If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Steven Wayne Pattison, ©2011

Thomas Jefferson opposed Alexander Hamilton regarding the creation of a national bank

(Nov. 11, 2011) — Editor’s Note:  The following essay is the final in a three-part series regarding the topics of common law, statutory law, liberty, global monetary and financial conspiracy, and individual and state sovereignty.  Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here, respectively.


‘WE’ all allowed Common Law to be taken from us without a thing being said. Our State and National Constitutions are not understandable without Common Law, as HENRY BALDWIN, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States explained in his book published in 1837:

I have long since been convinced that there are better and safer guides to professional and judicial inquiries after truth, on constitutional questions, than those which have been so often resorted to, without effecting the desired result; a clear and settled understanding of the terms and provisions of an instrument of writing, which operates with supreme authority wherever it applies. To me it seems that it can be made intelligible in all its parts, by applying to it those established rules and maxims of the common law, in the construction of statutes, and those accepted definitions of words, terms, and language, in which they had been used, and been received, as well known and understood, in their ordinary, or legal sense, according to the subject matter. In appealing to the common law, as the standard of exposition, in all doubts as to the meaning of written instruments; there is safety, certainty, and authority. The institution of the colonies were based upon it; it was their system of jurisprudence, with only local exceptions, to suit the condition of the colonists, who claimed it as their birth-right and inheritance, 9 Cr. 333, in its largest sense, as including the whole system of English jurisprudence, 1 Gall. 493; the inexhaustible fountain from which we draw our laws, 9 S. & R. 330, 39, 58. So it continued after the colonies became states, in most of which the common law was adopted by acts of assembly, which gave it the force of a statute, from the time of such adoption, and as it was then; so that in the language of this Court-“At the adoption of the constitution, there were no states in this Union, the basis of whose jurisprudence was not essentially, that of the common law in its widest meaning; and probably no states were contemplated, in which it would not exist.” 3 Pet. 446, 8. It is also the basis on which the federal system of jurisprudence was erected by the constitution, the judiciary and process acts, which refer to “cases in law and in equity,” “suits at common law,” “the common law, the principles and usages of law,” as they had at the time been defined and settled in England; 5 Cr. 222; 3 Wh. 221; 4 Wh. 115, 16; 7 Wh. 45; 10 Wh. 29, 32, 56, 8; 1 Pet. 613: and were adopted as then understood by the old states.

WE have determined that since the only law was ‘Common Law’ when the National Constitution was written, in Section 2 of Article III of the ‘Constitution for the United States of America’, ‘in Law’ can mean only ‘Common Law’. In fact, everything except “admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” should be under Common Law Jurisdiction.

Remember from page 5 above, it states:

“It is the law which gives jurisdiction…”

And jurisdiction has a lot to do with where you inhabit and if you walk into what you believe is a court of law without knowing what you are doing, you could be putting yourself in a jurisdiction which might put you in jail for whatever reason:

JURISDICTION, Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.

Judges today are not following any Constitutions because they have no power constitutionally conferred upon them because they are not using Common Law in their courts.

You will need to know and understand the “tract of land or district” that you inhabit and that you really cannot prove that you lawfully own any land. More on this can be provided if you ask for it. It is too long to cover here.

First you have to understand that the Internet is not a very good source for researching the Law but just a starting place.  You should end up in a good Law Library to document everything you can learn from the Internet. For those going up against a judge, you will need to fully study and understand “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and In Personam Jurisdiction. You should also use the correct dictionary when using Common Law, which is posted here. In the court case we have been involved in, we start out with the following:

Comes now the Defendant, (First and last name only), In Propria Persona appearing specially, not generally or voluntarily herein, to demand all unalienable rights protected under the common law, pursuant to the laws for the state of Kansas based upon the status of the accused as a matter of due process of law to Motion this Court move the Court to dismiss action based on violations of statutes and state:

Most of the People don’t know who they are because they don’t know what their ‘Character’ or ‘Status’ really is when inhabiting one of the Original Union States! If you do inhabit one of these Union states, each of their constitutions has within it a Declaration of Rights. If it doesn’t, you are not living in a free sovereign state. For example, the Missouri Constitution of 1820 has 22 items listed under Article XIII. Declaration of Rights, starting with the following:  

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare,

1. That all political power is vested in, and derived from, the people.

Are you sure you are one of the People as that term is used today?

