American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950) and a Sovereign Citizen cannot be punished for sincerely held religious convictions, such as the belief that he is in fact born free and at liberty to act as such. (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).; and 

 

14. WHEREAS, The “Private Attorney General” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including Attorney fees if he can advance a Policy inherent in Public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons (‘Equal Access to Justice Act’; Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722) while “In the early days of our Republic, ‘Prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the Grand Jury with a valid Complaint.” (United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806).; and 

 

15. WHEREAS, any private citizen acting as Private Attorney General may bring suit against any Public Official in their private capacity under RICO for crimes against constitutionally protected natural liberty rights, often predicated upon mail and wire fraud, and allows average citizens acting as Private Attorneys Generals to sue those organizations that commit such crimes as part of their private criminal enterprise for damages. There are over 60 Federal Statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect Attorney’s fees. The object of RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims “but to turn them into Prosecutors,” acting as “Private Attorneys Generals,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity, and has the “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private Plaintiffs diligently to investigate.” (Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151; 3 Id., at 187), and have been awarded judgments declaring entire cities, townships, and counties corrupt criminal enterprises. “The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.” (Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000); Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722; See also Equal Access to Justice Act, and Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976).; and 

 

16. WHEREAS, Facts are stubborn things. And “we are each accountable to our maker for our words, deeds, and even our inaction, as all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. For when good men do nothing, they get nothing good done, and so help evil to triumph by their inaction. On the field of action is where all honor lies (1st Lady Abigail Adams), and “There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, [being] loyalty to God” (U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965), See also Public Law 97-280 declares The Bible the ‘true word of God,’ as Biblical Law, at “Common Law, which “supersedes all inferior Laws,” whereas “Christianity is custom, [and] custom is Law.” (Robin v. Hardaway 1790).; and 

 

17. WHEREAS, The A.B.A. and State Bar Associations are Non-Governmental, Private ‘Professional Associations,’ foreign agencies or powers with respect to government, and NOT a ‘Licensing Agency’ in fact or Law, though AT it apparently, attempting to copyright the operation and administration of that which originates with the author of the Law, under Color of Law pursuant to Public Policy and legalism it would seem, whereas no one stands in between man and God who is the author of the Natural and Common Law, which cannot be copyrighted for private use in Public administration of the Law for the purposes of graft, fraud, and legal plunder.; and 

 

18. WHEREAS, No legislation creates the BAR Association in any State, being a private closed union and power foreign to government, operating in the Americas in violation of the Taft/Hardy act as The 81st Congress in 1950 confirmed by investigation, and determination that the A.B.A is, in fact and Law, proof of which can also be located in the hard copy printing of 28 USC 3002, section 15a, a branch of the National Lawyers Guild Communist Party, and is run by Communists, whereas the online version of Title 28 USC has been altered to read something entirely different, apparently because this fact has shown up in too many Court Petitions and Memorandums of Law over the past 100 years.; and 

 

19. WHEREAS, No Public Institution, State Office or instrumentality accredits any Law School or holds Bar examinations, as the Bar Association accredits all Law Schools, conducting private examinations and selecting the students they will accept into their private fraternity, issuing these a Union card as a defacto License, keeping the fees for themselves. They do not issue State Licenses to Lawyers, and the “State BAR” Card is not a “License” per-say, but rather a “Union Dues Card.”; and 

 

20. WHEREAS, The “CERTIFICATE” issued to Public Trustee/servants in each State by the Supreme Court of each State IS NOT A License to practice Law as an occupation, nor to do business as a Law Firm, but rather authorizes only the practice of Law “IN COURTS” as a member of the State Judicial Branch of Government, to represent only “Wards of [the] Court, Infants and persons of unsound mind…” (See Davis’ Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d 189, 190.” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 7, Section 4.) while “Clients are also called ‘wards of the Courts’ in regard to their relationship with their Attorneys.” – 7 CJS § 2.; and 

 

21. WHEREAS, Attorneys authorized to practice Law in the Courts to represent wards of the Court, such as infants and persons of unsound mind, are not authorized to represent any private citizen nor any for-profit business, such as the privately incorporated and Federally funded STATE. Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sect. 4., as “…(A)n Attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations…” the same being a conflict of interest. – 7 CJS § 4.; and 

22. WHEREAS, Attorneys, Judges, and Justices, those who keep an Attorney on retainer to represent them as most all do, as “clients,” being thus “wards of the Court,” are therefore as defined in Law “Infants or persons of unsound mind.”; and 

