Syllogism Examples 2/13/2000 paulstout@juno.

com wrote:

From: paulstout@juno.com TO Dan M: Would you help an old geezer who got lost in the *forest* of verbiage (from all sides) ?? Could you maybe restate your premises and conclusion(s) in syllogism form, like the dog example (which I think I understand) ? Paul Stout No income tax -- No sales tax -- No value added tax
MEADOR RESPONSE Syllogism 1: A. (Major Premise): The family of Social Security law, per 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1, are applicable only in the geographical United States, and to citizens of the geographical United States. B. (Minor Premise): I do not live or conduct business in, nor am I a citizen of the geographical United States subject to Congress' plenary power in territories and insular possessions of the United States. C. (Conclusion): Therefore, I am not subject to mandatory participation, nor can I lawfully even contract or volunteer to participate in the various Social Security programs. Syllogism 2: A. (Major Premise): Per 28 U.S.C. 535, the Attorney General and the FBI may investigate Title 18 crimes by government personnel. B. I am not an officer or employee of the government of the United States, or instrumentalities of the United States (territories & insular possessions, or government corporations). C. Therefore, I am not subject to Attorney General and FBI investigation unless I was engaged in Title 18 criminal activity with a government officer or employee. Syllogism 3: A. (Major Premise): Per 4 U.S.C. 71 & 72, no department of U.S. government attached to the seat of government may operate beyond the borders of the District of Columbia except as specifically authorized by statute Congress has enacted as law. (complies with Article I, Sec. 8, clause 18 of U.S. Constitution) B(1) (Minor Premise 1): Per 26 U.S.C. 3121(e) & 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1, the Social Security Administration, and other agencies of government responsible for administration of the family of Social Security-related laws, may operate only in the District of Columbia and the specifically identified insular possessions of the United States. B(2) (Minor Premise 2): Per 28 U.S.C. 535, the Attorney General and the FBI may operate throughout the American "empire" to investigate Title 18 crimes committed by U.S. government personnel. C(1) (Conclusion 1): If and when the Social Security Administration and other agencies responsible for administration of the family of Social Security laws extend authority to the Union of several States, they are operating in "outlaw" (without law) capacity, per 4 U.S.C. 72. C(2) (Conclusion 2): If and when the Attorney General and the FBI investigate anyone other than U.S. government personnel, and who is not involved with U.S. government personnel involved in Title 18 criminal activity, they are operating beyond lawful authority, per 4 U.S.C. 72. _______________________________ If I took more time, I could probably construct better arguments than those presented in the three syllogisms, but they are sufficient for examples. Possibly I should have clarified previous presentations by constructing syllogisms for summaries. You can graphically demonstrate the "If A & B, then C" syllogism with what is called a Vin Diagram. All the Vin Diagram is is two overlapping circles. The circle on the left represents to major premise A, the one on the right represents minor premise B. The area where they overlap is C, the necessary conclusion. You can attack the argument by demonstrating that the C conclusion is not proven by A & B even if A & B are true, or by challenging and defeating A or B. What I've basically done with the three syllogisms above is to begin with 4 U.S.C. 71 & 72, which preserves Congress' legislative authority at Article I, Sec. 8, clause 18 of the Constitution. Both logically and strategically, this is beautiful