For more proof that the state constitutions have been changed, see Missouri Constitution currently being published where you cannot find any ‘Declaration of Rights’.

We need to collectively act or we will lose one at a time. “The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.” — Benjamin Franklin

In the early 1800s, the ‘Powers to be’ started using Roman Civil Law when Common Law was the only law that they could use, which was an unconstitutional act.  Over time, the people stopped standing up for their Rights to use Common Law because of the attorneys. As it has been explained herein, our Rights are a maxim of the common law; a right never dies, and it is the law which gives jurisdiction. Common Law is the only law a sovereign should use to protect all of his unalienable Rights!

Abraham Lincoln was the first president to be assassinated on April 15, 1865. His Gettysburg Address is the most frequently-quoted speech in U.S. history

Lincoln recognized, or I should say discovered, a ‘Conspiracy’ to ‘Divide’ the People. and on June 16, 1858, more than 1,000 Republican delegates met in the Springfield, IL statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech’s introduction, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Please note that some of the websites do not post the whole speech), a concept familiar to Lincoln’s audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Lincoln asked a few questions in his speech which are essential to what we have today. You should read the whole speech, but following are three paragraphs you really need to understand.

After reading and knowing what is reported in this document, you should understand that the American Civil War was a planned event as told to us by Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, with three different quotes; About 991 results from Internet search; About 153 results from Internet search; and About 117,000 results from Internet search. Now, years later, these quotes are in question by someone’s opinion calling them ‘Bogus’, meaning that they say it is without any facts or documents to prove that Bismarck did say it. Does it really matter when you have a myriad of other facts which lead you to the same place?

Lincoln (para. 16):

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” subject only to the Constitution. What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect free freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now – the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a re-argument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after – indorsement of the decision by the President and others? (bold emphasis mine)

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen – Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance – and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly matte the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece. too many or too few, – not omitting even scaffolding – or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in – in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State, as well as a Territory, were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief-Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska Bill-I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact language is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.” In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska Act Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche which we may ere long see filled with another Supreme Court decisions declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not wether slavery be voted down or voted up,” shall gain upon he public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when made.

There are other Presidents who have attempted to warn us but are not included here because of space.

We should be able to agree that except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of anything within its jurisdiction.

And here we go again using the term ‘jurisdiction’ – “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.” This is true because a judge declared it several times, and those court cases, as far as I understand, have never been overturned, making the actions of  Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James acting together to cause the American Civil War. Do you believe they were the only ones to want the war?  And what was the reason – Control of the Money the people were required to use to survive!

Please remember if someone does something that is unconstitutional, it stands until challenged. This is the reason for the Constructive Notice covered later.

The major event in 1886 during our Civil War which is well-documented where ‘citizens’ separated themselves from the parent state – Black’s Law Dictionary, SEVENTH EDITION page 703 – De facto government:

1. A government that has taken over the regular government and exercises sovereignty over a nation.

2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country’s inhabitants who have separated themselves from the parent state.

During this time period, some of the lawfully-elected state officials were removed from office and replaced by the U.S. Government, another unconstitutional act. Then these separated citizens made new state constitutions, creating a new de facto government within the Lawful state governments, which was another unconstitutional act. These new governments started using Roman Civil Codes to control everyone as subjects, not sovereigns. From early on, the definitions of terms were being changed to deceive the People which was another unconstitutional act. Following is just one example of changing the definition of the term ‘PERSON’:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.


In the beginning in our country, it was only “PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called “natural persons.” When the banklords found out how great things were for the Colonists before 1750, they had to stop them. Back in those days, most of the people knew that they were ‘Freemen’ and when the King of England fell under the control of the Banklords, Khazars, the King started doing things to the Colonists that were against their unalienable Rights as Freemen, causing our Revolutionary War with England.

See the “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” which at some point in history was changed to the Declaration of Independence, which is a misnomer because it was not about Independence, but rather, a list of wrongs being done against the Colonists by the King. The unanimous Declaration lists the Law as being changed by the King doing away with ‘Common Law’.

This ‘unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America’ by the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare was their ‘Last Resort’ so therefore we have a LAST RESORT:

A court of last resort, is one which decides, definitely, without appeal or writ of error, or any other examination whatever, a suit or action, or some other matter, which has been submitted to its judgment, and over which it has jurisdiction.

2. The supreme court is a court of last resort in all matters which legally come before it; and whenever a court possesses the power to decide without appeal or other examination whatever, a subject matter submitted to it, it is a court of last resort; but this is not to be understood as preventing an examination into its jurisdiction, or excess of authority, for then the judgment of a superior does not try and decide so much whether the point decided has been so done according to law, as to try the authority of the inferior court.

But without ‘Common Law,’ this and any other Court of Law will never do one thing to restore the Lawful State Governments. Our Last Resort is to make it public, just as the Founding Fathers did with their ‘Declaration’ of wrongs being done by the King. Because WE are the Kings collectively, we have to use a ‘Constructive Notice’ under Common Law to notice the people who work for the people as our agents or servants.  The following is a sample of the first paragraph:

The United States of America is a republican form of government (Art. IV, Sec. 4, of the constitution of the United States) with a Presbytery type of representation thus constituting a Democratic commonwealth, not a democracy.  That all power is vested in, and derived from the people.  The people are the principal and the people who work for the people are the agents or servants of the people.  You are either one of the people with unalienable or natural rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and all lawful amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the state in which you inhabit which are protected by the common law or you are a public servant bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution of the United States (Art. VI, sec, 3 of the constitution of the United States) and the constitution of the State in which you work.  If you are not one of these two, then you are a foreign individual and/or state involved in espionage and/or terrorist activities against the people of the United States of America.  Servants of the people are under Constitutional restrictions to their duties as outlined in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitution of the State in which they work, and in the statutes of that state.  Any servant with knowledge and with willful intent operating outside the Constitutional and statutory restrictions placed upon them is a violation of their oath.  This will be an attack on the people for whom you serve.  If the action is done willingly and with intent then it is an act of treason and may be considered an act of war.  The damaged individual may seek monetary damages and criminal prosecution.

We cannot use any part of the “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” because, unlike the Colonies, WE are not part of the current ‘government de facto’. The current de facto government is not the People’s government, and WE do not have the right under their laws to change their laws. WE collectively or individually do have the Right under Common Law to separate from them because of their acts of Sedition. WE do have the power to restore the lawful De jure state governments by using their first Constitutions with Section. 4 of Article IV of the Constitution for the United States of America:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

the guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

The current fifty state government de facto are not instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed as the Colonists were because under their government de facto WE are “person(s)” as defined in their ‘Roman Civil Codes’ titled U.S. Codes and not Freemen or Freewomen as sovereigns. You need to prove that you are not a person as defined this term U.S. Codes:

Please note the very important information in (a) “When used in this title” which means there could be other meanings – “When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof”. § 7701 (1) Person “The term “personshall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

I do not believe we are corporations or any other terms, but if you create one of them, you may be required to act for them at some point in your life. The only term that I believe is not something WE create is an  “individual.” I located the Code’s definition in § 552 (a) (2), and the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

Now compare the terminology used:

―When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.‖

―We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.‖

What you believe are our elected and appointed officials are really only “foreign individuals and/or states involved in espionage and/or terrorist activities against the people of the united States of America.”

Agents of a Foreign Government: A Bizarre Saga by Dan Meador (April 5, 2000):

There are no implementing regulations for section 7621 of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes the President to establish revenue districts. Consequently, there are no revenue districts in States of the Union. The Cooper article explained why. With enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Federal income tax administration had for all practical purposes been turned over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue; Puerto Rico, which in 1953, via executive name change, had become the Internal Revenue Service.

That history of war with England and Common Law is nicely explained in the last paragraph:

In all the various revolutions, with their dark and dreary scenes of violence and bloodshed, through which England has passed, the people have clung to their ancient laws with a devotion almost superstitious. When our forefathers established governments in America they laid their foundations on the common law. And when difficulties grew up between them and the mother country, they acted as their English ancestors had always acted in their political troubles – interposed the common law as the shield against arbitrary power. When the United Colonies met in Congress, in 1774, they claimed the common law of England as a branch of those “indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies are entitled.” And the common law, like a silent providence is still the preserver of our liberties. http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/TO_THE_ALUMNI_OF_THE_LAW_DEPARTMENT_OF_COLUMBIAN%20_COLLEGE.pdf

Common Law is for ‘natural persons,’ while Roman Civil Law is actually Codes for ‘artificial persons’ or subjects of the state. The term ‘state’ means a government.

Are you, your spouse and children ‘natural persons’ inhabiting the soil, within a specified boundary, ordained and established by the sole and vested authority of the people, through their lawfully-elected representatives, creating a free and independent republic, one of the united States of America as that term was used in the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”? If you are, then you are a sovereign and you cannot lawfully change that fact, and no one else can change it either!

There is much more documentation about what happened to our ‘Republican Form of Government’ that is guaranteed to all ‘natural persons’ within the Union states –

The Khazars control the people by causing wars. Have you ever watched Norman Dodd’s dying testimony on ‘You tube’?

Henry Ford, Sr. stated that if we removed the power of money from the banklords, we would stop all wars.

A Time Line focusing on Taxes, Money and War

We cannot survive while being controlled by all the wars we have been duped into over the years. Have you read my web pages? http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/I_want_my_Country_back!.html:

How Tyranny Came to America

“It was the old story: In order to learn, first I had to unlearn. Most of what I’d been taught and told about the Constitution was misguided or even false. And I’d never been told some of the most elementary things, which would have saved me a tremendous amount of confusion.” by Joe Sobran

Stan Jones running for Senate from Montana tells the Truth about Globalization, North American UNION, our new money the AMERICO and the NAFTA SUPER Hwy. Short Video

My first webpage was about how inflation was controlling us so that most all of us would die broke and would not be able to pass on our wealth to our children. The bigger picture is that we went from 90% self-employed to employees of all those big corporations controlled by the Khazars. Alexander Hamilton lobbied for the first privately-owned federal bank. However, Thomas Jefferson opposed it writing:

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.” What Jefferson said is coming true; it is being predicted that home values are going to lose 20% more by 2012. A record 2.82 million homes faced foreclosure in 2009. Will 2011 break 2010’s record-setting year for foreclosure filings in the U.S., with almost 2.9 million properties being forecloses on nationwide? It is predicted to be 20 million total home foreclosures by 2012. Even if you are not one of them, your home value will most likely be affected in a big way. Some have lost everything and others are looking at a 50% loss in value.

My second web page is about wars and the connection to the banklords causing wars because they wanted to control us by their money- A Time Line focusing on Taxes, Money and War.  It took the banklords over 200 years to totally control our money:

An audio explaining just how they are controlling all of us with their money but his solution will not work because the current governments are de facto, and we are no longer one of the People as in ‘We the People;’ therefore, we have no ‘Standing.’ Voting in their de facto elections will not change anything because they control the counting of the votes; see Hacking the Democracy video.

Is printing more paper money the answer to our economic woes?

