If the United States has the "gold", the United States pays the bills (from the trust account, fund, or financial ledger).

In 1933 the United States put its insurance policy into place with House Joint Resolution 192
and recorded it in the Congressional Record. It was not required to be promulgated in th e Federal
register. An Executive Order issued on April 5, 1933 paving the way for the withdrawal of gold
in the United States . Representative Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges on May 23,
1933 against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the
Currency, and the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Congressional Record May 23, 1933
page 4055-4058). HJR 192 passed on June 3, 1933. Mr. McFadden claimed on June 10, 1933:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever
known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. . ;" HJR 192 is the
insurance policy that protects the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason against the
American people. It also protects the American people from damages caused by the actions of
the United States. For speaking like he did, Mr. McFadden was poisoned by the powers that be
by agents of that federal corporation.
HlR 192 provided that the one with the gold paid the bill s. It removed the requirement that the
United States subjects and employees had to pay their debts with gold. It actually prohibited the
inclusion of a clause in all subsequent contracts that would require payment in gold. It also
cancelled the clause in every contract written prior to June 5, 1933, that required an obligation to
be paid in gold - retroactively. It provided that the United States subjects and employees could
use any type of coin and currency to discharge a public debt as long as it was in use in the
nonnal course of business in the United States. For a time, United States Notes were the currency
used to discharge debts, but later the Federal Reserve and the United States provided a new
medium of exchange through paper notes, and debt instruments that could be passed on to a
debtor's creditors to discharge the debtor' s debts. That same currency, Federal Reserve Notes, is
used to discharge public debts. Take note; the Federal Reserve Notes have no value, as stated by
the Federal Reserve!
In the 1950's the Uniform Commercial Code was presented to their States as a means of
unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with
commercial transactions and fictions as though they were real. Security instruments (commercial
paper) replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by
presumptive contracts. Debt instruments with collateral, and accommodating parties , could be
used instead of money. Money (of exchange) and the need for money was disappearing, and
NEW money was being created i.e., 'Money of Account' (created by Bill of Exchange) and a
uniform system of laws had to be put in place to allow the commercial venue and the courts to
uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling
payment or performance (see 'Tender of Payment in your State statute"). All this was
accomplished by the mid 1960' s. And by 1964, most all the States had adopted the Uniform
Commercial Code.
The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures all people
engaged in commercial activities must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled
thousands of years ago, but were refined and became more sophisticated over the years. In the
1900's the age-old principles of commerce shifted from substance to form. Presumption became
a big part of the law. Without giving a degree of force to presumption, the new direction in
enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in their- courts. If the claimants were
required to produce their claims every time they tried to collect money or time from the people,
they would seldom be successful. The principles expressed in the code combined the means of
dealing with substantive commercial activities with the means of dealing with presumptive
commercial activities. These principles work as well for the people as they do for the deceivers .
The rules do not respect persons.
Those who enticed the people to register (surrender) their property (land, cars, guns, children,
etc.) to the sub-divisions (States) under dictate by the United States, gained control of the
substance through the 'registrations' and the States were able to extract more ' use' taxes, from
the people to use the property of the State! The States and the United States became the Holder
of the titles to all the property, even children and many other things.
The definition of "property" is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The
property is the interest in the thing. Profits (interest) made from the property of another belong to
the owner of the thing. Profits were made by the deceivers by pledging the registered property in
commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the deceivers. The profits belong to the
owners of the 'things.' That is always the people. The corporation only shows ownership of
paper - titles to things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction . [Watch the movie Last Action
Hero and watch the confusion created when they try to mix substance and fiction.] Sometimes
the fiction is made to look very much like substance, but fiction can never become substance. It
is an impossibility!
The profits from all the registered things had to be put into a 'constructive' trust for the benefit of
the owners. If the profits were put into the general fund of the United States and not into separate
trusts for the owners, the scheme would represent fraud. The profits for each owner could not be
commingled. If the owner failed to use his available remedy (fictional credits held in a
constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger) to benefit from the profits, it would not be
the fault of the deceivers. If the owner failed to learn the law that would open the door to his
remedy, it would not be the fault of the deceivers. The owner is responsible for learning the law,
so he understands that the profits from his things are available for him to discharge debts or
charges brought against his public person (Debtor-straw.man} by the United States.
If the United States has the "gold", the United States pays the bills (from the trust account, fund,
or financial ledger). The definition of "fund" is money set aside to 'Pay a debt. The fund \'S there
to discharge the public debts attributed. to the United States subjects, but ultimately back to the
accommodating parties - the American people. The national debt IS what is owed is to the
owners of the registered things - the American people, as well as to other creditors!
If the United States owes a debt to the owner of the thing, and the owner is presumed (by
accommodation) to owe a public debt to the United States, the logical thing is to ask the United
States to discharge that public debt from the trust fund. The way for the United States to get
around having to pay the public debts for the people is to claim the owner cannot be an owner if he  agreed to be the accommodating party for a debtor-person. If the people are truly the
principle, then they know how to handle their financial and political affairs, ULNESS they have
never been taught. If the owner admits by his actions out of ignorance, that he is an
accommodating party, he has taken on the debtor's liabilities without getting consideration in
exchange. Here lies the fiction again. The owner of the thing does not have to knowingly agree
to be the accommodating party for the debtor person; he just has to act like he agreed. That is
easy if he has a choice of going to jail or signing for the debtor-person. The presumption that he
is the accommodating party is strong enough for the courts to hold the owner of the thing liable
for a tax on the thing he actually owns or owes.