 

23. WHEREAS, The U.S. Constitution Guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, any other form of government being FORBIDDEN. Whereas there is No Power or Authority for the joining of Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of Government by a private monopoly over these, limiting and restricting eligibility or entry to key Public Offices to Union members alone, creating the RULING CLASS of an ARISTOCRACY, the A.B.A., State Bar, and State Supreme Court’s currently do in violation of Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the U.S Constitution, the same being an Unconstitutional Monopoly, operating in Texas in violation of Article 1, Section 26 of the Texas Bill of Rights, being an “ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE” as defined under RICO, whereas Senate Report No. 93-549 clearly points out and admits that an abridgment of the “Supremacy Clause” and “Separation of Powers” has in this respect in fact occurred.; and 

 

24. WHEREAS, In 1933, as expressed in Roosevelt’s Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 confirmed in Perry v. U.S. (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912; 31 USC 5112, 5119, and 12 USC 95a, the U.S. declared Bankruptcy. When the Government went bankrupt, it lost its sovereignty, and being to big to fail, excepted a buy out and went into receivership, to be reorganized, restructured, and privatized, in favor of its foreign creditors and presumed new owners, criminals whose avowed and stated intent was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of The United States of America. “…every American will be required to register their biological property in a National System designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging… By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the Security Interest over them forever, by operation of the Law Merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. This will inevitably… leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” – Col. Edward Mandell House.; and 

 

23. WHEREAS, The goal, of an occult theocracy of the ancient mystery school of deceit, it has been alleged, was to merge the people with government in America, reversing their roles in Law and erasing all distinction between jurisdictions in Law, public and private, under Public Policy and ‘color of…’ or ‘colorable’. … Law, absorbing both into a private commercial Corporation supplanting lawful government and claiming ownership and Legal Title to the people themselves, all State Public Institutions having created a “Shadow [of] Government,” in furtherance of these schemes by privately incorporating all for profit between 1940 and 1970. Admitted in numerous responses to administrative remedy petitions, all Public Offices are in fact now vacant, and Private Contractors masquerade as Public Officials, who cannot as such hold positions of Public Office or Trust.; and 

 

24. WHEREAS, Corporations have a LEGAL obligation to maximize profits. “When government becomes a Corporation, it ceases to be government” (See Clearfield Doctrine), and by becoming a Corporation, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the Corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the Charter (U.S. v. Georgia-Pacific Co., 421 F.2d 92, 101 (9th Cir. 1970), Corporations being fictions from which no Law may originate, as no right of action may originate from fraud, invalidating much of the last 100 years of American Jurisprudence, both State and National legislation.; and 

 

25. WHEREAS, all revenue now belongs to admiralty maritime jurisdiction (Huntress), and ‘neither for profit government nor the foreign statute merchant or agent has access to sovereign immunity even though the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.’ (See Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389. 409, 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 108; In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666: United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 108; Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 1947) (Government may also be bound by the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel if acting in proprietary [for profit nature ] rather than sovereign capacity); the “Savings to Suitor Clause” is also available for addressing mercantile and admiralty matters aka “civil process” at the Common Law and within a State Court or by Removal to Federal District Court exercising Admiralty Maritime Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction in which the State may not hear cases against the State or an Agent thereof. (Citation needed); and 

 

26. WHEREAS, the Eleventh Amendment does not protect State Officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that State Officials acted in violation of Federal Law (Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996), “Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the Law.” (Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622), and Inadequate training of subordinates may be the basis for title 42 subsection 1983 claim. (Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994). “Public Officers are merely the Agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by Law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such Agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority. (Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284, 286 (5th Cir. 1940)).; and 

 

27. WHEREAS, Public Officials and even Judges/Magistrates have no immunity, as Officials and Judges/Magistrates are deemed to know the Law and sworn to uphold the Law; and cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of Law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the Law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the Law, the Courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the Law, it is ludicrous for learned Officials and Judges/Magistrates to plead ignorance of the Law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. ( See: See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983).; and 

 

28. WHEREAS, if such a thing existed as A ‘License To Practice Law,’ other than in a fictional corporate jurisdiction, the same would be in fact and Law a corporate commercial ‘Title of Nobility,’ whereas Article I, Section 9 and 10 of the Constitution prohibits the States and the Federal Government from issuing titles of nobility or honor to any public Trustee, servant, or Officer, in their separate and equal station, as the same would evidence a conflicting interest and disqualification from holding an Office of Public Trust, and of a felony under various provisions of State and Federal Law.; and 