A 20-second clip where Alan Greenspan states: WE CAN ALWAYS PRINT MORE MONEY – If you watch it and like it click on that you liked it. There is “No Chance of Default, US Can Print Money” as reported on CNBC. You have to understand that the U.S. is totally controlled by the banklords. It is their country, not ours. If it were our country, it would be our money and we could print more so the 2.9 million homeowners would not have lost their homes just in 2010. 

My third web page was about the Conspiracy JFK talked about in his speech – You Be The Judge & Jury. JFK didn’t explain the Conspiracy and I attempt to explain it here – The Conspiracy explained and documented!

Our plan is for all the money stolen by the Municipal Corporations controlled by the Khazars will be returned to the Lawful state government of Kansas. CAFR accounts explained here and Your State CAFR Is Just Like Oregon’s:

Oregon State agencies have $4.9 billion in combined ending fund balances, according to the 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report released by the Governor’s Office. The state claims that of this amount, 71.5 percent is available for spending at the states discretion. In this clip, House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) said the Legislature should utilize these cash-on-hand revenues before raising taxes on Oregonians and businesses.

We need your help in alerting the people!

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it” —Albert Einstein

A 16-minute ‘youtube’ video explaining the Slave World known today as the System – U.S. Prison Population Tops 2 Million

The Internal Revenue Codes are for subjects, not sovereigns, but there may be exceptions.

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Only the truth will set us free, and with more people learning the truth, it will happen so that one day soon, we all will be able to say, “Thank God I’m free at last!”

“The individual is handicapped by living with the monstrous conspiracy known today as the System, all of their adult life and they will not realize that it really exists until they first listen to President John F. Kennedy’s audio posted on his Presidential Library website and then read the research about the subject.” ~ Steven Pattison

Audio from JFK library or Six minute clip

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” – Henry David Thoreau, American author (1817-1862)

WE are completing JFK’s mission of alerting the American people and we need your help because the root is so enormous that it will take more than just one to dig it up and get it out of our country. All we would ask anyone to do is listen to JFK and alert others with the research about the subject.

You have to know if we don’t do something soon, we will have what Thomas Jefferson said a very long time ago:

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.”

Albert Einstein developed theories on physics and statistical mechanics. Some of his research led to the development of the first U.S. atomic bomb.

We are only asking you to do what you can.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — Albert Einstein

Please do something different today! If you just forward this to one man or woman who wants to learn the truth and they email me or call, then it will be a step in the right direction for the Truth to be known by all! That is all that JFK wanted for the people for the people to be informed of the truth.

All rights reserved,

/S/ Steven Pattison, one of the People within the boundaries of Kansas, a state of the Union.

Contact:  (913) 461-1661

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Zeb, your words of caution are well called for, especially in light of the persistent and ongoing fraud and deception by the banksters of the world. I think the saving grace in having the states run their own banks would be that there would be fifty of them to choose from, and if citizens didn’t like or trust the service from one state’s bank, they could vote with their feet to support banks they DID trust. Right now, the American people don’t have that option – we’re stuck with one corrupt den of international banksters.

    I would submit that that dead-end set of choices is what is killing our economy. We’re being robbed into oblivion.

  2. The incremental approach to “banning” the Fed may be the route that North Dakota took with it’s state owned bank. However, a state owned bank operation with dual fiat/constitutionally mandated sound money would be lethal to the Fed in a relatively short time.

    Consider a start with a Utah “may use” statute that encourages the use of gold and silver. Establishing a means to have personal “electronic accounts” based in gold and silver would get folks attention when they realized that their “money” did not loose value due to inflation. This is the driver for the state owned bank.

    Progression of this initiative would find most people demanding use of sound money as the standard. Expansion of the state owned bank would give the base for local business loans and a resurgence of free market production. The bank would be backed by the already owned (by the People), mysterious CAFR accounts.

    However, Barnewall’s warning needs to be headed; a state owned bank, if not controlled properly would end up as mini-Fed. Control thru a board of elected officials, no political appointees, would be a start.

    The futility of attempts at state sovereignty without the power of money is obvious and is demonstrated on a daily basis by federal incursion, without recourse, in state business.