Government by Deception through Redefinition The 2012 presidential election season provides Americans with an excellent opportunity to better

understand the errant direction which the United States have improperly headed for 150 years. Both major political parties are currently pushing hard for the candidate of their choice in a great game of winner-take-all politics. Expenditures on the 2012 presidential campaigns are on track to overtake the $1 billion that was spent on the 2008 campaigns, which provides compelling evidence of a sincere belief by many Americans that the outcome is of profound importance in the direction of our country over the subsequent four years. It seems unquestioned today that those persons elected to political offices (or legislative seats) may move their parameters of allowed operation at will (at least if enough of their colleagues agree), and thus the critical need to elect the right persons to those positions. Did the framers of the Constitution envision or set up such a system as majority-rule politics without boundaries, where the majority may do most anything they desire? Proponents who argue that those persons elected to positions in power may change their parameters of allowed action at will must explain why the Constitution sets such low thresholds for determining who wins elections, while it actually sets very high thresholds for changing the power allowed them (and that the parties involved in exercising the power have no say in setting the boundaries). For example, in selecting the President in 2012, under the 2010 census, California will have 55 electoral votes, while the fourteen least-populated States such as Vermont, Idaho and Nebraska have but three, four, or five each, totaling only 51 electoral votes. In the run to win the majority of electoral votes (270), the single State with the greatest population numbers has greater political pull for determining who wins the presidential office all by itself than 14 other States with the least population numbers. When intentionally changing the allowed powers of the U.S. government by ratifying a constitutional amendment however, the 14 States with the lowest population numbers may all by themselves prohibit ratification even if all 35 other States of the Union sided with California! What would be a landslide in a presidential election (484 [out of 535 possible electoral votes {ignoring the District of Columbia since it cannot vote on Amendments}]) would fail to even ratify an Amendment (the vote would be 36 for and 14 against [whereas 37 out of 50 States are required for ratification {3/4ths-majority, as delineated in Article V of the Constitution}]). It would be absurd to make such a high standard for changing the powers of government if those exercising its power may simply change them at will. This provides compelling evidence that matters outside common understanding come into play, and that those who believe office-holders (or those holding legislative seats) may change the direction of government at will are wrong and they have simply failed to comprehend the mechanism used which causes the appearance of actual (permanent) change. If our Constitutions framers protected us so well against deliberate increases in government power, how much more would they protect us against illegitimate increases, of the President, Congress, or the Courts simply taking it upon themselves to do as they please? As Article V of the Constitution plainly declares, after all, only the States may ratify amendments (or attend conventions) and therefore only the States are empowered to change the powers of the federal government.

Thus the President, Congress, and/or the Courts individually or combined are incapable of changing their own powers, at least when we do not understand their mode of circuitous action. Thus all changes made by one or more of these three branches of the federal government itself only appear so and will be effectively set aside once sufficient numbers of people understand how these branches have been misbehaving. Limited government under the Constitution once again becomes well within our grasp, as long as we are sufficiently motivated to learn the mechanisms involved and begin protecting ourselves. The illegitimate exercise of discretion outside of allowed parameters, after all, is but a polite term for tyranny. Since the whole point of declaring our independence and setting up a new form of government was to remove ourselves from despotism and institute free government based upon the consent of the governed, is it really likely that we threw off one tyrant only to accept another? Our forefathers did not set up a system of government which may hold us hostage at every election cycle (or legislative session or sitting of the courts), but it is incumbent upon us citizens to learn not only more about our constitutional form of government, but explicitly how our government has seemed to circumvent the Constitutions very restrictions against omnipotent government. 2012 again provides Americans interested in reclaiming liberty and limited government a special opportunity to learn where we have been lax and lead astray, our money here providing the example. 2012 marks the 220th anniversary of the April 2, 1792 act of Congress which provided the necessary parameters for minting our first silver and gold coins (which began being coined in 1794 and 1795, respectively). 2012 also marks another monetary anniversary, the 150 th anniversary of the February 25, 1862 act which ignobly established the first legal tender paper currency (the Civil War greenbacks) since government under the Constitution began in 1789. That 70 years elapsed between 1792 when our gold and silver coins were first authorized before the first legal tender paper currency was authorized in 1862 provides Americans today with a distinct transition period to study. A compare and contrast between these two eras is quite informative in our quest to reclaim our liberty and limited government under the Constitution. Americans readily understand that our gold and silver coins were denominated in terms of the dollar. This was the same name given to the 1862 paper currencies, which has unfortunately helped add a bit of confusion to the mix. Does simply calling different things the same name make them equal? Certainly not (ask most any three-year-old if a gold or silver coin is the same as a paper dollar and they will readily answer no, but adults, however, seem to equivocate). Americans have been made what Alexander Hamilton called the dupes of sounds in a process he referred to as the substituting of names for things, which process this author calls deception by redefinition. That Americas gold and silver coins denominated in terms of the dollar were effectively substituted by a legal tender paper currency of the same name in 1862 provides Americans today with an opportunity to learn how government seems to operate beyond normal constitutional limitations. The process of deception by redefinition simply gives key terms a new meaning, creating confusion and misunderstanding which then serves as an invalid foundation upon which others with insufficient moral restraint may then hope to profit.