 

29. WHEREAS, Bar members elected by the people, but paid by a private corporation or agency foreign to lawful Government in unlawful money, in accepting such appointments, commissions, and compensation, bribes in fact and law, to enforce the licensing of rights as privileges, throwing creditors to the State in unlawful debtors prisons for victimless crimes, acting as third-party debt collector of tribute and contribution for illegal ton-tine wagering ponzi schemes and bankrupted ‘social insurance’ programs, as an insurance premium for the national debt, all under color of copyrighted private Law through legalism, are by the same disqualified from holding any Office of Public Trust for what is defined in Law as their Treason in so doing in Fact, punishable by hanging.; and 

 

30. WHEREAS, Courts, Judges, and Justices, bound by Law to uphold and declare the Law, are in so doing not at liberty to interpret the Law, or make political determinations, and being unlicensed themselves, are subject to prosecution for impersonating a Public Official or Officer for damages in Federal admiralty maritime jurisdiction as statute merchants. (Citations needed – Clerk Praxis File); and 

 

31. WHEREAS, a License is permission to do something illegal, and Obtaining a License proves willful intent to commit an illegal act…; and 

 

32. WHEREAS, the Lawful practice of Law is both a property right, and a Liberty Right, both a sacrament, tenant, and Rite of religious practice, secured by the Bill Of Rights and Supreme Law of the Land, including, but not limited to, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to each citizen.; and 

 

33. WHEREAS, Any prosecution pursuant to UPL Statute carries the burden of proving that the accused defendant did willfully, knowingly, and intentionally, avoid a known duty, obligation, or task under the Law, that was not known as herein previously stated, to be an Unconstitutional requirement of legalism, religion teaches is sophistry and witchcraft or deception, any Statute, regulation, or requirement, null and void and without effect in fact or Law, bearing no obligation to obey. The Law may restrain, but not compel.; and 

 

34. WHEREAS, Compulsion under the Natural Law does not originate with man, nor with Governments formed by men in fictional jurisdictions of corporate legalese drawn in the sand on the ground or on paper by men, in their separate and equal station, but rather with the author of the Law. “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” –Thomas Jefferson 1819.; and 

 

35. WHEREAS, the Writer knows of no duty or obligation within the restrictions of his liberty rights or under the Natural Law, that he do no harm, to further refrain from championing the rights of others, to not prosecute evil doers, or to obtain a License, that does not exist, or permission, from any lesser private commercial authority or jurisdiction of the many on Earth, past, present, or future, to observe, exercise, or practice a lesser private Legalese, or legalism, be it international, Federal or state, or the higher Law for this matter, being the Natural Law derived as given from a higher authority than any on Earth, the author of the Law, where from all lesser jurisdictions, forms of governance and Law originate by his commandments.; and 

 

36. WHEREAS, all men being created equal, are born into the practice of Law in their dealings with one another, as there is no action outside the Natural Law excepting that which is criminal, and probably legalized by those practicing legalism, being witchcraft and black magic or sophistry as religion and the Law teaches. That which is lawful, and that which is unlawful, is the sum of all acts, which men possess as an individual legacy, a property right or liability to each as nature accords, the Law itself being derived from man’s nature, and the author of the Law, not originating with Governments of men, from which legalese and legalism originate. Nothing may regulate that which it did not create, that does not originate there from. ‘They who wash outside of the cup, but leave the inside filthy.’ Substance over form.; and 

 

37. WHEREAS, Man, in his separate and equal station, practicing Natural Law in the election to act upon the creation of Government being a fiction, can confer no power to Government to license that practice which the people possess inherently as a liberty right to effect such creation of a fiction as Government, from which no Law may come except but for the regulation of itself, and its Agents or Representatives, for the protection of those natural liberty rights inherent in man, being the only lawful purpose of government, whereas that which does not originate with government, as is true of man, and the Natural Law of liberty, Government cannot regulate, as it is rather the Natural Law in practice by men that regulates the operation of government and the creation of lesser Laws that may regulate government and not the reverse. Fictions and the rules by which they operate cannot govern their creators.; and 

 

