Joyce Riley Interviews Ronald MacDonald

Author of They Own It All (Including You)!: By Means of Toxic Currency

Aired date: 6th of October, 2023

{00:51:52}

[Joyce]             Ron MacDonald, thank you so much for joining us today on the Power Hour.

[Ron]               Thank you very much, Joyce. What an entrance, I don’t know if it’s all true but…

[Joyce]             Yes, it is and I haven’t even ever met you and I know it’s true. I am just so glad to have you joining us today because it’s always a good feeling when we talk in terms of moving away from the system as much as we can and one of those things that you and I were talking about is the Open Records Act, that that should play a big role in our lives. First of all, explain to us what is the Open Records Act?

[Ron]               Well, the Open Records Act is based on the Freedom of Information Act and it’s within every state. Every state has adopted the Open Records Act. It was once known as the Official Secrets Act and what was meant by that is that every secret that’s within an agency that they didn’t want to reveal in an administrative hearing or in a court or something like that is now open once a determination has been made. So once in access through an agency everything on a case or an administrative hearing including their sticky notes, their notes on calendars, their audios, you name it, you have access to it. It is a very powerful tool and it’s very seldom used properly if ever used.

[Joyce]             What is to make us believe, though, that they’re actually going to put it all in the record?

[Ron]               Well, they have to and I’ll give you an example. Let’s say that you’re accused of something and you have to go through an administrative hearing and you try to get discovery and you don’t get everything in discovery because while they’re prosecuting they keep all their strategies, their notes and everything else closed and let’s say you’ve lost that case. Well, once the determination is in now you have a right to go back and get everything they counted on and the way you do that is through the Public Records Act and how do you know you get everything? Because once you review the records and the stuff isn’t in there, let’s say the determination, how they made a determination against you or how they prosecuted you or any evidence they had against you or all their notes. Once you get the record and you notice the common things aren’t in there you can do a writ of mandamus and compel them into a court to bring forth all their notes. See, you’re entitled to everything once you’ve been prosecuted. And it doesn’t only go there, you can use the Public Records Act for anything, any use. If before a determination or even if you’re not being prosecuted you can go into any agency and get records of how they make determinations. So that it’s basically open and there are means by which you can force them under threat to reveal all the records.

[Joyce]             And the format in which you do that I know is important. I’ve heard people say they didn’t use the correct format or they didn’t put the words down correctly and they didn’t get a response or they got rejected based on that. Before we get into all the caveats let’s talk about just the actual act of requesting your information. How does one go about do that? Is there one federal guideline on how you do it.

[Ron]               No, as I said, each state has their own public records act so you’d have to use the codes of those states to commence your public records act. I’ll give you an example, here in California this is how you would start. You start off with whatever the problem is if you want to reveal the problem. Let’s say they made a determination in a case, you lost it and you say, ‘now, I’m interested in getting all the records you have in that determination.’ So you let them know ahead of time what your issue is. Then you go and I quote, ‘this is a request pursuant to California Public Records Act, government code 6250, sequential. For copies of public records including but not limited to letters, council memos and notes, meeting, correspondence, tape or electronic recordings, notes, data, memorandums, income reporting statements, reports, e-mails, computer sources and object codes or any other material held by the agency that went into this determination. If this request is not addressed to the person with custody and control of the requested records please properly forward the request to the proper official. And then what you do is you tell them what records, what you mean by records, and this is how we define it. The term record, as used herein, shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, recordings or other materials regardless of physical form or characteristics made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. So that’s how you start off.

[Joyce]             It seems like it’s so all inclusive. Let me ask you this, give us some examples of how the Open Records Act or the—I know in Missouri it’s called the Sunshine Act—how this is utilized for things other than, let’s say, I lost a case and I want information. Can you use it for what do they know about the Iraq War before they went in or depleted Uranium—I mean, what other examples of Open Records Act requests can you give us?

[Ron]               Oh, yes, definitely, for example, in the State of California they accept Federal Reserve notes and yet we have in California no authority and I presume no states also have authority to accept Federal Reserve note. And the reason we know this is first I’ve done a diligent search of every code within the states and none of them mention Federal Reserve notes and we have government code, 6852 and it says, all legal tender notes issued by and that’s very important, that phrase, issued by the United States shall be received at par or face value in payment for all taxes due the states or for any country or municipal corporation of this state. So, here’s the only authority for the State of California to accept at par notes from the United States such as United States notes. It doesn’t say that they have a right to accept Federal Reserve notes which as not issued by the…  You see the problem there? If the State of California cannot accept Federal Reserve notes which that’s what the law says then they have no right to tax you on Federal Reserve notes, do they? They have to right to collect Federal Reserve notes. So you can use this Public Records Act to get at the documents that make the determination that they do have a right to accept Federal Reserve notes. So that’s how you use it outside of the determination. And there’s a means of going through a list of questions. It really is very important what kind of questions you ask.

[Joyce]             We need to go through that because how you style is obviously going to be based on the response that you get. How have you use it other than that and give us examples. I mean, how should we be using this? In other words, if we wanted to make the system transparent or get as much information from the system how can we use this, how can each one of us use this, not that we want to fill up their inboxes, but how can we use this effectively to create change?

[Ron]               Well, let’s take the Franchised Tax Board. Every year it does collect taxes…

[Joyce]             Ok, for those people that don’t live in California, what is a Franchised Tax Board.

[Ron]               That’s the state income tax and I know many states do have that.

[Joyce]             It may not be referred to as that.

