Do We Have a Contract With the Federal Reserve?

The Surprising Truth

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

---

Disclaimer: nothing herein shall be construed as “legal advice” in any way whatsoever. Take the following as nothing more than one mans opinion.

Introduction

In order to comprehend what the Federal Reserve is really doing in our country, it’s necessary to become familiar with some basic concepts of law.

By the time you’ve finished reading this, you will comprehend the law on a level that surpasses the majority of people. This article follows up from where we left off in Is the Federal Reserve a British Institution? Though it’s highly recommended that readers read that article first, this article can stand on its own.

In the previous article, we demonstrated with citations of congressional legislation and federal case law that the Federal Reserve is—as “conspiracy theorists” have told us for decades—a private corporate system that has been given a monopoly on the issuance of the credit of the United States by Congress.

There is simply no denying this fact.

Why would a country that already had the capacity to issue its own money give that power away to a private entity?

The writings of Thomas Jefferson warned us that agents of the Crown plotted to recapture the United States after the revolutionary war using a paper system of “money”—the effect of which would “unite the destinies” of the United States and Great Britain once again under a “bastard system of laws.”

Specifically, Jefferson warned us that Crown agents had infiltrated the federalists, and that they would use federalism to assimilate the governments of the United States and England.

Alas, it appears they have largely (but not completely) succeeded in their aim. Just after the Revolutionary War was won, among other things, four out of the five first Supreme Court justices in the newly federalized Union were trained at the Middle Temple in London. In addition to this, the state of Delaware practices equity law to this day in the same manner as it was practiced in England in the 18^th century.

It is this ‘bastard system of laws,’ given to us by co-opted federalists, that we need to comprehend in order understand how the Federal Reserve—a private credit issuer—became America’s central bank.

On Systems of Law and Bastard Systems of Law

When Thomas Jefferson warned us that agents of the Crown would infiltrate the United States government in order to introduce a “bastard system of laws”, he used that phrase for a specific reason.

A “bastard system” suggests a blending of previously separate systems of law.

How exactly does this happen? How can two systems of ‘law’ operate in the same place at the same time? To wrap our heads around how this works, we need to answer some fundamental questions about what a system of law is. What are the minimum necessary ingredients that, when combined, create a functional legal system?

There are many different types of law, as well as many different types of jurisdictional claims and arguments. A list of types of law includes (but is not limited to) Natural Law, Law of Nations, Common Law, Civil Law, Admiralty Law, Maritime Law, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Ecclesiastical Law, Corporate Law, Trust Law, and so on.

These forms of law diverge from each other, recombine, and encapsulate each other in various ways. As labyrinthine as this all may seem, there are some extremely simple heuristics we can apply to the study of law in general in order to make quick sense of it.

A law, in essence, is just a set of rules, much like the rules that govern a game. In basketball, there are a set of rules everyone agrees to observe; this includes the players, coaches, referees, and even the audience. Each class of person in the game has rules that define their ideal behavior, along with what they shouldn’t do. A player, for instance, can only take a shot to score a point during game time from within the boundaries of the court. A referee must fulfill a different role.

Simply put, games are activities that are defined by rules—and these rules, in turn—tell us who can do what within a given game.

The important takeaway is that—like with games—a system of laws is a set of rules that define types of persons and allowable actions that each person may or may not do. For example, Corporate Law is generally concerned with corporations, commerce, employees, shareholders, and so on. Constitutional Law, by contrast, concerns itself with citizens, officials, domestic security, and so on.

The law concerns itself with persons, rules, and allowable moves, just like a game

On Jurisdiction and Roles

Let’s imagine that there’s a grocery store down the street, and at this store there’s a spill on aisle eight. Can the manager of that store give you a phone call at your home and demand that you come down and clean it up for them? Unless you’re employed by him and are scheduled to work at that precise moment, he cannot compel you to go to the store and perform the duties of an employee. The rules for employees only apply to people who agreed to be employees.

