ANTISHYSTER www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4 73

One place constitutionalists getinto trouble is in their personal specu-lations on what various laws or excerptsfrom case law may mean or imply. Wehave a tendency to leap to “logical con-clusions” that are dramatic but oftenbased more on emotion than facts andstudy. It’s a dangerous, addictive sportbut far more exciting than hang-glid-ing.

I happen to be a master at con-stitutionalist speculation. I won’t ar-gue that I’ve ever leapt to a correct con-clusion, but my “logical leaps” havenevertheless been interesting, some-times even fascinating.

In “Trust Fever” (AntiShyster Vol.7 No. 1) I began to speculate on the pos-sibility that Trusts are one of — per-haps the — fundamental mechanism bywhich our government “legally” ex-ceeds its constitutional limits and re-verses the status of the American peoplefrom sovereigns to subjects. In fact, Ihave a hunch our modern “welfarestate” might be more accurately de-scribed as a “trust state”.

As with that first dose of “TrustFever,” this article is also based on littleevidence and much speculation. It istherefore dangerous and meant for con-sideration, not belief. I don’t doubt thatelements of this article will be refinedor rejected in the future. Nevertheless,I remain convinced that I’m exploringa fundamental insight intogovernment’s favorite mechanism forusing “benefits” to oppress the Ameri-can people.

Trust Fever II

Divide and Conquer

by Alfred Adask

When used by government, trustshave five character istics that make themideal for evading the Constitution andsubverting our Rights:

Divided TitleThe fundamental feature of any

trust is the division of “full title” (realownership) to a particular property into“legal title” (technical ownership) and“equitable title” (the beneficial right topossess and use the particular property).

The relationship between a father,teenage son and family car can broadlyillustrate the essential trust feature of di-vided title. Dad functions somewhat likea “trustee” since he “owns” title to thecar and is responsible to see that it isoperated according to certain rules likeinsurance, drivers licenses, and safety.The son is the “beneficiary” who doesn’town the car, but has the “equitable title”to possess and use it on his Saturdaynight dates.

“Trustees” retain “legal title” tothe property within the trust and are re-sponsible for administering and enforc-ing all trust rules. “Beneficiaries” re-ceive “equitable title” to use trust prop-erty they don’t own – provided they obeyall the trust’s rules.

For example, if Dad (the “trustee”/administrator) says the car must be backin the garage by midnight with a fulltank of gas, then Junior (the beneficiary)is bound to have the car back in time asspecified, or Junior will lose his “equi-table title” to use the car next Saturdayand wind up dating his girl on a bike.

In this way, Dad (the trustee) can usetrust benefits (driving the car) to con-trol his son’s behavior. In fact, the Dad/trustee can even impose a dress code onany beneficiary who wants to drive thecar. If Junior doesn’t cut his hair to a“trust-approved” length, his “equitableright” to use the car can be terminated.

Whenever I see evidence of a di-vided title (one party has legal title/ ad-ministrative control over a par ticularproperty, while a second party has eq-uitable title/ beneficial use of that prop-erty), I generally assume I am lookingat a trust.

Minimal LiabilityHistorically, the purpose of sub-

dividing full title into legal and equitabletitles was to minimize personal liabilityfor both use and ownership of trust prop-erty. For example, if you own “full title”to your car outside of a trust, you canuse your car whenever you like, but youare also personally liable for any dam-ages caused by your car. If your sonhas an accident driving your car, you (asthe owner) are liable and can be sued tothe limit of your resources.

But if you place (grant) your carinto a trust, you can designate yourselfas the “trustee” (and retain legal title andadministrative control to the car) anddesignate your son as the “beneficiary”who will receive “equitable title” to pos-sess and use the car. Now, if your sonhas an accident, you (as trustee) are vir-tually immune from any legal liability.As a practical matter, your son/ benefi-

74 Volume 7 No. 4 972-418-8993 www.antishyster.com ANTISHYSTER

ciary also can’t be sued because he ownsnothing (all his assets are in trust) andthere’s no point to suing a legal pauper— even if he lives in a mansion. Theonly entity that can be successfully suedis the trust itself, and then only for what-ever property it contains. Even if yourson caused $1 million in damages, themost the injured party could recover waswhatever property remained in the trustthat held the car. If the trust only con-tained the now-wrecked car, that’s all theinjured party could legally collect; therewould be no recourse against yourhome, bank account, or business.

Legal SuperiorityArticle 1, Section 10 of our Fed-

eral Constitution declares, “No Stateshall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing theObligation of Contracts.” The rules ofan explicit trust are established by a con-tract (or charter) called the trust “inden-ture”. Therefore, if created by contract(not statute) and without fraud, trusts canbe superior to any State law. In otherwords, if I create a lawful trust by vol-untarily contracting with someone, theState can’t pass a law which later “im-

pairs” (compromises or voids) any ob-ligation imposed by my trust’s “inden-ture” (contract). Therefore, trust rulescan not only be superior to state consti-tutional law, they can even “legally”operate in opposition to constitutionalprecepts.