[Ron]               Right, it may not be referred to as that. But let’s take that example first. Under our government code, 6850, it says the money of account to the state is the dollar, the cents and the mill. That’s under the political code that was passed in 1872. And at 1872 the dollar, the cents and the mill was based on actual gold or silver and that still is maintained as the money of account of the State of California. So, when you start your Public Records Act to question the state how is it that you’re demanding Federal Reserve notes. You pit these two government codes, 6250 and 6252, which is accepting of United States issued notes at par against each other. And I’ll give you an example, here’s a line of questioning. This is a request for the name and the title of the author, if any, who determined that the gold coin was insufficient payment and was to be returned to the agent and what I’m saying, here, is this is an actual case.

[Joyce]             In which gold was utilized to pay the taxes?

[Ron]               United States lawful money, lawful tender, under the Mint Act of 1792.

[Joyce]             We had an off air comment, Ron, about your comparing this or that there is a Freedom of Information Act that’s a federal issue but you’re talking about the State Open Records Act, correct? In the states?

[Ron]               Yes, with the state you can request public records of any agency or any organization that is funded by the State, your schools, your—anything that pertains to the State. Also under the Freedom of Information Act or the Public Records Act—I’ll give you an example with BP. They’re federally funded so you can actually do a Public Records Act against them and get all the information on how they acquired permits. Well, I know for a fact they never did acquire permits—they never got that.

[Joyce]             Never had permits for what?

[Ron]               To drill down in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Joyce]             Well, that ought to be an ah ha moment on CNN, why aren’t we hearing about that?

[Ron]               Well, very few people know that. You can get that information and you can see if they did an environmental study in fact before they did the drilling. Well, they’ve had to but how do you know what the results are? You can get all that information through a public records act and it’s important to know if they don’t respond how to respond to them, how to get them to move for you because I believe it’s the governor of Arkansas that wants to sue or investigate or something with BP. And several Mexican states have been suffering from them and want to sue BP. But the first step when they refuse to reply or they don’t give the entire information you do what’s called the Writ of Mandamus. You compel them into court and you list the questions that you wanted answers, the documents you were seeking, and you compel them to come into court to answer they’ve not provided it in accordance with the law. But before you do that there’s another method…to scare them into being, actually to bring fear into them as far as how to get them into accepting the questions. And I’m going to give you---I just did one of these and what it is it’s basically a notice and demand to perform under the laws of the state. And here’s the threat, you can threaten them under Title 42, Section 1983 and this is what it says, ‘every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the district of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any right, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law to inequity.’ Well, the thing with this is that you have an absolute right, that’s your Public Records Act and when they refuse to respond to it this is what you bring in as the threat and you also have another federal code that allows you to even give deeper threats to them and it’s Section 242 of Title 18—that’s a criminal aspect of it and it says  Section 242 of Title 42 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or law of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242 act under color of law include acts not only then by federal states or local officials within their lawful authority but also acts done beyond the bounds of official law. But the point of this act—when you deprive under Title 18 a citizen of their rights to, such as the Public Records Act, the penalty shall be fine under the Title or imprisonment not more than one year. So, when you send a notice of demand to any agency that doesn’t perform and respond to your request for documents and everything else you threaten them under this and believe me they’ll comply. Now, where can you get information from, what agencies can you get it from? Well, you can get it from the executive branch, anyone in the executive branch including the government. You can get records from the legislative bodies and you can get them from courts but you can also get them from non-government bodies that are funded by the state. So it’s an all-encompassing act and it’s a very important tool that you can use to just anything if you have a suspicion of something being violated. So that’s how important that is.

Going back to the gold issue is that in the book we write about the Franchised Tax Board and we have a document in there where we pay the Franchised Tax Board off with $5 of gold coins but they refused to see that gold coin and they returned it and said it was not a proper financial document. Imagine the lawful money of the United States and of every state being called a financial document. Now, I told you about government code, 6250. It says that the money of account is that lawful gold coin. So I’ll continue with the line of questioning that we did on this gold. And this is just one Public Records Act, we’ve done a lot of them on this one issue to the same agency because what we’re really doing is getting them to admit and confess that the authority to reject that gold coin wasn’t there in the first place.

[Joyce]             I think this goes toward strategy and I think it’s important to mention that you have a strategy in mind. You’re attempting to get them to admit or deny something of value to you on for whatever you’re building your case on—correct?

[Ron]               Oh, absolutely. And the way I do my strategy, I start with my closing statement first and I say, ‘we have proved the following,’ and I give a list of things that I have proved. Well, I go searching for that information to prove it at the end so the strategy is always to start backwards. When you go into court you certainly want to be able to say, ‘I proved the following therefore they’re guilty’—right? So that’s where I start. I start with that. I get a list of questions I want to prove that I’ve answered through the evidence gathering. So I get them to provide me with admissions and confessions on those questions. So here’s some of the questions that we did. It says, ‘this is a request for the name and title of the officer, if any, who determined that the gold coin was insufficient payment and was to be returned by the agent. Now, this is a very important question because to return a gold coin has to be done by an official, an officer, but what if it was an employee that did it? The made an official determination where they didn’t have the authority delegated to them. No employee has the authority to make a judicial determination. An officer does in that. But if you get an employee doing it you’ve just won your case. And that’s done every day. You’d be surprised how many employees are back in the agency making these determinations against the individual. Do you see the importance of that, Joyce?

[Joyce]             Oh yeah, absolutely.

[Ron]               And what if it was a computer that made the judicial determination? They just violated due process, didn’t they? That happens every day.

[Joyce]             What do you mean, the computer made?

[Ron]               Well, let’s say you got an assessment from the Internal Revenue and you did your Freedom of Information Act on it and you requested what officer did it, what employee did it. Then it comes back well, it was done by a computer. Only a judicial officer can make the assessment. Now you just won your case—do you see the point there?

[Joyce]             Yes.

