You are not required to follow the so called law

does the bank go back into the vault and bring you cash when you get a loan? NO, when you sign that promissary note, you created money out of thin air. The bank is allowed to fractionalize dollars nine times(you are not which makes this very different then you loaning money to someone). Which means that if they only have $100 on hand, they can loan out $900. Now if you take that $900 loan, you have to pay it, plus the interest back to the bank. When you pay the bank back, they now have $1000 + interest on the $900, and they only had $100 to begin with. Now how is that not theft?

And we are not obligated to pay income taxes under any law. It's simply out of fear, ignorance, or compliance that people pay it every year by April 15th. Supreme Court rulings back this, the documents that form the foundation of our government back this, even the IRC backs this. But anytime the IRS is confronted with any of this, they claim it to be frivolous. Then, on top of that, the tax court system is probably the most corrupt of any within the shaddy government we employee today.

I've not read these books, but instead of being so closed minded about it, perhaps some should consider reading the referenced material before dismissing the concepts altogether? May find out that not everything is as it seems, because it's not.

Common law takes care of the things you are talking about, just as it should be.

There is nothing immoral about not paying taxes (they finance killing people).

Also, these people talk about creating money for yourself instead of for the banksters.

As you know freedom and liberty is the moral thing. Are you a Democrat?

Anyway, read it if you are interested or don't if you are not.

This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. This person is deranged and if you buy into this nonsense you will find yourself on the losing end of an enforcement action for no good reason and to no useful end. Really, folks, this is delusional.

You want to resist the government on the grounds that it has exceeded its Constitutional authority or simply because the natural law of liberty is superior? Fine by me. Stand and speak the time honored principles of individual freedom. You want to organize a secession movement? Cite the eloquent and forceful words of our forefathers. I'll join you. But please don't go into court spouting this delusional legalistic mumbo jumbo. You make yourself look like a fool and it reflects badly on the movement. And it will accomplish nothing at all.

The point is that the commercial law does not have jurisdiction unless you as a human being grant it to the court. You don't have to grant juridiscion but people generally don't know this and do it without even knowing it. It's all explained at the links posted above with actual examples to prove it - apparently.

Worth looking into, I think.

This is so far off base that I am hesitant to even bother responding.

But let's just take a stab:

So the US filed for bankruptcy in 1933? Where? In what court did it file? Under what bankruptcy law? This is silly.

And the US is a corporation? Under what law? Corporations are creatures of statutory law. In fact, they only exists as a bundle of legal presumptions provided by law. So what law provides the legal presumptions that create the legal fiction of corporate USA?

And Erie v. Tompkins did nothing like what you are saying. This nonsense is all based on a complete misunderstanding of the structure of the law and the courts. There are two kinds of law in the US - statutory law created by legislatures and common law created by courts. (We will ignore the bastard administrative law for the moment) They overlap - statutes are somtimes enacted to change common law and common law interprets statutory law. Both are applied together by the same courts and both apply to anyone within the jurisdiction of the court. Statutory law should rule in the case of conflict with common law. But courts sometimes bend that rule to their own agenda. Both statutory law and common law are "the law" and are binding in accordance with their terms on anyone in the jurisdiction.

The Uniform Commercial Code is nothing more than a set of statutes that most Sates have adopted in one form or another to apply to certain commercial transactions. The UCC does not apply to anything other than the sale of goods. It doesn't apply to real property, torts, or criminal law, among other things. Unless you are involved in the buying or selling of commercial goods, the UCC is not applicable to you.

Public policy is a term for a justification for certain common law pronouncements and interpretations of statute. It is rarely applied. But it usually sucks when it does because it generally undermines traditional common law that usually protected property rights and contract rights. But to suggest that something called Public Policy is now the law of the land is wrong.

There are many court systems - each state has one and the Federal government has one. Different courts apply different sets of statutory and common laws. Erie v. Tompkins merely held that in one certain type of Constitutionally-mandated Federal court jurisdiction (called diversity because it applies to people from diverse states) the court must apply the law of one of the states of residence rather than Federal common law. In other words, the Federal courts could not create their own common law to apply in diversity cases - they had to apply state law. Erie v. Tompkins is what is called a "choice of law" case. It has no application outside Federal diversity cases.

As for the blending of law and equity, that was a feature of the courts from the very beginning of the US, although as time went on, equity doctrine (such as estoppel, laches, unclean hands etc.) was more completely absorbed into, and mostly superceded by, law. There were never separate equity and law courts in this country, although there were in Great Britain at one time.