For example, the state may be pro-hibited from passing a law that violatesmy “unalienable right” to free speech.However, if I voluntar ily contract to be-come a beneficiary of a trust which hasindenture rules prohibiting free speechon certain trust-related subjects, I willhave legally relinquished at least part ofmy First Amendment r ight to freespeech. This ability to legally evade mostconstitutional prohibitions makes trustsused by government an extraordinarilydangerous strategy.

Compulsory PerformanceAccording to a number of Su-

preme Court cases, any person who ismerely in a position to receive “benefits”is obligated to obey the rules of the or-ganization dispensing those benefits. Inother words, even if you’ve never re-ceived a dime from Social Security (atrust), if you could receive benefits, youare obligated to obey the rules of theSocial Security trust indenture.

If one of those rules was “Youmust pay income tax” — whether youknew it or not – you’d have no constitu-tional or statutory defense against pay-ing income taxes. As a result, you couldeasily be an unwitting “beneficiary” andthereby obligated to obey the rules of atrust you’ve never even heard of. Youcould be legally bound to obey an un-known ser ies of administrative rules thatwere perplexedly unconstitutional butnevertheless legal. (Sounds a lot likeour modern legal system, doesn’t it?)

Moreover, depending on the trustindenture, even trustees can be boundto enforce the rules without compassionor discretion. Did Junior get home latewith Dad’s car because he stopped torender first aid at an accident and savedsomeone’s life? No matter. If the trustindenture’s rules are uncompromisingabout returning the car on time, the fa-ther/trustee will be forced to terminatethe boy’s use of the car. (Does the Judgebelieve a particular individual, though

convicted, deserves a lenient sentence?No matter, sentencing guidelines in atrust indenture might force the judge toimpose the harshest penalty.)

Both trustees and beneficiariescan be bound by trust rules to levels ofperformance that, at first glance, seemabsurd or even unconstitutional.

Law of the CaseEvery legal controversy is based

on a particular body of law. I.e., youcan’t use probate laws to argue againsta speeding ticket; you must base yourlegal defense on the traffic code — sinceit’s the “law of the case”.

In a trust, the “law of the case” isthe trust indenture and rules therein. Ifthose rules require a teenage boy to havehis Dad’s car back by midnight, and Jun-ior shows up at 12:01, he is in technicalviolation of trust rules and has no con-stitutional or statutory foundation tochallenge the trustee’s decision to ter-minate his beneficial interest (use of thecar).

This “law of the case” require-ment stands even if you’ve never readthe trust indenture (ever read all the rulesof your Social Security Trust Fund?) orworse yet, even if you don’t realizeyou’re “trapped” as a beneficiary intrust law. The court presumes you knowthe relevant law, will not inform you ofyour ignorance, and will rule accord-ingly.

For example, suppose the Federalgovernment created a lawful trust (likeSocial Security) and lured you into vol-untarily entering that trust (perhaps, asan “applicant” for “benefits”). Later, ifyou realized that your new performanceobligations were “unconstitutional”, youcould not normally use constitutionalarguments to escape those trust obliga-tions. In fact, if you only argued your“constitutional rights”, you’d be as r i-diculous as a man arguing football rulesin a baseball game, and allow the judgeto truthfully declare, “the Constitutionhas no place in my court.” Instead, theonly “law of the case” that you couldeffectively argue would be the Social Se-curity trust indenture (you might argueyou were fraudulently lured into con-tracting with the Trust, or otherwisechallenge trust rules).

ANTISHYSTER www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4 75

If we don’t understand that the“law” in our particular case is some trustindenture, we can contest paying incometax forever since the 16th Amendmentwas never properly ratified. But if the“law of the case” (the rule that requiresyou to pay income tax) is contained in atrust, your constitutional arguments areirrelevant, even if that trust is virtuallyunknown to you. Because you are pre-sumed to know the “law of the case,”the court will assume you’re incompe-tent, and rule inevitably and (seemingly)inexplicably against you.

Government can’t take our Rights,but we can “voluntar ily” (though igno-rantly) contract them away. Therefore,trusts can be used by government to im-pose an endless series of obligations onAmericans that would be unconstitu-tional if mandated by statute, but quitelegal if “offered” as considerations for“benefits” which we voluntarily “ap-plied” (contracted) to receive.

Trusts and political structureFor most of England’s history, the

King (or Queen) was the Sovereign andtherefore “owned” legal title to all En-glish land. English “subjects” were “en-titled” to use/ possess the land, but theQueen always owned it (sovereign own-ership of all land is probably the funda-mental characteristic of all monarchies).Apparently, England’s law, Monarchy,and political system have been based forcenturies on the concept of divided titleto land — the King had “legal title,” thecitizens had “equitable title” and pos-session.

Given the English system’s use ofdivided title to property, was the EnglishMonarchy a “trust”? Maybe, but in any

case, title to all land was divided. Be-cause “commoners” only possessed eq-uitable title to their land, they were vir-tual beneficiaries (subjects; serfs?) of theKing (trustee) and therefore obligatedto obey all the King’s Laws (indenture).Since the King “owned” legal title to thecommoners’ land, they were obligatedto pay whatever tax (rent) the King de-manded or be summarily forced to for-feit their possession of “his” land with-out legal recourse.