[Ron]               Now, one of the other things that we ask is for the oath of office. Even employees have to take an oath before they enter an agency—they have an actual oath they have to take and many of them don’t do that. Well, guess what, if any officer or employee hasn’t taken their oath what is their testimony worth? What is all the evidence or anything that they produce what is that considered in law. It’s all null and void, isn’t it?

[Joyce]             Ok, does that go toward just impeaching their testimony or further than that?

[Ron]               That wins your case again. Let’s say you had a determination against you and did an employee did it or an officer did it and the officer didn’t take their oath? Well, the evidence that was gathered is null and void.  The only way an officer can act under the capacity of the state is that he must first before he enters the duties of his office take the oath to support the Constitution of the state…the United States but the state.

[Joyce]             But do they all do that? We’re finding a lot of cases where they don’t—yes.

[Ron]               They do not so all the acts are not official—it’s done by a civilian. See, the only thing that makes them an officer is that they have that prerequisite to take the oath to become an officer. There’s just so many frauds done within the state and within the United States. If you know how to ask these questions, my God, you’ll win your case against these people and you don’t even have to be at the end of a determination. You can just request to see if they’ve taken their oath and you had no attacks on you and you turn around and you can file suit against them for fraud and pull them out of office.

[Joyce]             Has that been done?

[Ron]               Yes, it has and basically you can do it under what used to be called the Quo Warranto. Quo Warranto is when you believe an officer is not officially capacitated. There’s another name for it in every state now. I don’t think they use the Quo Warranto any longer but once you determine that they’ve not taken the proper oath to unlock the sovereign power in that office you have a case to get them out.

[Joyce]             I know that Ralph Winterowd talks about quo—he calls it quo warrento—I think it’s the same thing but he’s talking about Quo Warranto. He’s filed those but I don’t know if he’s had any effectiveness come from it.

[Ron]               Well, it depends on how he set up the admissions and confessions and it depends on what case law he provided. There’s case law to go along with it. There’s hundreds of cases on officials, quasi-officials that have not taken the proper oath that the end result the court decided that the entire acts that they committed during that quasi-official capacity are null and void. So, it’s very important—I mean, the fraud is so huge.

[Joyce]             It is. I think that’s the part that scares people, the fraud is so huge where do you start? And, of course, you’re saying here is the step-by-step of beginning on your issue of fact finding. I mean, this is part of your fact finding and discovery.

[Ron]               Right, and I’ll give you an example of the officials that have not taken their oaths of office. ON another piece of paper my wife and I lived on we owned I built on a set-back, the set-back for the first twenty-five feet off the street that you’re not allowed to build on in California. Well, I built on it anyway because I dared the state to stop me. Every agency came in and attacked me. I was going to a condemnation meeting or hearing. I was pulled in, in defiance of the laws of the state or acts of the county which is also a subdivision of the state. And what I brought in as my defense is I gathered from the county clerk, Steve Lewis of Sonoma County all their oaths of office. And what happened is some of them hadn’t taken their oaths of office. Some of them did take the oaths of office but they took the wrong one. And what I did I brought in every one of the oaths. Some signed them after my request. So I brought them all in and as soon as I questioned the administrative judge there and I said, ‘have you all taken your proper oaths?’ One woman said, ‘Mr. MacDonald, we’ve had enough of you. You get over here and you sit down.’ I was talking with my wife and my two children and I told her, ‘wait a minute,’ and I argued the point. I said, ‘listen, I’m the only one here with, in a sense, of his entire status. You’ve all contracted your status away to do an official job.’ And I went down, I explained the difference between a person, a supervisor, the entire process. And then the administrative law judge said, ‘Mr. MacDonald, just to stop this line of question I’ll say we’ve all taken our proper oaths in accordance with the Constitution of California. So, I pulled out their oaths and I said, ‘well, I’ve scrutinized your oaths and you’ve all taken the wrong one. None of you here are officially capacitated.’

[Joyce]             Wow, I wish I could have been there.

[Ron]               And what happened, I said, ‘you took the oaths under a case called Vogel v. County of L.A. and that describes an employee’s perspective on what oath he had to take. He only has to take the first paragraph of the constitutional oath before he answers the duties of his position—he’s not an official. He doesn’t wield the sovereign power of the State. And immediately the county counsel got up and left the room. But before she got up the administrative law judge said, ‘how long do I have to let him talk?’ She said, ‘however long? And he says, ‘well, how about five minutes?’ She said, ‘if that’s all you want.’ And then he turned to me, he said, ‘Mr. MacDonald, you have five minutes and five minutes only to talk.’ There was a supervisor there and he said, ‘let’s teach him what real law is, let’s get him into the court.’ They were just going crazy. Well, I read the case. I pointed out the oaths that they should have taken. The employee only has to take the first part of the oath because he can become a member of the communist party. He can be part of the overthrow of the government. There’s no stipulation that says whatever his mind-bent, nothing controls his mind-bent—he just has to do his job. But what about an officer of the State or of the county? Shouldn’t they take an oath not to overthrow the very power they’re being paid by? So when the county counsel left the room she came back and whispered into the ear of the administrative law judge. And then he turned to me and said, ‘Mr. MacDonald, you may talk upon any subject you wish and for however long you wish.’ At the end he came up, he dismissed the action…   He came over to me and my wife and my two girls that were standing—they were just three and five. Now they’re twenty-five and twenty-eight. He said, ‘it’s a pleasure to meet your family, it’s a very beautiful family. I’m sorry this all happened.’ He left the room. No one in the room knew what happened. They knew the case was dismissed and they were all in awe and what we did, we left, and that was the end of it. No one, even today, is officially capacitated in the State of California—they take the wrong oath. So that’s how important your oath of office is.