Debtors may have the 'use' of certain things, but the things belong to the creditors. The creditor
is the master. The debtor is the servant. The Uniform Commercial Code is very specific about the
duties and responsibilities a debtor has . If the owner of the thing is presumed to be a debtor
because of his previous admissions and adhesion contracts, he is going to have a difficult time
convincing the United States that it has a duty to discharge public debts for him . In addition. the
courts are staffed with loyal judges who will look for every mistake the people make. when
trying to use their remedy.
Now the quasi-owner (user) of the property (thing) , after learning the law and discovering who
he is in relation to the United States Corporation. can file a ucc Financing Statement based
upon a Security Agreement, registering his security interest in the artificial entity
DEBTOR PERSON, being the ENS LEGIS which the United States created after your Mom
signed the 'Root of Title Newborn Identification' and then was compelled to apply for a birth
certificate. That was the act of registering her biological property. her baby (substance). with the
State of . The United States holds the paper title (form), not the substance (baby). Until
your Financing Statement is filed, the United States is the holder of the title to the artificial
entity. Its name is spelled in all capital letter - JOHN HENRY DOE. When John Henry Doe files
the Financing Statement supported by a Security Agreement signed by the artificial entity
(JOHN) and the owner (John), he becomes the holder in due course of the title to JOHN. The
ucc and the State commercial law are very specific about the effect of a registered security
interest. It has priority over most other interest claimed (only claimed) in the same thing. The
evidence that is missing in the court is the registered claim over the person (JOHN).
The owner also must notify the Secretary of the Treasury that he is going to handle his own
affairs in the future. That is done when you do the CHARGE BACK PROCESS by filing a Bill
of Exchange with the Secretary through which he 'charges up the UCC Contract Trust Account,'
in respect to the 'value' expressed on the Birth Certificate and the 'Directive' cover letter. The
social security number, belonging to your Debtor, is the Trust Account Number for a
charge back, for all the presumed charges brought against your Debtor for proper discharge.
Think of the whole transaction in relation to a dead battery. The batter represents your public
person (JOHN), which is a dead entity that can function within the public maize of fiction,
transmitting benefits from the public to you in the private IF it is charged up. You cannot go into
the public because you are not a fiction. JOHN has no power until it is charged with some
energy. That energy comes from an IRS default notice, court judgment, credit card bill , utility
bill, traffic ticket, or some other instrument that has a S amount and JOHN' S name on it as the
presumed debtor. The bill is the energy. It charges the dead JOHN. You can now discharge
JOHN and put JOHN'S accrual account with the charging party back to a zero balance. You as
the secured party creditor, having charged up the uce Contract Trust Account, now for the
'presentment' received in behalf of a debt owed by JOHN, you can discharge the fine, fee, tax or
debt with a negotiable instrument for the same S amount as the charging instrument
(presentment) stipulates. The charging party that receives your noncash item can process it back
through the United States Treasury through their financial institution. Note; if discharging IRS
Tax liability, the package/instrument goes directly to the Secretary of Treasury - U.S.
When you, as the owner of a thing, registered it with the United States or one of its subdivisions,
you let the United States hold the legal title to your thing based on misrepresentation and failure
to disclose material facts to yo u at the time of registration. You probably retained possession of
the thing, but the United States/States invested the title and made a profit. If you did not
specifically authorize the United StateS/State and its agents to invest the legal title, the profits
made from that title belong to you, because as the owner, you remain the equitable title holder.
Legally, all the profits from the investment of the titles to all your registered things must go into
a fund for your benefit. If they did not put the profits in a trust fund of some sort, it would be
fraud.
Just acquiring the titles through what is promoted as mandatory registration, is fraud . If the
scenario attributed to Mandell House is now in full application in the United States, which it is,
the officers of the United States could be charged and convicted with treason I F they had not
provided a remedy, which they did . - House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5,1 933. This is their
insurance policy to assure they are not convicted of treason. That does not mean they cannot be
charged with treason, but the courts win dismiss based on failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Because you have a remedy outside the court, you cannot sustain a charge
of treason. But Tort, now that's another matter!