This weak and unsound footing upholding an American legal tender paper currency now supports tremendous weight and is thus prone to give way spectacularly to the smallest measure of truth (which is the same circumstance as will be found with all government action beyond the spirit of the Constitution). Through understanding the mechanism by which we were deprived of our lawful tender of gold and silver coin, we Americans may then understand how omnipotent government seeks to circumvent the spirit of the Constitution while denying us Americans our rightful liberty which is our birthright. May the government which was instituted to protect persons and property be transformed to become the most efficient instrument for confiscating and prohibiting our most liquid form of property? The answer is emphatically no, except by our ignorance of the deceptive means instituted for such deceitful purposes. As shown by careful examination of our Constitution, the 1862-era legal tender legislative acts and the 1933 executive order which required persons to turn in their gold, we cannot be deprived of our property by government except for public purposes with due process and just compensation (and gold & paper currencies are not equivalents). Though a thorough detailing of these matters is far beyond the scope of a brief article, the highlights may nevertheless certainly introduce the concept. Readers interested in learning further details may then obtain a free pdf download of Monetary Laws of the United States at www.MonetaryLaws.com or at www.scribd.com/matt_erickson_6/collections, which goes into such matters in meticulous detail. Upholding paper currencies as a legal tender in the United States was as simple as redefining the United States to mean (only) the District of Columbia within the act of February 25, 1862 (12 Stat. 345) which instituted the first legal tender paper notes. To understand the ramifications of such action one must realize that the original land area for the District of Columbia was specifically ceded over to the government of the United States by the States of Virginia and Maryland and that no State any longer retains any jurisdiction or governing authority for the federal seat. The significance of this is that in this exclusive jurisdiction area created under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution for the seat of government, Congress may rightfully enact legislation here much as elsewhere would be handled by a State or local government (since no State whatsoever retains any governing authority in the government seat). The District of Columbia is the only place (except various forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings under similar exclusive legislative jurisdiction ceded by various States) in the United States where ONE government handles ALL matters. Everywhere else, government authority is divided between federal and State authority under the express terms and conditions of the U.S. Constitution. In all these other areas, federal authority is limited to that delineated by the Constitution and the States handle the remainder of matters (in conformity with the 10th Amendment). However, when members of Congress enact legislation for the seat of government, they need not follow the normal constitutional limitations imposed by the Constitution, because this is how Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 directs it be done (as there is no longer any State to handle these other matters for this area, and these other matters must be handled by someone). Members of Congress are given exclusive legislative jurisdiction for the seat of government to handle both the federal and State portions of governing authority for this area. Thus one here finds the unique ability of Congress to legislate outside of normal constitutional parameters legally and constitutionally. The remainder of the Constitution (outside Art. I:8:17) was not meant to limit Congress legislating for the seat of government; the remainder of the Constitution was meant to limit Congress legislating for all the States united.

Persons interested in reclaiming their American birthright of liberty and justice for all cannot afford to ignore and cannot fail to understand the vast implications of this exceptional ability of Congress to enact law outside of and beyond normal constitutional prohibitions and restrictions. The 1870 supreme Court case of Knox v. Lee (though not in so few of words nor as clearly-stated) upheld the 1862 act of Congress instituting a legal tender paper currency by holding (correctly) that the District constituting the seat of government was not a State and thus the constitutional restrictions which apply to States did not apply to the District of Columbia. Thus the prohibition on States from emitting bills of credit (paper currencies) and the prohibition on States from declaring anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts from Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 did not pertain to the seat of government which was not a State (and thus Congress could here emit bills of credit and here declare them a tender [but again, only for the seat of government]). Looking at the electoral process for determining the President may help better explain the differences involved here between the seat of government and a State. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that Each State shall appoint Electors for electing the President. Of course, since the District constituting the seat of government is not a State, residents of the District of Columbia were wholly unable to have any say whatsoever in electing a President, at least before the 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961. The 23rd Amendment now provides that The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appointA number of electors as if it were a State (but in no event to have more electors than the least-populated State). Thus, because the Constitution was explicitly amended to purposefully allow the District constituting the seat of government to be held as if it were a State for only the express purpose of allowing residents to vote for the President through their electors, this Amendment overrode the earlier command that allowed only States to appoint electors. Now local residents of the District of Columbia may have their electoral votes counted as if the District were a State. But the District constituting the seat of government is emphatically not a State to which the express prohibitions of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 pertain (as determined in Knox v. Lee). Thus, the District of Columbia has its own legal tender currency, which is a slip of paper called a dollar (and base-metal coin), as determined in Knox v. Lee. Just because the Districts monetary unit is also called a dollar however, or just because members of Congress are enacting these primarily-local laws, do not jump to the incorrect conclusion that this dollar has replaced our constitutionally-authorized money of only gold or silver coin. Just as a Canadian dollar, a dollar of Hong Kong, Singapore, and the dollar of many other world jurisdictions which have a dollar as their monetary unit are not the same as our American dollar, neither is the District of Columbia paper dollar (or base-metal coins) the same as our American gold or silver dollar. Congress may enact legislation locally for the District of Columbia which is far beyond the normal constitutional restrictions they must follow when they enact legislation for all the States. For example, look at the April 30, 1790 act (1 Stat. 112) which imposed criminal penalties for certain local crimes committed within the exclusive legislative authority of Congress (which act was expressly cited by the Knox v. Lee court). Here one finds criminal punishment for specified crimes far beyond those federal crimes listed within the Constitution (treason, counterfeiting of securities and current coin, crimes committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations, and impeachments).