38. WHEREAS, The lesser Law, legalese, legalism, and legality, Color of Law and Public Policy, is no Law at all, as created by supposed Agents of Government, can not and does not exercise jurisdiction over, nor can it change, alter, diminish, or abolish, the greater and higher Law of nature from which all Law originates that gives breath to man’s liberty, given by God to each according to nature. It is this higher Natural Law of inherent liberty, which creates and regulates government, and its creation of lesser Laws that may regulate, change, alter and diminish or abolish the acts of Government(s) and fictions alone, and never the lawful liberty rights of the man who created these. The Law cannot divide the man, or the man from himself and his rights, only the voodoo, and black magic of legalism, the fictional incorporation of man to serve as a fiction himself, can accomplish this in operation apparently, in abrogation of the Law itself.; and 

 

39. WHEREAS, the Natural Law, as practiced by all men, and from which all fictions, lesser forms of Law and governance are derived, is from the creator, and man’s unalienable and inherent natural liberty rights (the Will), and not from government, which can create no right or Law governing the liberty of man, existing only to protect those lawfully exercised natural liberty rights which existed separate and sovereign from it, before the creation of Government by the power of this liberty. There are NO Licensed Attorney’s! Never listen to a Judge/Magistrate (administrative Officer) when he/she tells you that “these are serious charges and you need to hire a Licensed Attorney”. 

 

AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;

 

The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)

The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

The “CERTIFICATE” from the State Supreme Court:

Can ONLY authorize, to practice Law “IN COURTS” as a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)

“CERTIFICATE” IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!

The “STATE BAR” CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! It is a “UNION DUES CARD”, an association, a good old boys and girls club.

 

The “BAR” is a “PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION.”

 

1. Like the Actors Union, Painters Union, etc.

2. No other association, NOT EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own License. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.

3. The BAR Association is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION.

4. The State Bar is:

Operating as an Unconstitutional Monopoly…

Operating with a quasi License to steal…

FLAT OUT -- AN ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE…

5. Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of The U.S.A. Constitution.

6. There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches within a State as the BAR is attempting. “BAR” members have invaded all branches of Government and are attempting to control dejure Governments as Agents of a Foreign Entity.

7. Anyone who believes that they are doing their Civic Duty by going about the volunteer efforts behind helping someone to take and pass a BAR Exam in order to earn a BAR Card is a very deluded individual -- and in need of a wake up call to the aiding and abetting of a criminal enterprise.

8. The majority of Legislators are BAR Card carrying Attorneys.

9. An Attorney can only represent a ‘fiction‘(one of privilege akin to a Trustee), never a man (akin to a beneficiary and one of right).

 

At the beginning of the day…

 

Each time I deliberately proceed as ‘counsel’ for any other man, (even per the purported 6th Amendment – Bill of Rights) I do so only as he being a man, thus one must challenge the moving party what the man (my alleged client) did to take on (contract/contact) a ‘statutory’ standing as a ‘fiction’ in the United States (land/property owned by or ceded to the United States excepted)? What did my client ‘do’, ‘sign’, or ‘say’, that is relied upon (evidence) by the moving party (not the Court) that the U.S. Maritime/Admiralty/Ecclesia Court NOW has jurisdiction over me/you as a ‘PERSON’?   

Nadda! Zip! Ziltch!

 

Be sure to check out more of my short stories which I will be posting to my blog.


  •  

     

    THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

    By Ellen Brown on May 11, 2026

    A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has long been proposed as a way to cushion the blow of jobs lost to automation. Under that model, everyone receives a modest monthly payment – enough to cover basic needs and prevent extreme poverty. 

    But Elon Musk has gone further. On April 16, he posted on X:

    Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.

    Rather than a subsistence stipend, Universal High Income (UHI) would be a level of income allowing ordinary people to live well in a world where machines do most of the work. Musk has also said that AI and robotics are the only things that can solve the massive U.S. debt crisis. 

    That sounds promising, but where will the government get the money to pay the UHI? Critics say any government that tried it would go bankrupt. There are also other concerns, which will be addressed in Part 2 of this article. Here we will look at the financial underpinnings: why UHI is even thinkable, why AI forces a reexamination of how money enters the economy, why the current system cannot scale to meet what is coming, and the implicit transition needed to meet that challenge.

    Why the Current Money System Cannot Scale

    The national debt of the U.S. government just topped $39 trillion. China’s is $18.7 trillion. Japan’s is $8.6 trillion. Those of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are each in the multi-trillion-dollar range. Collective global debt now stands at $353 trillion, 305% of the world’s annual economic output. So even if, hypothetically, everything produced in the world in a year were applied toward liquidating the debt, it still would not be enough to pay it all off. 