Now let's imagine a variation of the same story: This time, as you're perusing the aisles, you accidentally knock into a jar of pickles, making a mess on the floor. Can the manager ask you to clean it up? He can only do that if the governing law of that particular store makes customers liable to clean up any messes they create. (A lot of places have a “you break it, you buy it” policy).

When you’re at home minding your own business, you occupy a different “territory”—aka jurisdiction—from that of store policy; but while acting in the role of customer of the store, you have a responsibility to abide by store policy (specifically, the sections of it that pertain to customers). This is the essence of what it means to be under the jurisdiction of a given system of laws.

On Persons and Jurisdiction

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a person simply means, “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.” For ease of comprehension, it’s helpful to think of the concept of “‘person”’as essentially the same thing as a role one adopts from time to time.

We can logically deduce the existence of four classes of “person” (aka roles) from the above two scenarios: the manager role, the customer role, the employee role, and the foreigner role. When you neither work for the store nor are physically present at the store, then you are foreign to internal company policy, and therefore internal company policy has no jurisdiction over you; in other words, when you are foreign, then you exist outside the Corporate Law system of the store. On the other hand, if you enter the store and start perusing the aisles, then certain sections of company policy (aka Corporate Law) will apply to you.

When you are in “their” territory, you are subject to their terms and conditions. This means that they can dictate, within certain limits, your actions in that context. For example, they can kick you out of the store when it’s time to close; they can compel you to wear a shirt and shoes; they can designate ‘employee only’ zones inside the store; sometimes they can make you buy things that you accidentally broke; and so on. The point is that as long as you’re a customer in their store, then the laws of that store have jurisdiction over you.

You can toggle between the foreigner role or the customer role simply by stepping inside and outside the store. The same concept applies online: when you’re using Facebook you’re required to abide by the “in house” rules of Facebook, but when you leave Facebook to go to other websites, then the rules of Facebook no longer apply to you.

Where you are and what you’re doing usually determines what set of rules apply to you.

---

---

On Agents and Representatives

We return to the question of how the Federal Reserve—a corporate system—assumed authority over the credit of the United States. If the manager in our store analogy cannot bind foreign persons to his jurisdiction unless they enter his store or work for him, then why wouldn’t the same limitation of authority apply to the Federal Reserve? 

To answer this question, we need to bring another category of ‘person’ into the discussion, an agent. An agent is defined in law as “a person authorized to act on behalf of another person.”

That means they can sign paperwork, make agreements, acquire assets, dispose of assets, enter into contracts, spend your money, and so on, as if they were you.

If you ask your roommate to go buy you some apples next time they go to the grocery store, then, technically speaking, you have just designated him to be your agent specifically in regards to buying you some apples. Conversely, if you asked your roommate to buy ‘anything that looks good’ then you’ve authorized him to buy literally anything on your behalf; or you could ask him to buy ‘$20.00 worth of anything that looks good’ if you wanted to limit the scope of his authorization.

The concept of agents is more or less equivalent to the concept of a representatives.

Enormous Implications

An agent need not be an individual. A corporation, because it has legal personhood, can be your agent; your congressional representative is one of your agents. Every time you authorize another individual or group of individuals to do anything on your behalf, they become your agent.

Now herein lies the BIG revelation: the United States federal government, acting as your agent, became the customer to the Federal Reserve on your behalf. Essentially, the United States, by congressional act, made itself liable to pay the Federal Reserve system in order to receive the “benefits” of using Federal Reserve Notes. Whether such benefits are desired or warranted is a discussion for another time, but at last we now have a good sense of what’s really happening here.

Since the Federal Reserve is a corporate system; this means that as customers we must abide by the terms of its internal corporate code in order to enjoy the benefit of using its credit. A creditor, indeed, is an entity who is owed money—every time the Federal Reserve issues credit, that becomes part of the debt of the United States. This is how the creditor-debtor relation works.

Because we’re dealing with a corporation, this all amounts to a corporate contract of indebtedness.

A Bastard System of Laws

We’ve heard it said many times that the government works for us, and this is indeed how it’s supposed to be. The Declaration of Independence tells us this much when it says that governments are instituted among men and receive their authority by consent of the governed. This is considered to be a fundamental premise of Natural Law, which is THE “system of law” invoked in the Declaration as the origin of the United States itself.