Americans pay a percentage of their taxes to the Queen of England via the IRS.


Americans pay a percentage of their taxes to the Queen of England via the IRS. The IRS is not an agency of the Federal Government.
It is an agency of the International Monetary Fund which is an agency of the United Nations. No law has ever been passed legalizing the charging of income tax. The 1040 tax form is the payment of a foreign tax to the King/Queen of England.
American citizens have been in financial servitude to the British Monarch since the Treaty of 1783 and the War of Dependence.
All tax payers have an Individual Master File and are held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. and payable to the U.K. Prior to 1991, the Business Master File in 6209 was U.S.-U.K.
Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. That means that everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce.
THE VIRGINIA COMPANY IS THE USA
In 1604, the Virginia Company was formed with the purpose of establishing settlements on the coast of North America.
Its main stockholder was British King James I.
The Virginia Company owned most of the land that is now called the USA.
The Virginia Company of the British Crown had rights to 50%, yes 50%, of all gold and silver mined on its lands, plus percentages of other minerals and raw materials, and 5% of all profits from other ventures.
Virginia company exporting overseas
The lands of the British owned Virginia Company were granted to the American colonies under a Deed of Trust (lease) and therefore – they could not claim ownership of the land.
They could pass on the perpetual use of the land to their heirs or sell the perpetual use of the land, but they could NEVER own it.
The Virginia Company formed two companies. The “Virginia Company of London” and the “Virginia Company of Plymouth” operating with identical charters but covering different territories.
The Plymouth Company never fulfilled its charter and its territory became New England.
A successor company to the Plymouth Company eventually established a permanent settlement in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 in what is now New England.
In 1624, the King dissolved the London Company and made Virginia a “royal colony”.
Silver & Oil ~ Get Ready Folks: Without Paper Money We’d All Be Rich.
THE BRITISH FUNDED THE WAR OF ( IN ) DEPENDENCE
In 1773, the United States ratified a contract in which loans were owed to the British Crown.
The purpose of the loans were to fund both sides of the War of Independence.
“All bills of credit omitted, monies borrowed and debts contracted by or under the authority of congress before the assembling of the US in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the US for payment and satisfaction where of the US and public and public faith are hereby solemnly pledged”.
After 1776, the Virginia royal colony became the Commonwealth of Virginia, one of the original thirteen states of the United States, adopting as its official slogan “The Old Dominion”.
After the United States was formed, the entire states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois, and portions of Ohio were all later created from the territory encompassed earlier by the Colony of Virginia.
Ownership was retained by the British Crown.



Federal Children/through fraud and deception the federal corperation thinks they own you and your children.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."

Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:

I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........



www.stopthepirates.blogspot.com

UCC 1 Debt Elimination

On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden, (R-OH) Chairman of the House Banking and Finance Committee brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. To protect themselves from these charges both the House and the Senate, on JUNE 5, 1933, passed House Joint Resolution 192. It provided that the people, who had delivered their gold to the federal government following an illegal proclamation by President Roosevelt, would be exempt from paying their debts since their means of payment, their substance, had been taken from them. HJR 192 provided a remedy for the crime.

The basis of UCC-1 debt elimination derives from HJR-192 in which the Corporate US board of directors, the Congress, removed from the flesh and blood men and women of the several united States of America their substance with which they can pay for things and replaced it with fictitious "money" in the form of debt instruments called Federal Reserve Notes. This created the exemption.