In movies about Robin Hood,Prince John’s ability to violently removecommoners from their homes looks likethe worst form of tyranny. But if thePrince held legal title to land and thecommoners held only equitable title andfailed to pay their tax/rent, eviction with-out legal recourse was not only lawfulbut mandatory.

Today, we see a similar situationwhen you buy a car with a bank loan.In a sense, although you get to drive and“possess” your new car, the bank “owns”it until you repay the loan. Anyone whodoubts the bank “owns” your car needonly stop making car payments. Justlike Prince John, the bank will quickly“repossess” the car without going to

court. Lacking title to “your” car, you(like the English commoner) had no le-gal recourse against “repossession”.

Of course, because you had someequity (but not title) in the car, you stillhad an “administrative remedy” againstrepossession (you might produce can-celled checks proving you’d madetimely payments). However, since youlacked “legal title”, you would only haverecourse to a court of “equity” (whichdetermines equitable titles and benefi-cial interests in administrative hearings).Lacking legal title, you had no recoursein Law (the determination of legal title).

The rallying cry of the AmericanRevolution was “No Taxation WithoutRepresentation”. This implies that KingGeorge was charging Americans a taxon land or other property (like tea) with-out their consent. 1 But if the Kingowned “legal title” to all the property inhis realm (including the Thirteen Colo-nies), the colonists were virtual “ben-eficiaries” enjoying the equitable use ofthe King’s property. If the comparisonbetween Colonists and trust beneficia-ries is valid, Colonists might have hadno legal right to “representation” sincebeneficiaries are prevented by law from

76 Volume 7 No. 4 972-418-8993 www.antishyster.com ANTISHYSTER

having legal or administrative controlover the trust rules or property.

This possibility implies that thedriving force behind the AmericanRevolution was not to achieve the ge-neric “Freedom” we like to talk about,but more precisely to allow commonAmericans to have full title to their prop-erty . I suspect that Americans of the1780’s were the first people in modernhistory to hold both legal and equitabletitle to their private property. As such,they were “sovereigns”. Their homestruly were their “castles” (protected bywalls of legal title rather than moats) andthe American government could not taxor regulate that land or property to whichit lacked legal title except by the con-sent of the People as expressed by theirRepresentatives in Congress.2

Return to bondageIf divided title to land and prop-

erty was the fundamental characteristicof the English Monarchy (and probablyall other totalitarian, socialist and com-munist governments), and if every man’sright to “full title” to his property wasthe fundamental purpose for the Ameri-

can Revolution and our Constitution —then what shall we make of our currentgovernment’s apparent inclination tocreate and administer trusts which di-vide title to property? By reestablish-ing a trust-based, divided-title politicaland legal system, our government is ar-guably changing this nation back froma post-constitutional Republic (wherepeople have full title to their property)into a pre-constitutional colony.

In this emerging “U.S. colony” thepeople, at best, have equitable title toproperty and function as beneficiariessubject to the “divine rights” of govern-ment. I’ll even bet the fundamental prin-ciple behind the New World Order(NWO) will be “divided title” to all land(and later, all property and probably per-sons) into “legal title” (held by the NWO)and “equitable title” (mere possession)held by the world’s people.

Any attempt by our governmentto diminish our right to full title owner-ship of our property must be viewed withalarm as un-American, treacherous, andeven treasonous. As such, I have a hunchthat any government (or governmentagency) based on trusts (divided titles)might be challenged as “communistic”and contrary to our constitutional guar-antee of a “Republican [full title to prop-erty] form of government”.

That which is Caesar’sIf government trusts (like Social

Security and the National Highway Trust)pose serious problems, they’re nothingcompared to the possibility that our“money” may also be a trust instrument.

If there’s one Biblical passagethat’s bewildered me, it’s Luke 20:20-25 where the Pharisee’s tr ied to trapJesus by asking, “Is it right for us to paytaxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus replied,“Show me a denarius [a Roman coin].Whose portrait and inscription are onit?” “Caesar’s,” they answered. “Thenrender unto Caesar that which isCaesar’s, and unto God that which isGod’s.” According to the Bible , “aston-ished by his answer, they became silent.”

Maybe everyone else understandsthat passage, but until now I just didn’tget it. But now I begin to suspect thatwhat Jesus meant was, “He who ownsthe money, owns the property which was

bought with the money.” Sounds so ob-vious as to be irrelevant, hmm? Maybenot. Maybe Jesus hinted at a subtle as-pect of money that’s gone largely unno-ticed for thousands of years.

Again, the usual process for pur-chasing a new car includes your con-tract with a bank for a loan. Althoughyou “possess” (use and drive) the car,under the terms of your contract, thebank “owns” the car until you’ve repaidthe entire loan and can therefore “repos-sess” it if you fall behind in the pay-ments. If you actually “owned” (hadtitle) to the car, the bank could not takeit from you without a court hearing.Point: in a sense, the bank owns “your”car until you repay the entire loan.