[Joyce]             That is excellent. What a feeling of satisfaction just from the sake of doing of that case. I mean, just from the sake of making the stand and doing what you did and the risk that you took. Let me ask you, why did you bring your wife and two children into the courtroom?

[Ron]               Because they’re my family—my family goes wherever I go.
That’s how we did it. I believe that when you recognize the man you recognize the family. If you don’t do that then I want nothing to do with you. It does say when the man and woman are joined they become one. That’s my philosophy and my children are one with us also. That’s proof that the statement that you can’t fight city hall—well, yes, you can. One man can make a difference.

[Joyce]             We know that’s true and we know that we have to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise. Most people don’t know of the option that is there or that that was even a possibility. Most people would not even think about building into a zone that was protected by setback.

Ron, is there anything you want to add before we go to the phone calls?

[Ron]               That’s basically it. When you do these things have no fear. When you attack an agency or anything like that you have to think this is my last day on earth, what would I do? I would try and fight for truth. And if you have no fear in these things you’ll be very successful.

[Joyce]             I would just like to ask your philosophy then about life and about what we’re doing because you seem to be standing on Superman’s cape more than just about anybody I know and you’re certainly not spitting in the wind. I mean, you are actually getting some things accomplished. But what is it that drives you or what is it that says, Ron, you got to take a stand here, you can’t let this one go?

[Ron]               Well, it’s that spiritual voice that says always do the right thing. Now, if you don’t do the right thing you do the wrong thing. Proceed in life and do that golden rule, do unto others as you want done unto yourself. I want people to be free, to have the weight of bureaucracy taken off their backs. I want it off my back so I’m going to fight for it off everyone’s back.

[Joyce]             See, and you are so unique in that. And I just want to give credit to you and salute you for that because the average person is not going to go out and build a garage on an area that is a setback part of the property or on an easement—which is the word I was trying to think of a while ago—on an easement because they didn’t want to deal with the hassles, they don’t want to deal with the potential of being brought into court by all these agencies. But you almost relish the idea because you’re not doing it for the garage, you’re doing for the issue.

[Ron]               Well, yeah, we will all be judged and we’ll be judged on what we’ve done. If I’m going to live a lie then I’m going to be judged on living that lie. Every time you see a wrong in society it is your absolute duty to correct it. It’s not your neighbor’s duty, it’s your duty to correct it.  And that’s the true philosophy because we are accountable. If the government says you have to do this and you know in your heart it violates your spiritual principles you don’t do it and you fight for it.

[Joyce]             You said one of those things we ought to all do in calligraphy and put on the wall and it’s so simple. If you’re not doing the right thing you’re doing the wrong thing. So when people call and ask all the time, should I do this, should I do that, is it the right thing because if it’s not the right thing it’s the wrong thing. Now, that’s one of those things I’m going to think about tonight when I go do sleep because that’ll give me something to ponder—I really like that.

Alright, let me go to the callers, John in Michigan, you are so fortunate to be able to talk to Ron MacDonald today. And, Ron, we’re glad to talk to you too.

[John]              Thank you for this opportunity, Joyce and Ron. I have to tell you I’m a long time listener but a first time caller. I have a question, it’s going to take a little time to explain my story but I’m in court with a judge. The judge has taken forty days to take his oath of office and then my Michigan law he’s only allowed ten days so he’s really outside the loop on taking his oath of office plus he does not have a bond. He’s covered under the city bond which is again according to the law not legal. I then appeared in the case and found out that the judge that I appealed it to is also in the same boat that the first judge was. So now, I’m just looking for Ron to see where can I take it from here to press the oath of office and the bond on this judge.

[Ron]               It’s a very simple concept and speaking of the judge, when the judge is not within the law he’s outside the law or an outlaw. Now, have you been deprived of a right, John? I know the answer to that but do you know the answer to that, have you been deprived of a right?

[John]              Yes.

[Ron]               Yeah, because the judge was supposed to take this oath within ten days. He did not take his oath. You’ve then been deprived of a right. Now you have access to Title 42, Section 1983, and Title 18, Section 242. These are the things you use when you’ve been deprived of a right. Now, what does that do to any ruling the court made? If the judge was not within the capacity of an official at that time he’s acting as a civilian up on that bench and that’s the aspect of it. I can’t teach you the Title 42 apparently, right here, it’s a lengthy process but that is your remedy. And, again, I’m not an attorney to advise you but that is your remedy. And you can do that at any time. There is no statute of limitations on that.

[Joyce]             Alright, thank you very much, John. Thank you for calling in today at the Power Hour. Let’s go to Keith in Missouri. Keith, you’re on the air with Ron MacDonald, go ahead, please.

[Keith]             Good morning, truth seekers. Ron, you’re doing an excellent job. Well, I’ll tell you, on the oath of office the difference between employee and officer is important but equally important is the hierarchy of authority, the difference between rights, powers, privileges. From the Declaration of Independence we have a self-evident truth, we as individual people have rights given from God as a birthright of being the children of God. When We the People get together and create a government we delegate only powers to government. Legislative powers are found in the Congress, executive powers etc, judicial powers. Government has only powers. Government never has a right to do anything. So our rights as individuals are on a higher plane of existence than the mere powers of government and government, in turn, when it gives out whatever, those can only be privileges which are at a lesser level.  So, the key thing here is never invest government with the authority of having a right to do anything. They are the hired help. They’re the worker bees at whatever level either employee or officer. They are the hired help. They are not on any level equivalent to the citizen, the people, who have rights. When they take their oath of office they take themselves under this level of governmental powers.

[Joyce]             Let me get Ron’s response to that.

[Ron]               Yeah, I agree with Keith entirely. People have inherent rights. Governments have delegated powers and that’s absolutely true. But there’s even a greater aspect at play here.  Today we are barraged by administrative law. It’s in everything. You don’t touch the law anymore. It’s that quasi-fourth branch of government. But the people in their wisdom created their Constitution under the common law. They did not create it under administrative law which is commercial in nature. So there is the real problem with our society is that we now have the law of the sea overlapping us.

[Joyce]             Let’s go to Joe in Arkansas. Joe, you are up with Ron MacDonald—go ahead, please.

[Joe]                Alright, Mr. MacDonald, I wanted to ask you this question. Suppose you were living in a town for a long time making your living self-employed and your town just passed a law saying that you had to have a business license. I wanted to ask you what you might do in a situation like that.

[Ron]               Again, a business license is your administrative law. This would be a lengthy fight but it is winnable and that is, is that you go back to the language of the Constitution in your state. You will not find that aspect in it and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That’s where you delegated the powers to those offices as Keith said, the previous caller, and once you find that there is no authority within that Constitution and you won’t find it. That’s how you use your attack. Again, you go to your town and you do the Public Records Act. You get all the authority. You ask for any document that grants them authority to request a business license. When you don’t find it then you can hold that against them and you may find out that the people that are pushing this business license are employees—it’s all being done by employees. Well, again, you have an admission and confession. They’ve not done their proper due diligence before they answered the duty of their office or their position. So, I mean, there are many aspects to attacking it. And you’re going to find out that they don’t have authority. I did a case on a contract—I had mentioned it once before. A contractor was once a mayor of a town here in California. And he refused to take out state taxes on his employees. Well, the attorney general came up against him as well as the contractor’s license board. He had an administrative hearing and I proved that the state laws were copyrighted. They were special laws and not general laws and to be general laws that’s common law. Everyone falls under the general laws or supposedly they’re supposed to. But when I proved that they were private laws, special laws, owned outright by individual people and not by the people of the State I found the flaw, the Achilles heel and I stopped the attorney general of the state from moving against this guy. He actually withdrew the complaint in its entirety. He did not give an acquittal. He did not just back off, he retreated and so did the contractor’s license board and the…   He died last year but he had contracted with the same employees without taking out anything.

[Joe]                Covered in your book?

[Ron]               No, not that aspect isn’t, that’s for another book.

[Joyce]             Thank you very much, Joe from Arkansas. Believe me, the book is incredible is all I can say. Let’s go to Marie in Texas. Marie in Texas, you’re on the air with Ron MacDonald, go ahead, please.

[Marie]            Good morning. I got a question, would you refer me to some kind of help for proving a hostile work environment against those federal law enforcement officers that you talked about. They chased me and they used the…system against me. What can I refer to, to prove hostile work environment?

[Ron]               You have to be a good evidence gatherer, secret tape recordings of the issues, getting people that are friends of yours to testify in an affidavit that they’ve seen things happening to you. You have to be kind of a covert investigator in this. And that’s the only way because you have to prove the evidence. Keep a log of everything that happens to you. That becomes evidence in a courtroom. So that’s probably the best way of doing that. Other than that I don’t think there’s any way you can prove it unless you have a witness to the issue.

[Joyce]             Alright, thank you very much for the phone call, Marie. Let’s go to Dave in Arkansas. Dave in Arkansas, you’re on the air go ahead, please with Ron MacDonald.

[Dave]             Yes, Joyce and guest. I was just wanted to know is there somehow there could be a class action lawsuit to get everything back to common law instead of this corporate dictatorship law or something like that? You have a class action law suit somehow?

[Ron]               Well, actually, I don’t think that that can happen but there is a means by which people can take back their state. There are several ways that laws are passed in this country, by executive order, by the courts, by the State and going through a bill but very few people actually access a tool that is so important that it would change this country almost within a year and I’ll give you an example. It’s called the referendum initiative. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that. Every year you’ll see some proposition that are created by the people. That means you can actually bring a law and get it passed through your state. You have to have signatures. I’m working on this for the State of California and twenty-four other states that can pass initiatives. And I’ll give you an example of a bill that I want to put as a proposal for the people and it says, no bill shall be passed into a law of this state that does not have but one subject in its title because in current laws that are passed through the legislature there are more than one subject in the title. Well, this is a common law thing. Back in common law they could only have one subject in the title, one object in sits substance. That means the body of the law can only have one object in it. Today, you may have a hundred of them. Look at the health bill. You have IRS, you have God knows how many different subjects in it. Again, that was common law because if people understood if you start putting more than one subject in the body of the law you can confuse the people. Be more than ten pages in length, well, guess what happens in our states and in our nation, hundreds and thousands of pages and written in clear language of the ninth grade public school educational system. Well, that’s what I understand is the prevalent reading ability of American people at ninth grade. Do you think people would vote on that to simplify the law so we all understand them and are not fooled by them.

[Dave]             Yes, I want to get started in my state.

[Joyce]             Ok, very good. Thank you very much, Dave, from Arkansas. Let’s move on to John in New Mexico. John, you’re on the air. Go ahead, please, with Ron MacDonald.

[John]              A couple of things. The first thing is I’ve been working in local government for a long time. I have never taken an oath of office and what I’d like to know is for what I do to be valid do I need to take an oath office and how would I take it? The second thing is in the state of New Mexico. A lot of states allow you to do an owner/builder thing. So if I wanted to build an accessory building that has electricity in it I could build it. But the State of New Mexico makes you take tests to have electricians, staff and all that kind of stuff. Basically, I think it’s a way of allowing them to hire out contractors. So what can I do?

[Ron]               Well, to the oath of office you’d have to go to your supreme law of your state, the Constitution, and see if it’s a requirement in there that you have to take an oath and I’m pretty sure every state would have the same thing. I haven’t checked all the constitutions but I know some of the states I have checked their oath is prescribed right in their constitution. So I would suggest that possibly…capacity to do the job you’re doing depending on the position you have. Some positions don’t require it if you do not affect the public at large in any capacity. Let’s say you’re a secretary working for an officer. Well, you don’t have to take an oath on that because you’re not actually affecting the public at large. But let’s say you’re at the DMV and you have the ability to, as an employee, to reject or accept documentation. Well, you’re affecting the public at large. You have a quasi-judicial capacity. You would have to take an oath. And also the owner-builder, you mentioned how do you not have to take that—that question. Again, this would be a lengthy argument for the court and you would have to prove the administrative capacity of the state does not exist which can be done. Again, study your Constitution. It’s written in common law. The administrative law, the owner-builder test is administrative law. You cannot find that within your Constitution. If the people have not delegated that power to their officials it does not magically appear somewhere down the line and that’s the point. So you’d have to argue that, you’d have to brief up on common law and argue that aspect of it and you’re going to win because there is no office that has been delegated commercial law not in any state.

[Joyce]             Interesting. Alright, thank you very much for the phone call, John. Let’s go to Linda in Texas. Linda in Texas, you’re on the air, go ahead, please.

  Ron, you have plans for - three - books?

[Ron]               Yes, actually three more books basically on things like the notice to appear, that ticket that everyone gets sooner or later on the highway and how to defeat that. And how I proved that it was a unilateral contract that was in violation of fundamental principles in law and at that point I had even the opposition, the district attorney, coming up to me and asking me to teach him the law. And on the copyright issue and I explained this the last time, the case with my dad under a DUI. And you know I don’t promote people drinking and driving but in this case I proved that only a district attorney can write those complaints and yet throughout the state there are many agencies that write the complaint and put them into the courtroom and that’s a violation of fundamental principles. This is to actually rip a hole into the system that is based on fraud.

[Linda]                        Hi, Ron, my thirty-one year old son is reading your book right now and while I was waiting on the line I was reading a fifteen-page printout I made last week because we at Fluoride Free Austin have realized we need to use the Freedom of Information Act to fight fluoride and at the last page it says there’s a citizen action access project that includes the text of all the Freedom of Information laws enacted in each of the fifty states and it also provides contacts for a local organization involved with the open government issues. There’s the citizen access project and apparently they can help you in your own state.

[Joyce]             And what is the website for that, Linda?

[Linda]                        It says the citizen access project website includes the text of all freedom of information laws enacted in each of the fifty states. I printed this out last week because we at Fluoride Free Austin have been begging our city council to produce test results for the fluoro-salicylic acid (C₇H₅FO₃) waste product that they add to our water for two years and we’ve asked for the pharmaceutical content of the dillo dirt, the bio-sludge, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and fluoride in high concentrations in all this dillo dirt they spread all over our city and they ignore us. So, I was wondering, Ron, are there cities out in California that have been successful in fighting fluoride or toxic sludge using this Freedom of Information Act?

[Joyce]             And I want to give kudos to Linda and this group. She has tireless—no, no, not tirelessly, she’s been plenty tired I’m sure—but I mean she has stood and stood for the people of Austin and for everyone on the issue of fluoride and trying to protect the people from that so kudos to you, Linda, and Fluoride Free Austin. But your response, Ron?

[Ron]               Actually, I don’t know of any group. I’m sure there are in California but I’ve been so busy fighting other things. It’s hard to hit on every subject. It’s all fraud. Again, you’re dealing with an act—fluoride is an act in administrative law. So you conquer administrative law by proving that the authority never existed to grant to agencies powers from the people. There’s a simple means by which the people delegate their power. They first create an office, they endow it with sovereign powers from them and then they enumerate the powers of it. They limit the powers. Now, did we ever create a fluoride agency or any health agency with that ability? No, we have not. So that’s the simple truth of the matter and to attack these agencies you have to go back to the fundamental principles upon which all offices are created.

[Joyce]             So where is that? Where would she go to get that fundamental…?

[Ron]               Well, first of all I would study my Constitution. I would go onto Google books and look up the maxims of law under common law because that’s the language of your Constitution and you’ll see that common law is cemented. That means it’s immutable, it cannot be changed.

[Joyce]             Alright thank you very much; good advice for Linda. Thank you, Linda for your work. We have next up to talk to him, Charles in Louisiana. Charles in Louisiana, you’re on with Ron MacDonald—go ahead please.

[Charles]          Mr. MacDonald, I met a guy—it’s funny it was two people—that came back from Iraq and they can’t buy guns because they went to some kind of medication and they said their wife can’t have a gun. Is this legal?

[Ron]               It could be legal but it’s not lawful. It’s legal in the commerce jurisdiction that they passed a law for that but it’s unlawful in the common law jurisdiction and, again, this is the major problem in this country. We’ve been hit by new law called legal. It is all administrative; it is all commercial law. I would say that those that came back from Iraq that have been forbidden to have guns they need to research the law and see if it actually applies to them. What states are they in?

[Charles]          Why would they take their rights? Can they take the right for their wives to own a gun to protect their children?

[Ron]               No, they cannot.

[Joyce]             Well, the same thing is for the issue for felons and I don’t know if he’s calling from Louisiana so that may be what he’s referring to. But what about the law that says a felon cannot own a gun?

[Ron]               Well, I came across a case in California and I’m sure there are cases similar to it or it can be used in other states and it said the only time they can have a gun taken away from a felon where he has no right to it if he actually used the weapon in a crime. If he did not use that weapon in a crime the case made a determination that he’s entitled to have a gun.