-1-

legislation. The reason is this: Congress has two clear capacities. General authority in Article I, Sec. 8 is applicable universally throughout the Union, plus in territory belonging to the United States. U.S. government can exercise only constitutionally enumerated powers in the Union. However, the Supreme Court, in its great wisdom, has concluded that Congress can legislate, so U.S. government can do, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution in territories and insular possessions of the United States. This may seem conceptually odd, but Article I enumerated powers, which have general application, are restrictive, where territorial power, which has special and limited application, is permissive. In other words, "I can do what I want in my house, but I must play by your rules when I go to yours." There has been considerable debate about this since approximately 1803. After the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson tried to encourage a constitutional amendment authorizing acquisition of new territory and admitting the new territory as States to the Union. Congress simply trudged ahead. Then after the Spanish-American war, there was really heated debate as the cession treaty with Spain didn't "incorporate" Puerto Rico, the Philippines, etc., into the constitutional scheme. They were ruled more as conquered British Crown colonies. The Downs v. Bidwell decision in about 1901 is probably the best Supreme Court decision on the subject, and some of the justices were irate about what the Supreme Court capitulated to. The reason I used 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1 and 28 U.S.C. 535 as examples is that the first clearly limits a body of law to territories and insular possessions of the United States, and identifies the "geographical" citizen of the United States, while the second clearly demonstrates a subject class, government personnel. The first example is geographically restrictive in the light of 4 U.S.C. 72, where the second is geographically inclusive, but limited to the subject class, again in light of 4 U.S.C. 72. By reviewing Federal tax law, banking law, criminal law, court rules, and everything else I've studied, I've consistently found that current Federal law is applicable in the geographic United States exclusive of the Union, or is applicable to government personnel, exclusive of the population at large. It may be colorable, but Congress has "plenary power" over these two jurisdictions. Since we've ventured into areas that pretty well cover the scope of this topic and the "Federal Citizen" topic, I just as well cover as much of the gauntlet as possible in this single post, as whether I'm right, wrong or otherwise, I have things that must be done in the next couple of weeks so I'm not going to be able to continue the discussion to the extent I've engaged in it for the last week. Mike (truelaw@juno.com) gave several court cites where courts up to and including the Supreme Court (Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 97 S.Ct. 1021, 51 L.Ed. 2d 270) have ruled that Social Security benefits are not contractual in nature. Employment tax, as such, is a tax, there is no contract involved. There is no Social Security trust fund. Congress appropriates Social Security benefits each year. The various decisions dispense with the notion that there is an underlying Social Security contract, but it doesn't dispense with the Social Security number creating presumptions. The presumptions may be, (1) you are a citizen of the geographical United States, and/or (2) you are an officer or employee of U.S. government or an "instrumentality" of the United States. Brad Barnhill demonstrated the latter with definitions and applications at 5 U.S.C. 552a & 15 U.S.C. 1127. Why does one or the other of these presumptions have to be in place? The simple answer is that to one degree or another, Congress has "plenary" power over territory of the United States, and U.S. government operation. Here is where the "contract" argument falls down: A government department or agency may operate only within bounds of statutory authority Congress vests in it. It is not a free agent. If and when it exceeds authority Congress has specifically vested via statute, it is operating "under color of law," meaning, it is "outlaw." Let's use an example: National banks and most other financial institutions are formed as associations. They are not corporations in the sense Wal-Mart, Sears and other retail concerns are corporations. As associations, they can accommodate only those who are qualified to be association members. And in their original association capacity, they can provide checking accounts and other basic banking services to qualified association members. They do not have general banking powers as Joe Public might think of banking powers. They can provide these services only for government personnel entitled to receive "public money". In order to do anything other than provide checking accounts, savings accounts, acquire property for bank operations, and the like, they must apply to become, and be certified as, Treasury Tax & Loan Depositaries. Carefully read 31 CFR 202 & 203. Particularly, read the first paragraph of 202 relating to "public money." The Treasury Tax and Loan Depositary status enables the bank to have accounts for government agencies, including the Treasury, serve as a designated withholding agent (see 31 CFR 215), and assorted other things. They operate in a government agency capacity as "fiscal agent" of the United States. However, they still don't have authority to make loans. They have to apply to become a Federal Home Loan Bank, an Intermediate Credit Bank, a Farm Credit Bank, or whatever. Here we have some interesting crossovers. For one thing, the Federal Home Loan Bank, etc., is a "mixed-ownership" government corporation (see 31 U.S.C. 9101), and is at all times subject to law of the United States (31 U.S.C. 9102). Now we have a tautology: As a corporate entity owned by government, it is a government agency. Its role is to initiate loans and service accounts. But all loans are hypothecated on credit of the United States, and the United States is at all times principal of interest. In other words, once it has taken this step, the bank has no private right of action to collect delinquent or defaulted debt.