    In fact the debt can never be repaid, because of the way money currently enters the system. Nearly all of the money supply today is created by banks when they make loans. Banks do not lend their existing capital. The loan itself creates the money. The bank adds the loan amount to the asset side of its balance sheet and balances that sum with the same amount on the liability side. When the borrower withdraws or transfers the funds, either the bank takes them from its reserves in “vault cash” or the Federal Reserve debits the bank’s digital reserve account at the central bank. But the lending bank typically has funds coming into its reserve account at about the same rate as they are going out, so its reserves are continually replenished. Thus a very small reserve account can support a much larger money creation engine. For decades before the Fed discontinued the reserve requirement in 2020, it hovered at around 10%.

    The chief problem with this debt-based system is the interest, which the bank does not create in its original loan. For a typical long-term loan, interest can double the total tab or more. Where is the money to come from to pay this added liability? Across the system as a whole, it must either come from more borrowing or from existing funds. In the case of governments, that means issuing interest-bearing bonds or tapping taxes and other revenues. The interest on the debt compounds, meaning the government is paying interest on interest. This makes the debt increase exponentially, until it is mathematically unsustainable. Then bankruptcies occur, of banks or even whole governments. Booms turn into busts, and the cycle begins again.

    Today, interest on the federal debt is the second largest budget line item after Social Security, exceeding $1 trillion. Meanwhile, workers are losing jobs to AI/robotics, shrinking the income tax base. The system is clearly unsustainable.

    How to Raise Demand to Scale to the Upcoming Supply

    A Universal High Income would replenish the shrinking tax base by replacing the lost wages of unemployed workers. But where will the money come from to pay the UHI? The only sustainable solution is for the government to issue it interest-free. That does not mean through the Federal Reserve, which creates money in the same way banks do: it buys federal interest-bearing securities with accounting entries. The Fed collects the interest, which it is supposed to return to the Treasury after deducting its costs. But since 2008, its costs include paying interest on the reserves of its participating banks, which consumes its profits. (See my earlier article here.) 

    The only interest-free, debt-free solution that will actually increase the money supply sufficiently to match the projected productivity of AI/robotics is for the money to be issued directly by the Treasury.

    This is not a radical new idea. It is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, which provides in Article 1, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power To … coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof .…” Abraham Lincoln used government-issued “Greenbacks” to avoid a crippling debt to British-backed bankers. Debt-free government-issued money was also the funding mechanism by which the American colonists succeeded in creating a thriving economy and liberating themselves from the oppressive yoke of the British Empire.

    In his 1729 pamphlet “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency,” Benjamin Franklin argued that a lack of currency was a tax on industrious farmers and producers, and that a reliable, locally issued paper currency was the “oil” for the gears of trade. The “Nature and Necessity” of this currency was to facilitate the movement of goods between neighbors. Franklin observed that the British strategy of keeping the colonies short of cash was a method of economic suppression. By forcing the colonies to use gold and silver, which were constantly drained back to London to pay for imports, the Crown kept the colonies in a state of permanent debt and low productivity. When the money supply matched the productive capacity of the people, universal prosperity resulted without inflation. 

    This logic evolved into the “American System of Political Economy” championed by Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. He wrote:

    Two systems are before the world… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. … One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.

    In the context of the 21st century, the “oil” that best lowers the friction of trade is debt-free government-issued money similar to Lincoln’s Greenbacks and colonial scrip. Rather than implementing a radical financial innovation, we would be returning to our roots.

    Inflation or Deflation?

    The chief objection to the colonies’ paper “scrip” was that they tended to over-print, so that “demand” (money) outstripped supply. Too much money chasing too few goods produced price inflation. But in the 21st century, we will soon have the opposite problem: too little money chasing too many goods. Machines don’t need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical treatment or other services. So who will buy those goods and services? 

    Money needs to be issued to human consumers, and not just to a few wealthy human consumers serving as debt brokers thriving on interest. To create sufficient demand for the voluminous output of AI/robotics, it needs to go to the whole national population, evenly distributed. Not only can UHI work in that sort of abundant supply without producing price inflation; it is actually essential to prevent deflation.

    In a conversation on X, Musk wrote:

    In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robotics massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation. 

    As paraphrased on Yahoo Finance (reposted from Benzinga), Musk wrote that handing out more dollars becomes a problem only when the economy’s supply of goods and services fails to surge alongside the money supply. His claim is that AI and robotics could lift production so sharply that the bigger risk would be falling prices, not rising ones.