[Joyce]             Interesting. Charles, sounds like some research needs to be done on that. Let’ go to Sherri in Missouri.

[Ron]               I would also say that this is deprivation of rights for those people. Again, they have a right to Title 42, Section 1983 and Title 18, Section 242, deprivation of rights.

[Joyce]             And good point. I heard G Gordon Liddy. I’m not a fan of G Gordon Liddy but I just happened to hear him mention on a radio talk show about how—you know he’s a felon as a result of breaking in during the Watergate time and he is a felon and he can’t own a gun so they were asking him about gun ownership, do you protect yourself with a gun and he said, ‘I can’t,’ but he said, ‘my wife sure has a lot of guns and sometimes she puts them on my side of the bed.’ Let’s go to Sherri in Missouri. Sherri, you’re on the air; go ahead, please, with Ron MacDonald.

[Sherri]            Good morning. I have a three part question, the first part being my husband works for a corporation who is taking funds from his check and sending it to a third party without a court order. Now, we’ve put them on notice and they haven’t responded other than they keep sending his money and the third party is the IRS and we’re ready to file suit in state court. Now that you mentioned about the copyright of the statute which we were going to sue under, how does that affect that? And

[Joyce]             Wait a minute, let’s get an answer to that one. Wait a minute, before you move on, Ron, your response to that.

[Ron]               The only way the IRS can enter into the state, they have to go through the recorder’s office. Now, in order for that lien to first be filed, in order for them to get access it has to be certified by the person who actually calculated the lien and it has to be done under penalty of perjury. And if you noticed on that first aspect of it you’ll never see a certification. Now, every state has that—I forget what the act is actually called, it’s like something of lien act and they have to fulfill that act and you’ll find out you’re your recorder just records these instruments without verifying the signatures on them. So that would be my first thing that I would go after and you don’t have a right to attack the IRS. You would have a right then to attack the county recorder on that because at that point if you prove that that lien was never validated it has to be removed. And, of course, there goes the…   The garnishment is another aspect of this, is that apparently the IRS sends a letter to the corporation garnishing the wages. If they didn’t go through the proper court system then that’s null and void too. You’d have to attack it on the validity of that garnishment.

[Sherri]            Right, but against the employer or the corporation.

[Ron]               Yeah, it’s the employer; the employer is causing the damage, not the IRS.

[Sherri]            Right, exactly. Then about the copyright of the statute because that’s what we were going to sue under, the garnishment laws for the state of Missouri.

[Ron]               Look up the laws on that garnishment and go to West’s or Dering or any available law books and look that statue up and look on the front cover and see if it’s copyrighted. The whole aspect of a copyright is that the person who’s putting the material in the book owns that material outright and that copyright can be sold at any time, it’s private interest, it’s not public interest, the whole thing, there’s so many things to defeat that copyright.

[Sherri]            And then furthermore, how do you get the courts to recognize common law instead of using statutes?

[Ron]               You don’t get the court to recognize it. You defeat your opponent in the courtroom. You have to make a case against the opponent for violating your common law rights. It has nothing to do with court. The court is supposed to be a mediator that is impartial. But once the court is acting partial to one side of the other he’s prejudicing one side and benefiting the other side and to keep the court on point you have to scrutinize every act of that court and when the court doesn’t pay attention to your cases that you bring forward to prove your point, when it violates that, you have to do a writ of prohibition and accuse the court of unconstitutionally applying the law in the matter. And on that point what you do in setting that court up for a Title 42, Title 18, 242 lawsuit and bring fear into the judges.

[Joyce]             Alright, thank you very much for the phone call. Let’s go to Sharon in Ohio. Sharon in Ohio, you’re on the air, go ahead, please with Ron MacDonald.

[Sharon]          Hi, good morning. I have actually about three questions. The first question is about paying property taxes. I’m wondering it is a person can do or what statute needs to be cited to prove that that is illegal. I know it’s illegal, I just don’t know…

[Joyce]             Well, now you’re into about a all-day seminar here, not just one phone call. But just let’s take that one basic question, Ron, you can respond to that.

[Ron]               Well, Joyce, I think you had a couple of guests on that actually addressed the validity of the tax being at point one-hundredth of every dollar versus one-thousandth of every dollar. Do you recall those? That might be a start for Sharon.

[Joyce]             Ok, mill versus mille. I know that’s another whole program. I don’t even know how to go back and find the date on that program. Let me see if we can do that. Anything else, real quickly, Sharon?

[Sharon]          Yeah. The other thing was my sister was common law married to a guy and she’s in Michigan and he died and we’re trying to figure out how she can get his retirement because the guy was only retired for a year.

[Ron]               The truth of the matter, how long was she married to him?

[Sharon]          I’m not sure of the date but approximately ten years.

[Ron]               Ok, then what to do is for her to go into the courtroom and do a motion for declaratory relief. Declaratory relief allows the court to make a judgment on a particular status and if the court recognizes her as being married then she can use that evidence to get whatever the benefits are from her husband.

[Joyce]             Alright, thank you very much for the phone call. Let me move on to Greg in Tennessee. Greg, you’re on the air—go ahead, please, Greg.

[Greg]              Hello, have you had any cases involved with local school boards and school administrations?

[Ron]               Yes.

[Greg]              There’s tyrannical people on the planet, I believe. Are there any particular codes that we can use against those people?

[Ron]               Well, first of all, what is the problem that you’re…

[Greg]              Oh well, what they do is a lot of times they have these policies regarding the cell phones and some of them they like to pick on some of the kids and they’re not supposed to be using them in school and I understand that. But there have been some cases where they have abused it and what they like to declare is they can confiscate the property and keep it for a certain amount of time and go through the contents of it.