So, which is it? Does the government work for us under Natural Law? Or do we work for the Federal Reserve under contract via Corporate Law? How can we be the true sovereign authority and at the same time be made liable by the federal government to operate within corporate contracts we had no part in creating?

The Law of Nations gives us the answer:

“IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE LAW OF NATURE, THAT ALL MEN BEING NATURALLY FREE AND INDEPENDENT, THEY CANNOT LOSE THOSE BLESSINGS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.” — The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature, Emerich de Vattel, English translation, 1805 (referenced here, in chapter 3).

The 14^th Amendment Holds the Key

The states themselves did not pass the Federal Reserve Act, the federal government did that. The states may become party to the federal government’s contract with the Federal Reserve through various means, but they aren’t the origin of the contract. Ergo, specific mechanisms are required to make the states become party to it. Likewise, as a citizen of one of the 50 states, the corporate contracts between the federal government and the Federal Reserve doesn’t automatically apply to you, does it? Not in your capacity as a state citizen.

But has anyone ever told you that you are, at least, two classes of citizen when you were born in the United States? You are a state citizen on the one hand, and a federal citizen on the other. We know this is true because the 14^th amendment tells us so when it says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND of the state wherein they reside.” (emphasis mine)

Did you catch that? You have two classes of citizenship, according to the 14^th amendment. The federal government is NOT the agent for you in your capacity as a state citizen, but only as a federal citizen. It wasn’t the New York Congress that passed the Federal Reserve Act; it wasn’t the legislature of Massachusetts that passed it; it was the federal Congress that passed it.

This means that the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve’s corporate code doesn’t automatically extend to you as a state citizen per se—but it DOES apply to you as a federal citizen.

“Fraud Vitiates Everything”

Did anyone ever tell you that the Federal Reserve was a private entity? Did the government ever go out of its way to plainly explain the truth to you? Did anyone ever tell you that being a state citizen is an entirely different thing from being a federal citizen?

No.

The vast majority of Americans have no idea that any of this legal trickery is taking place; in fact, the effort it takes to figure this stuff out is so enormous that most people simply don’t have the time or resources to discover the truth.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel, though.

In Throckmorton v United States (1878) the Supreme Court affirmed that “Fraud vitiates everything” and that “The maxim that fraud vitiates every proceeding must be taken, like other general maxims, to apply to cases where proof of fraud is admissible.”

There are many people in the truth movement who will tell you that it’s ‘our’ fault that we ‘allowed’ the government to do this to us, but this is simply blaming the victim.

Were Americans ever given a reasonable explanation of what’s going on with their monetary system? Were they ever given the necessary educational resources to become fully informed participants in the legal and political processes that gave rise to this situation?

Instead of blaming the conned, we should reserve our condemnation for the con artist.

Knowing that fraud invalidates everything, we can begin to formulate powerful solutions to this situation. All is not lost because we never truly consented as a country to let a corporation control our credit.

Final Thoughts

The scope of the fraud is utterly massive.

A couple articles is simply not enough to cover all the details that need to be covered. But now that we have a decent grasp on the legal concepts of “jurisdiction” and “person,” we can delve into the nitty gritty details with a solid sense of what we’re looking at.

Despite the complexity of America’s legal systems, the knowledge we now possess will help simplify everything we encounter in legal texts, so that we don’t get lost in the complexity of it all, and can truly stand our ground while we do as the Declaration of Independence commands us to institute systems of governance that truly serve the people.

In the next article, we will look closely at how the federal jurisdiction interposes itself upon us as state citizens, thus alienating us from the rights which were intended to be granted to us by Natural Law.

In the meantime, readers are encouraged to read the comments.

I’m not the only one who has spent a lot of time researching this stuff.

Commenters on the previous article were extremely knowledgeable and helpful, and may be able to answer questions you have which have been left unanswered thus far.

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at American Hypnotist.