    But aren’t falling prices a good thing? In this case, no. Prices would be falling due to a lack of demand, meaning producers can’t find customers for their products. They wind up laying off workers and eventually going bankrupt. When spread across the whole economy, the result is a deflationary spiral: prices fall, businesses lose revenue, and the economy contracts, not because production is inadequate but because purchasing power is insufficient. The result is recession or depression. In the Great Depression of the 1930s, food was rotting in the fields while people were starving, because they were out of work and had no money to spend. 

    Job cuts from AI are already happening. According to the same Benzinga article:

    Evidence of near-term strain is showing up in corporate announcements: employers disclosed more than 27,000 job cuts linked to AI in the first quarter of 2026, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The outplacement firm said that figure was up 40% from the same period a year earlier. 

    Robert Reich reports that wages are around two-thirds of the typical corporation’s total cost, and that in the first four months of 2026, big U.S. corporations cut over 128,000 jobs. 

    How Soon Will All This Happen?

    Another Benzinga article, reposted on Yahoo Finance on March 16, detailed Musk’s projected time frame:

    Speaking remotely to the Abundance Summit last week, Musk told XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis that the global economy is on the verge of an explosion so massive it defies historical precedent.

    “I’d say the economy is 10 times its current size in 10 years,” Musk said, before quickly clarifying that the growth could be even more explosive. “Greater than,” he added, framing the projected shift in economic output as a “fairly comfortable prediction.” …

    Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, sees AI reaching Artificial General Intelligence (human-level intelligence across virtually all domains) by 2029, and full transformative abundance by 2045.

    Other experts question these time projections, but a radical transformation of traditional manufacturing and trade is likely to happen sometime in the reasonably near future. The question is, will the money system transition soon enough to rescue all the laid-off workers from homelessness and famine?

    The Sovereign Wealth Fund Alternative

    There is another model for distributing the gains of automation, one that can be phased in gradually as the AI workforce expands. It comes from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. In an ironic twist, Altman and Musk, who jointly founded OpenAI in 2015, are now locked in a high-profile legal battle over whether Altman diverted Musk’s $44 million investment to transform what was conceived as a nonprofit “for the benefit of humanity” into a highly lucrative for-profit enterprise.

    That dispute aside, Altman’s alternative model for sharing AI-generated wealth is a national sovereign wealth fund seeded by the profits of AI and robotics. His proposed American Equity Fund would take public stakes in the companies and technologies driving automation, capture a portion of the resulting productivity gains, and distribute them as universal dividends. The Fund would not replace a Universal High Income but would complement it.

    This approach has several advantages. It ties payments directly to real output, scales automatically with productivity, and can be introduced gradually, avoiding the shock of issuing large payments before the supply side has fully expanded. It would resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil revenues to residents, except that here the resource would be the most powerful general-purpose technology since electricity.

    Conclusion: A New Monetary Logic for a New Productive Era

    For centuries, money has been issued as a claim against the future productivity of human labor, repaid from the income that labor generates. The logic of this debt-based system collapses when machines become the primary producers of goods and services. Then the limiting factor becomes purchasing power — the ability of human beings to access the abundance their own technologies create. That requires a monetary architecture that expands with output rather than debt, and distributes income not through wages alone but through mechanisms tied to the productive capacity of the whole system.

    Universal High Income and a sovereign wealth fund are two ways of doing that. One ensures a stable floor of demand; the other ensures that the public shares in the gains of automation. Both would be grounded in real production. But for the public to have access to those gains, the money supply needs to expand in proportion to the expanding pool of goods and services. This can be done by restoring the innovation our forefathers baked into the Constitution: debt-free money issued by the government itself.

    How to fund a UHI without triggering inflation or driving the government into bankruptcy is the first objection critics raise, but there are others. They argue that people would stop working or stop learning, that society would collapse into idleness or chaos, that life would lose meaning without jobs, that the government would have the power to control how people spend their money.  Will a UHI ring in the promised utopia or lock us into a state-controlled digital prison? Part 2 of this article will address those concerns. 

    _______________

    This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.tom of Form

     

     

  •  

    WAY TO GO MR PUTIN - RUSSIA FINALIZES 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

    Posted By: The_Fox [Send E-Mail]
    Date: Thursday, 1-Dec-2022 05:31:08
    www.rumormill.news/212414

     

    Many a time I often think about moving to Russia, so sick and tired of living here in the West.

    Over there things get done and child molesters etc don't just get away with a slapped wrist, free to again prey on the innocent.

    Those promoting society's moral decay will now have to answer for their actions also.

    Way to go Mr Putin.

    Read more: 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN