A TEST OF COMPREHENSION
This could be a once upon a time story but for the fact that it is true. I now present to those people who like proof, a great many proofs by writing to the location at the end of this treatise for the endnotes. For those that don't like cites but to read, I have deleted as much as I could and put them in the endnotes so as not to confuse you. I stated after writing the New History of America that you would get all the proofs, so much so that you would never doubt me again and probably hate that you asked for so much. This way it will please those who want the cites and those that don't want the cites. Trouble is you can't please everybody all the time, so this is my attempt to do so. My book, The New History of America, has the same amount of proofs but I did not include them because average Joe Sixpack wouldn't understand them.
This story starts around the 1830 era. The States and United States were getting ripped off by the banks where they deposited their money. This was called in history the great banking swindles. In order to protect themselves these, corporations, States and United States, decided to create their own Independent Treasury in 1840 under Van Buren's message, 5 Sept. 1837. However it was bitterly opposed by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster who were Whigs, a party devoted to Nationalist tendencies. The independent treasury bill, also known as the subtreasury or divorce bill, was introduced in the Senate where it passed. It incorporated the legal-tender amendment. This proviso called for a gradual reduction in the acceptance of notes of specie-paying banks in payment of government dues until 1841, when all payment should be made in legal tender. Oh, Oh, the governments are now violating their agreement back in 1783 with the Crown and violated the obligation in the Constitution that only the PRIVATE banks could issue paper money which were instituted as the first bank of the United States, which was run by foreign controlled stockholders of the British realm. These foreign stockholders are listed in the American Almanac and Repository for the year 1833, which was obtained from the University of Lewisburg. John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the supreme court is listed as having 3878 shares and the second largest foreign stockholder. He ruled against the constitution when ruling for the bank in the well known McCulloch case in Maryland. Conflict of interest runs rampant in "government" now and then doesn't it? Because the hard money would show the inflation of paper money, it had to be stopped to support the federal reserve note by the Crown operating through the internationalist bankers.
This Independent Treasury called for all government payments and disbursements to be made in hard money after June 30, 1843 and sub-treasuries were established in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington and Charlestown. This Act was repealed when the Whig Party gained control of the country. When the Whigs were defeated in 1844, the Independent Treasury was reestablished in 1846 1. Every thing was as it should be because the Treasury now dealt in specie and tweaked the nose of the foreign banking cartel. As the saying goes, "you don't fool mother banking," when showing that paper was the cause of inflation and the cause for the banking swindles.
Enter the Rothschild/Vatican cabal that was kept from instituting the first Bank in the United States when Washington instituted the emergency powers clause of the constitution in 1791. At one time the King of England was controlled by the Vatican. The Vatican stated that the Magna Charta violates the tenets of the Church because possession of rights by anyone does so. 2 For those of you who think the International Bankers are behind all this, think again after reading the following. You better know history all the way back to the Bible and His Word before saying you know who pulls the purse strings. You so called "Christians" who read the New History of America know what I mean. This is taken from Britannia: Sources of British History.
KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope.
In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope Innocent III, had by "impious persecution", tried to "enslave" the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike", wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. When this didn't work, the king, himself, was excommunicated. Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession to the Pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication lifted (1213). John's concession which, in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied Pope lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their king.
John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting. We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and other household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.
Ok people, this was before the Magna Charta. The Magna Charta did not wipe this covenant out. It continued on until this present day. As far as they are concerned screw the Magna Charta. Why? Because of the Vatican\banker cabal that tried to setup the first bank of the United States. Back to the question at hand.
How does the King stop this act pulled against him? Becomes bed partners with the Rothschild/ Vatican cabal by calling on his covenant with the Vatican that you just read. See, what the King made with the people didn't change the contract with the Vatican. Just like when the Colonies made you, the man, Sovereign, and the King agreed by Treaty of 1783. It did not change the control of the colony/states by the King. So, with minor changes of the Independent Treasury during the Civil War, it remained the same until merged with the Federal Reserve System in 1913 3. The federal reserve notes were used by the private banking cartel that operated in America. Even in 1890 the Congress spoke about, and acts were created wherein the federal reserve notes were mentioned. The creation of the Federal Reserve System was the inroad to get rid of the Independent Treasury. Most Board members of the Federal Reserve System were Americans who operated as front men for the internationalist's pulling the puppet strings. These federal reserve banks were empowered to rediscount the systems currency, commercial and agriculture paper of member banks, not the United States currency, and was to be based upon approved rediscounted paper deposited by member banks. Against such paper the reserve banks could issue Federal Reserve notes, which were accepted as government obligations, as part of the circulating money supply. Note, there is no mention of the United States Note because that was 100 percent backed by gold and silver. However, the Federal Reserve note had to be backed by only 40 percent of the gold and silver. Now we have two banking systems running side by side and causing great strife for the law-merchants. This was good for the average joe because he could depend on the Independent Treasury to accept his gold or silver for safe keeping and return 10 years later with a silver or gold certificate (a U.S. note) and redeem a 20 dollar U.S. note for 20 dollars of gold or silver. Not so with the Federal Reserve note, for if push came to shove he could obtain what was left after the obligation was paid by the United States on this bogus note which only needed to be backed by 40 percent gold or silver. See how the Crown via the private banking cartel is causing a problem. It's called the Hegelian theory. "Mother banking," as stated before will destroy you. It just took till 1921 to do it. The private federal reserve swindled the people's money in eight short years. When the banks couldn't pay the depositors when they wanted their own money back in 1929, they declared imperfect commercial international war on the people of America, when the Federal Reserve themselves had Roosevelt bring forth the Trading with the Enemy Act. This Act was rewritten in 1933 to include the people of America, where it had not done so before in 1917.
The Independent Treasury had a Secretary of Treasury and was named "the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States." Yes, he really existed because there was an honest to goodness United States Treasury. Enter now the problem solvers, the King in drag. They proceeded to abolish the United States Treasury in the year 1921 by the Act of 1920 4. Now the fraud will be shown for what it is by, how do you say it; watch, for my tongue does not leave my mouth as it forks both ways of the white man, or something to that effect. In other words we are not dealing with people that we think we should be dealing with in the taxation scam. Anybody who has a 1992 CD ROM of the 50 Titles of the United States Code can pull all this material and much more. I am scraping the top portion to get you started. So here we go down the rabbit trail.
Under Independent Treasury, Title 31 USC 3322, "Historical and Revision notes; In subsection (a), before clause (1), the words `Secretary of the Treasury' are substituted for `Treasurer of the United States' because the of the source provisions restated in section 321 (c) of the revised title. . . . The words `treasurer or' are omitted as obsolete because of the 1st-4th pars. under the heading `Independent Treasury' in the Act of May 29, 1920 (ch. 214, 41 Stat. 654; also see 31 USC 3301 Historical Notes.
Ok, let us look at 41 Stat 654, which says, "Act May 29, 1920, abolished office of Assistant Treasurer at specified cities." Stat. 654 is the source for 12 USC 121. Now let us look at "section 321 (c)" in 41 Stat. Just as one would guess, that has been involved with the IRS over many years, alcohol.
41 Stat 321, source for 27 USC Sec 71 to 90a Omitted. CODIFICATION.
I will quote only two of the sections.
Section 81, 5, related to withdrawal of alcohol produced at
any industrial alcohol plant tax-free for denaturing, for use by any scientific
university, for scientific research by any laboratory, or for use in any
hospital or sanitarium, was incorporated in sections 3108 (a) and 3124 (a) of
Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
Section 88, 6 related to applicability of administrative provisions of internal revenue laws, was incorporated in section 3122 of Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
So let us look at "47 Stat. 1957" in Section 81, it
"49 Stat. 1957, related to extension of industrial alcohol laws to Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, was incorporated in section 3123 of Internal Revenue Code of 1939."
Now back to end note 4., which is the source law for 31 USC 1310. The Historical and Revision Notes state, "The word `official' is substituted for `officer' for consistency in the revised title. In clause (1), the word `Treasury' is substituted for `Treasurer of the United States' because of the source provisions restated in section 321 of the revised title and Department of the Treasury Order 229 of January 14, 1974 (39 F.R. 2280). The words `or of an assistant treasurer' in section 1 of the Act of June 23, 1874, are omitted as superseded by section 1 (1st par. under heading `Independent Treasury') of the Act of May 29, 1920 (ch. 214, 41 Stat 254."