In the U.S., the “creation ofmoney” is somewhat like purchasing anew car:

1. New Federal Reserve Notes(FRNs) are printed (created) by the Fed-eral government’s Bureau of Printingand Engraving. Each note has a par-ticular serial number.

2. The new FRNs are reportedlysold at their printing cost (approximately$0.03 each, regardless of their denomi-nation) to the Federal Reserve System

ANTISHYSTER www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4 77

(a trust administered by Alan Greenspanand his board of trustees). Thegovernment’s bill of sale presumablyidentifies the serial number of each FRNsold to the Federal Reserve System.3

3. The Federal Reserve System(“FR System”) then loans the paperFRNs at full face value to the variousFederal Reserve Banks (“FR Banks”).Each loan presumably identif ies the se-rial number of each FRN passed fromthe FR System to the FR Banks.

4. The FR Banks then issue theFRNs to local banks which in turn dis-perse them to the general public.

5. The general public uses theFRNs as a medium of exchange to pur-chase various services and products.

6. Over time, the FRNs age, wearout, and are removed from circulationby the Banks and burned. (Reportedly,the serial numbers of “worn out” FRNsare recorded before they are destroyed.)

If my understanding of the creationof money is fundamentally correct, thisprocess raises two intriguing questions:

First, if the FR System really buysthe physical FRNs from the Bureau ofPrinting and Engraving, how does it payfor them?

It’s inconceivable that our govern-ment allows the FR System to pay forFRNs with FRNs – especially at the rateof $0.03 for each new FRN of any de-nomination. Imagine if you had just $1– a t $0.03 each, you could buy overthirty $100 bills. And once you hadthirty $100 bills, you could use them tobuy another one hundred thousand $100bills (at $0.03 each). And then you couldbuy . . . well, obviously, this scenario isso absurd, it’s impossible . Which im-plies the FR System must pay for FRNswith a form of money other than FRNs.What form? I don’t know, but probablysome form of real “dollars” (a physicalmass) of gold or silver.

As you’ll see, it may be extremelyimportant to identify the “nature” ofmoney used by the FR System to “buy”FRNs from the Federal government. Butbefore we discuss the “nature” of money,let’s consider a more central observation:

If the FR System truly buys FRNsfrom the Federal government, then atleast initially, the FR System must ownthose green, physical pieces of paper we

call “Federal Reserve Notes”.This leads to my second question

(and the foundation for this entire hy-pothesis about FRNs):

When does the FR System ceaseto own those green, physical pieces ofpaper we carry in our wallets?

Remember how you purchase anew car? You get to drive it, but youdon’t really “own” it until you’ve repaidthe loan. Likewise, it follows that theFR System continues to own FRNs un-til the FR Banks repay the particular loanthat placed each particular FRN in cir-culation. This implies that the FR Sys-tem may still hold legal title to all thosegreen FRNs in your wallet!

But how can you continue to pur-chase products and services with some-one else’s money? Wouldn’t that be il-legal? Yes — unless FRNs are anotherexample of divided title. If the FR Sys-tem still owns legal title to “your” FRNs,then you, by virtue of possessing andlegally using them, must be presumedto have their “equitable title” (benefi-cial interest and use). And clearly, usingFRNs is a “benefit”. After all, by usingthese virtually worthless pieces of paper,you can purchase real, tangible propertylike computers, cars, and homes. Whatcould be more beneficial than getting“something” (tangible property) “fornothing” (FRNs)? Or so it seems.

But as I said before, whenever Isee a “divided title”, I suspect I’m see-ing a trust (and possibly a trust inden-ture that increases my obligations or di-minishes my rights). If FRNs have di-vided title, the FR System is a trust, AlanGreenspan and his board of directors arethe Trustees, the FRNs are the “corpus”(property) of the trust, and anyone whouses FRNs to purchase (not “buy”) prod-ucts or services is a “beneficiary” – ob-ligated to obey whatever myster iousrules might be included in the FRSystem’s indenture.

Note that the difference between“buy” and “purchase” is huge. Accord-ing to Black’s Law Dictionary (4 th Rev.)“buy” means, “To acquire the ownershipof property . . . .” but “purchase” means“Transmission of property from oneperson to another . . . .” [emph. add.]One who “buys” acquires ownership (le-gal title) to property while one who “pur-

chases” merely “transmits” (changes thepossession or equitable title) of thatproperty from one person to another.Further, it’s entirely possible for a prop-erty to be “purchased” by a series ofpersons who each, in turn, hold its eq-uitable title, while the original owner re-mains unchanged since no one has ac-tually “bought” the property.