[Ron]               I’ll give you an example, my youngest daughter when she was going to a… I wanted to enroll her in a special school at ninth grade and saw the principal and he said, ‘I’m sorry but we don’t take ninth graders here,’ and I asked if that was the law of the state or if that was the policy of the school district. And he said, ‘yes, it’s been a policy for thirty-five years. And what I told him—and this was on a Friday—I said, ‘as of Monday you will have a Writ of Mandamus compelling you into the courtroom to challenge why you’re violating my daughter’s civil rights in this matter.’ And within that weekend the superintendent of the school system of California called me up and said, ‘your daughter may attend that school,’ and they changed the law. Your writ of mandamus is very important in that. When they take a right, deprive a right, or take something without any absolute law backing it you compel them into court to prove their authority and that’s the writ of mandamus.

[Greg]              They based it on a Supreme Court decision…   …and told them, ‘look, that’s my property because my child is mine and cannot legally own property like that or have accounts or have legally…

[Joyce]             That’s a good point, Greg.

[Greg]              I’m going to get your book; I appreciate your time.

[Joyce]             And they didn’t have cell phones then. Thank you very much for the phone call. Let’s go to Markus in Tennessee. We only got about four more minutes with Ron MacDonald. Markus, in Tennessee, you’re on the air with Ron—go ahead, please.

[Markus]          Hello, Joyce and Mr. MacDonald. My question is this, it’s concerning usury dealing with interest. I live in Tennessee and I pay child support in Texas and Tennessee doesn’t have any type of law that says you can charge interest on child support. And I’ve looked up interest in the Blacks Law Dictionary, also I’ve got some other interest and how it can be charged. And from everything that I’ve read so far it states that if you borrowed something and I haven’t borrowed anything concerning child support, I’ve made payments so is this legal for them to charge interest on something that you’ve never borrowed?

[Ron]               That’s a real technical question. First of all it’s a moral issue. My wife and I, we have money in accounts that we have accounts that are not interest bearing. I don’t believe in the usury law so I’ve arranged my life to make it a moral issue. And that would be the argument at that point. If you’re a moral man and you’re taking interest from your bank you’ve just defeated your own argument. But if your whole spiritual makeup is based on following the commandments and you don’t believe in usury then you have to enforce that. You have two states in regard to this. This would have to be in the federal you would have to argue that aspect of it. It’s going to be a very time consuming lawsuit.

[Joyce]             That’s interesting. Ok, thank you very much, Marcus from Tennessee, I appreciate the phone call. Ron, the book, what are people going to learn from the book? I want them to be inspired and know why it is. I don’t want people to be spending their money for nothing but this is going to open up a whole new world. What will they learn from this book?

[Ron]               Ok, the first thing they’re going to learn if they’re spiritual they’re going to learn an answer to a prophesy that was written in the New Testament, None shall buy nor sell without the mark of the beast. And after they read the book they’re going to see that mark on everything, on every human being, on every piece of property, on all services throughout the globe. That’s one…  They’ll also learn the defining of income. Title 26 doesn’t define income.

Editor insert: {Dave Myrland On Income:  Property transferred in connection with the performance of services. If, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred the excess over the amount paid shall be included in the gross income of the person that performed the services. It didn’t say the whole paycheck is gross income. It says the excess over the amount paid. That’s the definition of income. So anyone that says that income isn’t defined in the Code, you’re wrong. Cost defines income. Income is what is left after cost. And if cost is defined in the Code, then income is defined. So income is defined in the Code. It’s in Section 83. Only the excess over the amount paid is gross income and in regulations they define the amount paid as the value of any money or property that you paid for the compensation, any money or property.}

They defined gross income as income, that’s the technicality of the definition but they’re going to experience what income actually is in that book and then they’re going to know what the fraud is against the people not only here in America but around the globe. They’re going to see that through the money system all wealth was stolen from every citizen throughout the globe. All rights were stolen at the same time and they’re going to see that and learn that.

Editor insert: { Dave Champion on gross income—Shattering the Myth:  Having shown that 6001 must apply to some privileged activity of which the government is already aware - in other words, an excise taxable activity - let's look at the regulation for 6001.

1.6001 - (a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any person subject to tax under subtitle A of the Code.. .or any person required to file a return of information with respect to income, shall keep such permanent books of account or records, including inventories, as are sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or other matters required to be shown by such person in any return of such tax or information…

And there we have it! After I showed you that the statute can only pertain to an excise taxable activity, we find that the Secretary agrees. While the statute mentions nothing about subtitle 'A', the Secretary tells us that the relevant part of the statute pertains to subtitle A', which is, according to Brushaber, an excise.

A TIN is only to be used - can only be used legally - by a person upon whom the tax has been imposed, or a person who has been made liable (such as a withholding agent) or a US person, i.e., one who is involved in the flow of U.S. source income to its foreign owner. That's it. So stop using the damn number and be an American - a free American!}

 [Joyce]            Ok, so we can say all rights were stolen and everything is gone and it’s all a fraud but what difference does that make to us?

[Ron]               Because at that point the remedy is to go back and bring cases into your state, not into the federal courts, for fraudulent concealment because the state acted in concert and for criminal conversion. Fraudulent concealment because there are things in that money system you are not aware of. You didn’t understand that that is not domestic product, that’s not your currency, it’s foreign currency. I guess that’s it.

[Joyce]             Excellent. Thank you so much for joining us today. It has been beyond inspiring. Thank you so much, Ron MacDonald, author of They Own It All (Including You)!: By Means of Toxic Currency and three more books coming out, not one, but three! Thank you, Ron, we love you at the Power Hour. Thank you for joining us.

[Ron]               Thank you, Joyce.

Related and yet not related:

They Own It All Including You