It is of paramount importance in reclaiming our liberty and limited government that we Americans understand the ability of Congress to exercise exclusive legislative authority over the seat of government. Only in such governing area may one American government handle all matters. Only in their exclusive legislative jurisdictions may Congress legislate beyond their normal constitutional restrictions. Under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction has most of the legislation enacted by Congress for the last 150 years taken place (at least the many acts and resolutions which appear as usurpations). Deception by redefinition of the United States provides the deceitful means to effectively institute a legal tender paper currency (for the seat of government), but does not explain how Americans were deprived of their gold. Gold confiscation tactics implemented during the depths of the Great Depression likewise redefined words to make Americans the dupes of sounds, but it wasnt here tied to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States for the District of Columbia (since even residents at the seat of government cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation). When banking customers in 1933 realized that too many banks had earlier over-leveraged their credit in attempt to make large profits, many of these customers made runs on the banks to redeem for gold the banks paper dollars they held in their hands before the latter became worthless (since the paper dollars were not fully backed by gold). The bank depositors also lined up to withdraw their savings and demand deposits which were no longer safe (because most every dollar deposited by customers in the bank was effectively loaned under the fractional reserve system numerous times to different borrowers). President Franklin D. Roosevelt then issued executive order number 6102 on April 5, 1933, which required all persons to deliver their gold (coin, bullion, and certificates) to a Federal Reserve bank. Persons as well as any individual, partnership, association, or corporation were legally redefined in this order to only mean the shareholders of the member banks of the Federal Reserve System (who had earlier voluntarily- and contractually-obligated themselves with the government to send gold to the treasury to properly back their banking liabilities [their note issues and their customers banking deposits]). Thus, executive order number 6102 and its supporting legislation amounted legally only to a margin call on these bank shareholders who earlier over-speculated on margin. Their broker (the government) was simply calling and telling them they had to now send in more gold to shore up their government deposits to meet minimum backing requirements and to meet the demands of their customers who were lining up at their banking windows, as would be proper. Of course, that is not how President Roosevelts order was enforced; instead it was the banks customers and all others who were inferred to be the persons who were to cough up their gold or be summarily and severely punished. Those people who incorrectly thought they were the persons who were legally obligated to turn in their gold to avoid hefty fines (up to $10,000) and 10-year prison terms did not realize they were not actually persons or individuals for the express legal purposes of executive order number 6102. This simple bit of knowledge of who was legally redefined in the executive order as a person obligated to send in gold would have prevented We The People from being deprived of their most liquid form of property. Lastly, our mint has simply been coining base-metal coins for the District of Columbia as a foreign government under the act of January 29, 1874 (19 Stat. 6), since the District of Columbia jurisdiction is foreign to, or not the same authority as, that which Congress must follow when enacting legislation for all the United States.

Property cannot be taken from Americans but by due process and just compensation, but for our tragic misunderstanding of the mechanisms used to deceive us, our forebears, or our posterity. Daniel Webster stated in an 1837 speech that he apprehended no danger to our country from a foreign foe. He stated that Our destruction, should it come at all will be from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligencethat they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct ; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. The remedy, as stated by Webster, is to make the people intelligent, to give them the means of detecting the wrong, so that the people may then apply the remedy. It is therefore proper that all liberty-minded Americans learn the methods of those who would enslave us that we might apply the remedy and throw off that wholly-inappropriate yoke of oppression and tyranny. Monetary Laws was written to expose government unjustly operating within an intended loophole but in a wholly-inappropriate way, to give people the means of detecting the wrong so that we may apply the remedy and reclaim our proper American birthright, of Liberty and Justice for All. Please consider setting time aside to read this vitally-important means for detecting the wrong and read Monetary Laws, which may be found free of charge at www.MonetaryLaws.com or at www.scribd.com/matt_erickson_6/collections.

Matt Erickson September 6, 2012