Seizing FRNsIf the FR System owns “legal title”

to the FRNs in your wallet, this mightexplain why government agencies likethe DEA or local police regularly seizelarge quantities of cash from innocentpeople without court order or apparentlegal recourse for the “victim”. Gov-ernment isn’t “stealing” your cash, be-cause you don’t really own it; you onlyget to possess/ use “your” cash accord-ing to indenture rules established by thereal owner (the FR System). Since youdon’t “own” legal title to your cash, ifyou violate a rule of the FR System’sindenture, it’s as legal for governmentto “repossess” that cash as it is for thebanks to repossess your car if you stoprepaying your loan.4

78 Volume 7 No. 4 972-418-8993 www.antishyster.com ANTISHYSTER

If your FRNs can be seized be-cause (unknown to you) their “legaltitle” belongs to the FR System, then itmight follow that “anti-hoarding” lawswould only apply to those products inwhich you have equitable title and someother entity has legal title. For example,food bought in a grocery store is almostalways produced with government “sub-sidies” — which, according to one Fed-eral judge makes anyone who buys fooda government “beneficiary” and subject.If that Judge is r ight, I’ll bet the subsidysomehow grants government “legaltitle” to the food, while the farmer, allthe middle men, and finally you, onlyget equitable title to your food. There-fore, if government subsidized raisingthe beef that became the steak on yourgrill, government still owns legal titleto that steak, and can therefore tell allyou beneficiaries how much steak youcan legally store. Exceed the limit, and“Big Trusty” will repossess your t-bones.

Conversely, if divided title toproperty is the legal foundation for for-feiture laws, you might not be subjectto repossession for “hoarding,” if you

grew your own food in your own gar-den, canned it yourself, and stored it inany quantity you liked. Since govern-ment provided no obvious subsidy togrow your food, it couldn’t easily claimlegal title to that food, and thereforecouldn’t regulate the quantity that youmight store, nor subject you to food sei-zures for “hoarding”. Instead, if you“grew your own”, you’d be engaging inan act of “creation”, and as creatorwould enjoy full title (legal and equi-table) to your product/creation.5

Intrinsic valueIf FRNs are some sort of trust in-

struments characterized by a divided title,it’s also true that FRNs haven’t alwaysbeen here and therefore, it’s probable thatsome forms of money (especially thoseprior to FRNs) may not have had dividedtitle. I.e., some forms of money mighthave had the “intrinsic” value of “fulltitle” (both equitable and legal titles).

Most people believe that when theConstitution granted Congress thepower “To coin Money” (Art I, Sect. 8Cl. 5) and prohibited the States frommaking “any Thing but gold and silverCoin a Tender in Payment of Debts”(Art. I, Sect. 10, Cl. 1), the Federal gov-ernment received the exclusive r ight to“create” money. Not so.

First, any legal def inition of“money” used for payment specifies acertain physical mass of gold or silver.In other words, while wooden nickels,“clad” quarters, and even FRNs can beused as kinds of money, they aren’t nec-essarily “constitutional money”. Consti-tutional money must contain a certainintrinsic physical mass of gold or silver.However, there may be an even more im-portant “intrinsic” value that turns meredisks of metal into real money: legal title.

Who created (and therefore owns)gold? Who created (and therefore owns )silver? Depending on your point of view,either God, or the miners and prospectorsdigging in the Earth, “created” each batchof physical gold, and as creators, “own”the first legal title to that gold. In eithercase, gold and silver are not created andnecessarily owned by government.

Historically, when a prospectorfound some gold ore, he’d bring it to aU.S. Mint which refined the ore, divided

the physical mass of “pure” gold intoindividual metal disks of a cer tifiedweight and purity, and then (after de-ducting a reasonable charge for makingthe coins) gave the gold coins to theirproper owner – the prospector. Whengovernment “coined” money, it didn’tcreate (and therefore own) the money;it merely certified that a par ticular metaldisk had certain intrinsic attributes (likeweight and purity of gold), much like ameat inspector stamps “USDA Prime”on the side of some cuts of beef. TheUSDA stamp doesn’t give governmentlegal title to the meat, it merely certifiesthe meat has certain intrinsic attributes.

But what intrinsic a ttributes didthe U.S. Mint certify when it “coined” a$20 gold piece? Obviously, the Mintcoined/ certified there was a particularweight and purity of gold in the coin,but is that all? Maybe not. Since thenewly coined money was still owned bythe prospector who found/ created it, it’sclear that government did not claim le-gal title to the gold coins.

But if the prospector owned thenew coins, why wasn’t his name or se-rial number printed on them? Howcould they be identified as his? Theycouldn’t. And more, no one would wantto identify a coin as the prospector’s, in-cluding the prospector since he’d havea very difficult using it to buy something.After all, would you accept a gold cointhat was clearly marked as someoneelse’s property? If you did, what’s toprevent some unscrupulous prospectorfrom coming back to your store tomor-row with the police and claiming youstole “his” coins. If you didn’t have areceipt signed by the prospector thatverified he traded his specific coins foryour products, you could incur a lot oflegal trouble by accepting a coin thatidentified as belonging to someone else.(The same is still true with FRNs)

The only way the silver and goldcoins could work efficiently was if own-ership (legal title) was implied by pos-session (equitable title) of the coin. Ifyou held it, you owned it (unless a courtof law ruled otherwise). Legal title hadto be intrinsic in the gold and silver U.S.-minted coins if only because a dividedtitle was too impractical to be workableamong a free people.