-2-

But even at that, we're not through: The lending activity, just as Social Security, must be limited to the "geographical" United States. Why? Well, Article I 10 of the Constitution is why. No State shall mint coin, emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt. Let's examine something else: The Paperwork Reduction Act requires the display of a currently valid OMB number, and notice that if there is no currently valid OMB number displayed that you don't have to supply information, on all informationgathering forms. We've examined applications for home loans, commercial loans, farm loans, credit cards, etc., etc., et al. None of them comply with Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements (5 CFR 1320.6). Yet all of these institutions are operating as mixed-ownership government corporations, and their "credit" is hypothecated on credit of the United States. Consequently, we know they are operating "outlaw", and per law they are required to comply with, are for all practical purposes counterfeiting securities under color of authority of the United States. We know they don't comply with Privacy Act notice requirements, they rarely if ever comply with closing requirements ... the only place I've seen PRA compliance is on a termite inspection certificate. Can a State court enforce a private bill of credit executed under color of authority of the United States? Hardly. To enforce a private bill of credit is to endorse it, and to endorse it is tacitly to affirm or originate it. If States of the Union cannot issue bills of credit, they cannot authorize private enterprise to issue them whether the State is a party of interest or not. There isn't any doubt that our State governments are respectively accommodating the Social Security scam. However, there are some fundamental problems here, too. The first is this: If you will look in the title of your State code on officers and employees, you will probably find that your State legislature has statutorily consented for State and local government personnel to "voluntarily" participate in the Social Security system. And that's it, there ain't no more. The legislation doesn't extend to the general population. Likewise for State and local income tax. It simply doesn't reach the general population. Then we come to the greater obstacle: In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress' first effort to implement a social welfare program was unconstitutional. That's the reason the Social Security Act of 1935 is applicable only in the "geographical" United States. Where our States are concerned, they cannot accommodate exercise of a Federal power not enumerated in the Constitution without first securing a constitutional amendment. Read New York v. United States (1992). Consequently, we must conclude that our State governments, respectively, are operating "outlaw", and that whatever accommodation laws there are, whether general or limited, are nullities. State governments cannot unilaterally or collectively enlarge authority of Federal instrumentalities. Only Congress, by virtue of Article I, Sec. 8, clause 18, has that authority. Now we come to the crux of things where the Federalism/Cooperative Federalism scheme is concerned. That is, even though Federalism is unconstitutional, it must have an operating system, the mechanics, to accomplish its objectives. It, too, has an "If A, then B" type of rationale to it. If it didn't, the scheme would be impossible because of utter internal chaos. And it must also be reasonably simple because a vast majority of the people who serve in functionary roles aren't the brightest stars in the constellation. It has to have more or less rubber stamp mechanics. When we introduced the syllogism for analytical purposes, and offered the set of three concentric circles to determine application of law, we crossed into "unnatural" ground. What do I mean by that? Simply this: Man's natural thought process is analogous, not logical. A child learns about heat from the furnace grate and the cook stove. He learns how to turn on a light switch without knowing the difference between AC and DC current. And I assure you, I had a wife who didn't know a car has to have oil, water and transmission fluid as well as gas. Otto Rank completely split with Sigmond Freud when he concluded that man is essentially religious, and is religious before he is political, social, economic, and maybe even psychological. Rank didn't necessarily mean we are religious in the sense of being Christian, Moslem or something else, but we each develop a belief "system" that enables us to get out of bed in the morning. We learn quite a bit from direct physical experience, but where the abstract world is concerned, which includes operation of government and other social institutions, we develop particulars of "belief" or faith from practice and presumption common in our family, social, and cultural environment. For most of a thousand years, the Western World got along fine believing the earth is flat. In fact, things went well enough that the Roman Catholic Church made flat-earth theory a cannon of faith. And those who first attempted to prove it was round had hell to pay. Our individual and corporate "belief" systems are just as powerful today as they ever were. We do things a certain way because that's the way we were taught or the way we observed that they were always done. In 1979, I was hired as parts sales manager for one of the nation's largest farm implement dealerships. When we struck a deal, the owner's son asked what I thought. I told him I thought I could probably increase parts sales by 25% or more the first year. His reply? "Oh, hell, you can't do that! We sell more parts than any other Massey dealer in the world." What did he base his judgment on? "We've always done it this way!" Well, I didn't do it the way they had been doing it for three generations. I reorganized the department physically, implemented a few intradepartmental procedures, etc., and basically modernized the operation. I missed my "guestimated" target a little. I reduced the inventory by $50,000, thus freeing capital to put elsewhere, and increased sales by an inflation-adjusted 63%. When the bookkeeper handed the old man the bill based on my percentage commission, he said, "Hell, we can't pay anyone that much money!"