Essentially, the acceptance/redemption debt elimination process obtains access to the trust account that the federal government has been using since your birth to monetize and pay off the national debt. They automatically made the government the trustee of that account and used your energy and talent to fund the national government. With your birth certificate sent from the state in which you were born, the Department of Treasury creates a constructive trust account that permits the corporate United States and all of the other subsidiary corporations, states, counties, cities, etc. to interact with you as a corporate, fictitious entity. They are fictitious public entities that cannot interact with you, the real, living person. But they have convinced you, the living flesh and blood person that they are referring to you. You have voluntarily accommodated this interaction on behalf of your fictitious entity, your "corporation."

By filing your UCC-1 financial statement, security agreement, negotiable bill of exchange and the Federal Reserve routing numbers with the fictitious corporate government entities, you separate yourself from that accommodation and take the position as the first creditor to that debtor. The debt belongs to the Corporate You, but the real you has been making the payments. Now you will stand first in line to utilize the collateral held in your trust account by the government. Using this trust account as they have done, you can assign credit to the bank at which you, the fictitious entity, owe the debt. A simple transaction discharges that debt. Who can now complain that the debt is not satisfied? You have done what you have agreed to do, but the credit did not come from your checking account. It was a non-cash transaction in the public fiction of commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code.

In the case of mortgage elimination, the credit in your “strawman” man account is directed to redeem your note through a commercial Bill of Exchange. This credit is transferred to the bank holding your mortgage to discharge the debt. If the bank accepts this legal tender as per mortgage agreement, you request the reconveyance of the deed back to you. Should the bank refuse the offer of legal tender and will not discharge the debt, they are in dishonor by failing to perform according to the mortgage agreement. As the grantor of that mortgage you can revoke your agreement within 33 days by foreclosing on the bank. Simultaneously, you seek judicial review of the administrative procedures you have followed in accordance with pertinent statutes. Even if the judge refuses to sign the order, in 6 months it is ruled in your favor by default. Should the bank refuse to reconvey the deed, a clear title is provided by transferring the property through three trusted individuals: buyer A for $10 and consideration and after 10 days sold to buyer B for $10 and consideration for another 10 days, buyer C and finally to you for $10 and consideration for 91 days, then it is recommended that the property be sold to your asset protection program in which you are established as its beneficiary. This avoids loss of property made vulnerable to the predatory attorneys due to the new status of a property that is free and clear of debt.

Discharge Almost Any Debt with Proper Use of the UCC....

Every prisoner has a monetary value to the US Corporation

The moment an order is written, whether it’s a warrant or a traffic ticket, or whatever, the money machine is activated. Every prisoner has a monetary value to our government whether its local, county, state or federal. Bonds are written based on the person’s name and social security number and are sold through a brokerage firm such as AG Edwards or Merrill Lynch who has the contract to sell all the prison bonds for the city, county, state or federal prisons. Over 50% of the money market bonds right now are purchased in Japan or China. I’ve been told by researchers that Walmart and, used to be, Kmart also purchase these bonds, Walmart mostly doing so by emptying out bank accounts at night. Both companies are fronts for enormous money machines.

The way the bond works is that a monetary value is placed on the alleged crime and then factored the way banks factor their money. In other words if a person is convicted of a felony the ‘value’ would be $4 million. The county/city/ state then multiplies it by ten, so the bond that goes out for sale with the prisoner’s name and social security number is a short-term ‘promissory’ note. It’s offered at $40 million. Perhaps an investor will offer 40% of the $40 million, or $16 million. Once this ‘promissory note’ of the face value of $40 million reaches the banks it is then multiplied again by 200 to 300% and sold as bank securities. For those of you who wonder why the US has more people in prison per capita than any other nation on earth, you’ll begin to understand how we can have a weakening economy and still fund wars overseas. It’s all based on prisoners....in other words, prison for profit.

Knowing all this and knowing that a prisoner can have a ‘net worth’ of say, $10,000 per day in the money markets, helped me explain to many bewildered people why they were in jail. We were only merchandise in a warehouse. The storage was pretty cheap; one woman while in jail researched the cost of feeding prisoners per day which ranged from 74 cents to $2.72 per prisoner per day.