ANTISHYSTER www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4 79

Moreover, if the only issue wereweight and purity of intrinsic gold, whycouldn’t we use Mexican or Englishgold coins as payment? Could it be thatthe definition of “payment” involvesmore than mere physical gold or silver?Does “payment” involve the money’sintrinsic legal title? I suspect it does.

The nature of moneyEarlier in this article we men-

tioned the “nature” of money. I suspectthat “nature” includes not only intrinsicphysical attributes (mass of gold or sil-ver), but also intrinsic legal attributes.For example, whenever the U.S. Mintcertified a coin, it not only declared therewas a inherent quantity of gold or sil-ver, but also that the coin could be usedas “Tender in Payment of Debt” (Const.,Art. I, Sect. 10, Cl. 1).

Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Rev.)defines “Tender” as an “offer of money”that may be voluntarily accepted, but “le-gal tender” means a “kind of money” thatcreditors are compelled by law to accept.

But why would the law compelcreditors to accept “legal tender”? Be-cause it’s an inferior “kind” of moneythat sensible creditors normally shun?

Since FRNs are designated as “legal ten-der”, are they an infer ior “kind” ofmoney? If so, what is the nature of thatinferiority? Divided title?

It’s easy to see that FRNs mighthave divided title and an easily identifi-able “owner” – after all, just as cars havea unique serial number on their enginesand bodies to prove ownership, eachFRN also carries a unique serial num-ber. Clearly, FRN serial numbers are nodeterrent to counterfeiting. So whatother explanation remains for FRN se-rial numbers, except (like automobileengines) to prove something about theirlegal ownership?

I suspect that, if the FR Systemowns legal title to our FRNs, its claimcould be ver ified by doing a “titlesearch” of each FRN’s serial number tosee when the particular FRN was loanedinto circulation and if the particular loanhad been repaid. If the loan was stillunpaid, the FR System owned the FRN;if the loan had been repaid, the FRSystem’s claim of ownership (legal title)was extinguished.

But how could you divide the titleto a U.S.-minted $20 gold coin? Howcould you prove each coin had an ex-

trinsic legal title and owner other thanthe man who possessed it? Since there’sno serial number on gold coins, there’sno obvious means to distinguish theowner of one coin from the owner ofanother. While it’s apparent that who-ever possesses a gold coin has equitabletitle (he can use the coin to purchaseproperty), who has legal title to eachcoin? I suspect that with gold “coined”by the U.S. Mint, legal title to the coinmust intrinsic in the coin itself and bepresumed by mere possession. (“Posses-sion is 9/10th of the Law”?)

In other words, unless disprovedin a court of Law — if you possess aU.S.-minted gold coin, you are pre-sumed to own it. Therefore, unlikeFRNs, U.S.-minted gold coins may“contain” full title (equitable and legaltitles) as an intrinsic value. If so, themost critical intrinsic value of a U.S.-minted coin is not the coin’s gold, it’sthe coin’s intrinsic “full title” — includ-ing both equitable and legal titles.

Something for something?OK, why is legal title to our

money so important? Suppose you runa business, and give one of your employ-ees some petty cash to go to the officesupply store to purchase some enve-lopes. Obviously, although your em-ployee “possessed” the FRNs used tobuy the envelopes, he was only function-ing as your agent and therefore does not“own” the envelopes. Presumably, you“own” the envelopes.

Point: mere possession of moneydoes not automatically signal ownershipof whatever was purchased with FRNs.

That sounds obvious, but considerthe more subtle example of a kid goingto college. To ensure the kid has enoughspending money, Dad gives him Dad’sown Master Card to use at school. In asense, Dad has “legal title” to that creditcard (he receives and pays the bills) andhis son has “equitable title” (possessionand beneficial use of property purchasedwith the credit card). The distinctionbetween “legal” and “equitable” titlesmay not mean much to the boy since hecan merrily use Dad’s credit card to pur-chase a new computer for himself or beerfor his buddies. But if he purchases toomuch beer and Dad gets mad — since

80 Volume 7 No. 4 972-418-8993 www.antishyster.com ANTISHYSTER

the computer was purchased with Dad’scredit card — Dad has “legal title” to thecomputer and can legally “repossess” it.

Point: Because the boy only had“equitable title” in the credit card, hecould only purchase “equitable title” inthe computer. Because Dad had “legaltitle” to the credit card, Dad also got “le-gal title” to whatever was purchased withhis credit card.

This principle implies that legaltitle to all property belongs to the per-son or entity that held legal title to theparticular money used to buy (or pur-chase) the particular property. There-fore, the intrinsic “nature” of the moneyused in a transaction determineswhether each individual’s rights to theparticular property are “legal”, “equi-table”, or “full”.

Perhaps Jesus realized that thecoin he was shown was “owned” by theRoman Emperor, whatever was boughtwith that coin was also owned by theEmperor and therefore, taxable. Couldthat be why he answered, “Render untoCaesar that which is Caesar’s (paid forwith Caesar’s money). Render unto Godthat which is God’s (paid for with God’s

“money”; i.e. his gift to you of life andability to labor).” If you purchasedsomething with a Denarius, pay tax onit to Rome. If you bought somethingwith your labor, pay a tithe to the church.

Have a mint? If the only intrinsic value of

money is its physical content, whycouldn’t we use gold coins from Mexicoor England to buy property in the USA?They carry a fixed and measurable massof gold, so why are they “different” fromU.S.-minted gold coins? The only an-swer I can imagine is that while the U.S.Mint can coin/ certify that a particularmetal disk contains intrinsic legal title,the Mint lacks the information or author-ity to certify that foreign gold coins alsocontain legal title . Maybe they do,maybe they don’t. While the gold coinsof Mexico may contain intrinsic legaltitle, you can almost bet that legal titleto the gold “Sovereigns” of England areowned by the Queen and, if so, usersonly get equitable title to whatever ispurchased with an English Sovereign.

In any case, the U.S. Mint neitherknows, cares nor has authority to declare

whether a particular foreign coin con-tains intrinsic legal title. And so theyonly certify that U.S. minted (not for-eign) coins have intrinsic legal title andare therefore guaranteed usable as “ten-der in payment”. This doesn’t neces-sarily mean that you can’t “buy” full titleto a new Cadillac with Mexican goldcoins; it merely means the U.S. Mint willnot certify Mexican gold coins containlegal title. Maybe they do, maybe theydon’t – let the courts decide.6

For several years I’ve heard astrange, persistent notion in the Consti-tutionalist community that whatever you“buy” with FRNs actually belong to theFR System. Oh, yes, you could still“possess” whatever you purchased withFRNs, but it was technically owned bythe FR System. Although that notionwas variously explained with claims thatFRNs were really “military scrip” or“worthless insurance scrip”, I couldn’tunderstand the explanations.

But the idea that the FR Systemowns whatever is purchased with theirFRNs makes sense if FRNs are trust in-struments characterized by divided title.Like the boy using his Dad’s credit card,whether you know it or not, legal titleto “your” property belongs to whoeverhad legal title to the money you used topurchase that property. I.e., if you onlyhave equitable title to the FRNs in yourpocket, you can only purchase equitabletitle to whatever property is exchangedfor those FRNs.

More importantly, if legal title toa car purchased with FRNs goes to theFR System, then that car (or any otherproperty purchased with FRNs) be-comes property of the FR System trust– just like the FRNs. Now, if the FRSystem trust owns legal title to “your”car, it is well within its power to admin-ister their trust’s property (your car) anyway it likes. Just like the father whodemands his son have the car back bymidnight with a full tank of gas, the FRSystem can impose similar rules (li-cense, registration, insurance, seat belts)on the beneficiaries who purchased carswith FRNs.

And if the FR System owns legaltitle to your car (or boat, home, farm orbusiness) purchased with FRNs, what’sto stop them from seizing “your” prop-

ANTISHYSTER www.antishyster.com 972-418-8993 Volume 7 No. 4 81

erty (just like Prince John seized theproperty of English subjects) wheneveryou violate the smallest, most idiotic rulein the FR System indenture? Nothing.

For example, suppose the FR Sys-tem indenture said that any of its prop-erty (like a house or car) found to con-tain a “controlled substance” was sub-ject to forfeiture (repossession). Sup-pose the police catch a boy with a littlemarijuana in his grandma’s home. Canthe cops seize grandma’s house? Theycan and do. Is the foundation for thatseizure the fact that Grandma purchasedher home with FRNs that left legal titleto the FR System? I don’t know, but itsure sounds plausible.

On the other hand, if Grandmahad bought (not “purchased”) her homewith gold coins certified/ coined by theU.S. Mint to contain the intrinsic valueof legal title, could the cops seize herhome because her grandson’s gettinghigh? If my theory is correct, No. Orat least not without first going to a courtof Law, exercising due process, and get-ting a lawful court order.

Light at the endof the bank vault?

What happens if the FR Systemsurrenders legal title to the FRNs? Af-ter all, sooner or later, the loan thatplaced each FRN in circulation will berepaid extinguishing the FR System’sclaim of legal title to that FRN. Pre-sumably, if there is no remaining claimto the FRN’s legal title, whoever is leftholding the FRN will have both equi-table and legal title .

Then what? Well, if the cr itical“intrinsic” value of money isn’t gold, butlegal title, and you had “full title” (legaland equitable) to your paper FRNs, itfollows that you might actually “own”full title to whatever you bought (not“purchased”) with them. In theory, anold FRN might truly be “as good asgold” if you could prove that the loanthat placed it in circulation had beenrepaid, the FR System no longer heldlegal title, and therefore “possession was9/10th of the law”. In other words, ifno one else could claim legal title to theFRN in your pocket, you’d have full titleby default, by virtue of mere possession.