Ok people now you know Mary Ellen Withrow is the "Treasury" because she is the "Treasurer of the United States," correct? So why is it stated in the Notes, "In subsection (c) (2), the word `Secretary' is substituted for `Treasurer" because of the source provisions restated in section 321 (c) of the revised title?" Simple there is no "secretary" that is the Secretary of the United States Treasury as there is no United States Independent Treasury anymore. Following the trail to this point you have;
WHAT ONCE WAS IS NOW
Treasurer "Secretary of the Treasury"
Treasurer of the United States "Treasury"
Read this until you have it firmly locked in your brain. The "Secretary" in the Internal Revenue Code is at present, Manual Diaz Faldana 7, who, was the treasurer of Puerto Rico? He is the "Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." See, they don't tell you who is Secretary of what Treasury, do they? Fraud perhaps, but you didn't ask, did you? Are liars and thieves supposed to tell all? And all along you thought it was Robert Rubin or his predecessors because isn't he called Secretary of the Treasury? Don't presume anything when dealing with liars, thieves, profligates, cretins (all three branches of de facto usurpers) and the like. Now go back and tie in 41 Stat 321, 49 Stat. 1957 with Title 27, Title 26 and all other sections where the term "secretary" is used such as 6020 (b). Do not confuse the Secretary of treasury Robert Rubin with the Secretary of the Treasury Mary Ellen Withrow, (old Treasurer of the United States Treasury) or is it Manual Faldana, Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico? Rubin is Secretary of the treasury all right, but not of the United States. He is Secretary of treasury of the Federal Reserve/IMF. The agent of the United States that took place of the Independent Treasury through the Federal Reserve Act. That is why he has no subscribed oath of office under 5 USC 3331 and why he is paid by the International Monetary Fund/Bank found in 60 Stat 1401 et seq. Rubin is not the "Secretary" described in 26 USC 6301, is he? And neither is Mary Ellen Withrow who is also the Secretary of the Treasury according to the chart above. Now look at 26 USC 7401, and define the "secretary" so it does not conflict with the "secretary" in 26 USC 6301, defined in 27 CFR 250.11. Can the "secretary" in 7401 or any other section be anyone other than the one defined in 6301? If it does, then provide to me the definition found in any regulation or statute for another "secretary," otherwise it would be "manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof" of what Congress had in mind when abolishing the Independent Treasury, and changing the definitions all around, huh? The Attorney General holds the Title of Alien Property Custodian and when they team up in 26 USC 7401, they both have to sign on the dotted line to prosecute you for what, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms commercial crimes? How about contract crimes where you became a government employee receiving "Federal Wages?" I'll get to that around page 8.
Now let us see what happened to those real Treasury "officers" that were changed to "officials" in section 321 when the Independent Treasury was abolished. We go to;
Title 5 USC 5512, Historical and Revision notes. "In subsection (b), reference to the `General Accounting Office' is substituted for `accounting officers of the Treasury' on authority of the Act of June 10, 1921, ch 18, title III, 42 Stat. 23. Reference to the `Attorney General' is substituted for `Solicitor of the Treasury' and `Solicitor' on authority of section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933, ch 212, 47 Stat. 1517; section 5 of E.O. 6166, June 10, 1933; and section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 2, 64 Stat. 1261."
What becomes apparent now is that the term Solicitor only deals with contracting parties and operates in Chancery court to which he represents the Treasury. There must be a contract. You have one with the government? No? better think again when we get to joint-venture. A solicitor can control the property in the interim during a case. Now there is a statute that declared the "attorney General" to become the "Alien Property Custodian." Before we get to that you will have to understand the functions of the Alien Property Custodian and why it is so critical to understand in reference to the above paragraph's dates dealing with the War Powers Act, so read Title 50 Appendix, Sec. 9. After reading this we now come to the meat of who is coming after you in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico by reading Part of 8"Attorney General. The term `Attorney General' includes the Alien Property Custodian whose functions were transferred to the Attorney General pursuant to Executive Order 9788 (3 CFR 1943-1948 Comp., p.575) . . .." Please note the word "includes" is restrictive. This is proof that the word 'includes' is restrictive in all IRS code or statute where the word means is not used. You don't have to go any further than this for proofs.
9 "Trading With the Enemy Act. The term `Trading With the Enemy Act' includes all amendments of such Act, and all orders, rules, and regulations issued or prescribed under such Act or any such amendment."
Now put 303.1-1 (d) " . . . charged with the liability for internal revenue tax in connection with such property." with 303.1-1 (g) "Property. The term `property' includes money, . . .." Federal reserve notes are property to which a liability attaches under; 10 "Tax. The term `tax' has the meaning stated in section 36(d) of the Treading With the Enemy Act as added by the Act