-3-

The KISS principle. The only changes I made would be obvious to anyone with expertise in that field who hadn't been mired in the local company environment half his life. They way they operated, most everyone wandered around like geese in a hail storm. If Federalism was complicated enough that court clerks, county clerks, municipal clerks, prosecuting attorneys, etc., etc., had to think, it simply wouldn't fly. Consequently, it has to be simple, and because it's simple, it can be unraveled through logical analysis, a learned thought process, when you realize that Federalism, like a car, a clock, or anything else, is an operational, if abstract, system. In fact, I submit that it has hidden in plain sight for the last half century because it is so simple. The key problems have been learning legalese and wading through clutter. Any number of people, including Robert Wangrud, Larry BeCraft, et al, are great about reciting case law. My exception is this: Does any particular decision give the right answer to the wrong question? I think that's the case where the "Federal citizen" is concerned. While the Fourteenth Amendment has variously been used as a hammer and has otherwise been exhaustively explored, where Federalism is concerned, it is a blind alley. And I have somewhat the same opinion of the commerce/contract notion. The Uniform Commercial Code, which accommodates private bills of credit and currency other than gold of silver coin of the United States, is patently unconstitutional. Our respective State governments, with or without congressional consent, had no damned right to enact the UCC and most other uniform adopted acts. As the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments, bills of rights in our respective State constitutions secure due process in the course of the common law. At best, the UCC imposes hybrid civil law process. Can we contract away constitutionally secured rights? Article XX of the Oklahoma Constitution says that any contract that abridges constitutionally secured rights is void. And there is an abundance of Federal case law that condemns contracts abridging constitutional rights unless there is sufficient notice that whoever is hooked into the contract knows beyond a doubt what he is doing. Further, and this is a key point already stated, any institution that exists by virtue of a government grant of authority, particularly where it operates in a government agency capacity, cannot unilaterally do that which is contrary to constitutional prohibitions or beyond whatever statutory authority the legislative body has vested in it. The Fourteenth Amendment did not amend or repeal Article I 10 of the U.S. Constitution, and did not otherwise expand Article I 8 enumerated powers of the United States. The further this discussion has gone, the more I am convinced that one of the major obstacles to understanding, and thereby accepting the Federalism scheme, is failure to come to terms with the nature of the thing. The root of Federalism is evil. Lest people think I'm going to preach a salvation sermon, I should explain use of the term for this context. A Federal judge by the name of H. Dale Cook provided the definition I want to use: One definition of "evil" is simply "lawless." Federalism incorporates a mathematically impossible economic scheme. Our credit and monetary systems, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, have been debauched. They have been morally corrupted. The corruption is by nature evil as it is contrary to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." It is contrary to the laws of physical economy, and because those responsible knew what they were doing prior to doing it, the debauchery had the intent of undermining sovereignty and solvency of the American people. How many of us escape the destructive effects of inflation? In the last three decades, only 12 to 14% of the population has improved financial standing while everyone else has been on the slippery slopes of impossible dreams. Accepting that the system by its very nature is evil, lawless, may cause considerable consternation, but I am convinced that it is necessary to see it in that light before you can grasp the nature and substance of the Federalism/Cooperative Federalism scheme. Once you get across that hurdle, you can begin to come to grips with it analytically. I feel like I'm lecturing. If you have ever been to an indictment in a United States District Court, whether as defendant or an observer, hold up your hand. I won't bother counting. Those who haven't, you'll have to take my word for it: Nearly all indictments are presided over by United States District Judges, and in all cases, including indictments for felony offenses, they will ask the defendant to plead, and if he doesn't, they will enter a plea for him. Yet at Rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, we find the following: "If the charge against the defendant is not triable by the United States magistrate judge, the defendant shall not be called upon to plead." United States magistrate judges can try only misdemeanor offenses specified by Department of the Interior and the Department of the Military regulations. They cannot try felony offenses. Therefore, they cannot even ask for, much less enter pleas for defendants charged with felony offenses. Do you suppose United States district and magistrate judges haven't read that rule, and aren't aware of this limitation? Do you suppose they aren't aware that United States magistrate judges routinely break the law? I would venture that United States magistrate judges, with blessings of district court judges, knowingly break the law daily in Federal courts across the nation. Where the is knowledge, there is intent. Does this example meet our criteria for evil? Do I need to construct a syllogism to prove the case? Dan Meador

-4-