Suppose you used $20,000 in old

FRNs to buy a new car. Suppose youcarefully listed every FRN’s ser ies andserial number (which identify the origi-nal loan that placed each FRN in circu-lation) on the car’s bill of sale. Supposeyou attached proof (public record) thateach FRN’s loan had been extinguished.Then you might be able to argue thatsince you now had “full title” (legal andequitable) to all of your paper FRNs, youcould also buy “full” (legal and equi-table) title to the car.

If any of this were true, why don’tpeople save their old FRNs and use ‘emto buy their homes and cars? Part of thereason may be that FR Banks cull oldFRNs from circulation and burn them. Ican’t help wondering if FRNs are designedto wear out and be burned about the sametime the FR System loans are repaid, andtherefore be destroyed before they “ma-ture” into real (“full title”) money.

If full-title FRNs are possible,then “old” FRNs should be just as “col-lectable” as “old” dimes and quartersmade out of real silver. If so, we couldliterally beat their swords (divided-titleFRNs) into our plowshares and onceagain “buy” (not purchase) our homes,

82 Volume 7 No. 4 972-418-8993 www.antishyster.com ANTISHYSTER

cars, food and property – and escapethe non-constitutional regulations thatmay now be imposed by trust-based, di-vided-title money.

Interesting hypothesis, hmm?“Full title” money buys full title to prop-erty. “Equitable title” money purchasesonly equitable title to property. Thecritical value of money is not it’s physi-cal mass of gold or silver — it’s the “in-trinsic” full (equitable and legal) title.

Oh, one last leap into the consti-tutionalist netherworld: Is thephrase“IN GOD WE TRUST” seen onour currency a statement of spiritualfaith — or the name of a trust called “INGOD WE”. . . ?

Next “Trust Fever”: How legaltitle and equitable title may determinewhether you have access to Law andCourts of Law or to administrative pro-cedure and Courts of Equity.

1 “Representation” is nearlysynonymous with “consent”.

2 If full title to property was soimportant to the American Revolution,why isn’t it mentioned in the FederalConstitution? Since the Federal govern-ment had little right to own property,questions about property rights and titlerights wouldn’t be necessary in the FederalConstitution. However, the Founder’s highrespect for property and full title might beglimpsed in the original terms of suffrage:

The right to vote was determined by eachState, and typically held that only menover 21 year of age who owned property(land) could vote. Apparently, withoutfull title to land, you had no right to vote.

Further, I suspect the FederalConstitution is, in a sense, a “generic” orsecondary constitution designed to protecteach of the “primary” constitutions – thoseof the first thirteen States. America’s newand revolutionary rules of property shouldbe enshrined in the first State constitu-tions. In fact, a thorough analysis of thecommon denominators of the first thirteenState constitutions should reveal a workingdefinition of the term “Republican form ofgovernment”. Without researching theissue, I’d still bet a fundamental character-istic of Republic is the right of the Peopleto own full title to their property (i.e.,allodial title).

3 This entire article hinges on thereport that the FRNs are actually boughtfrom the federal government by the FederalReserve System. If the FR System only“purchases” the FRNs from the feds, then legaltitle to the FRNs would remain with the federalgovernment. The divided title argument wouldstill be valid except that the real owner of theFRNs (and all property purchased with them)would be the federal government.

4 What’s the FR System’s rule thatallows seizing cash? I don’t know, but I’dbet there’s an indenture rule that prohibitsany beneficiary from “hoarding” morethan X amount of FRNs outside of a bankaccount. The “legal logic” of this hypo-thetical anti-hoarding regulation might bebased on the banks’ use of bank depositsas a foundation for “creating” more moneythrough the “fractional reserve” procedure.

That is, if I deposit $100 in my bankaccount, the bank can use my deposit as afoundation to “create” another $2,000 toloan to my neighbors. Therefore, by“hoarding” my FRNs outside of a bankaccount, I’d be depriving my neighbors ofloans necessary to stimulate the economyor provide other “benefits” required by“public policy” (probably a term signaling therules of a trust indenture). I’d also bet anti-hoarding laws are based on a presumednational emergency. So long as a nationalemergency is declared to exist by El Presidente,hoarding of money, food, etc. might beadministratively verboten. Therefore,government is not merely allowed, it mighteven be ordered as trustees to “repossess”any excess cash and — I’ll bet —redeposit that cash into a bank.

5 The implications of “owning” fulltitle to whatever you create are huge.Because the Federal government “cre-ated”/ printed the FRNs, they held full titleto the FRNs and could therefore “sell” fulltitle to the FR System.

6 If this hypothesis concerning var iousmoneys’ intrinsic title is correct, it might followthat coins carrying intrinsic legal title are“assets” since a positive value that accrues towhoever possesses them. Would it also followthat any money that does not carry intrinsiclegal title, is by definition some sort of “debt”or “debt instrument”? That possibility isconsistent with FR System’s admission tha t allof our currency is “debt-based”. This in turnsuggests tha t the legal (and accounting)definition of an “asset” is based on legal titlewhile a mere possession is in fact a “debt”since it was purchased with debt-based money.In other words, “assets” must include legal titlewhile debts include only equitable title.