Originally Posted by onwebcam

According to the Law Merchant codes the very law that this contract was made under
there are certain things that constitute a valid versus invalid contract. You must realize that no court has the authority to enforce a invalid contract and I deny the validity of a contract that Roosevelt entered into with the international bankers. He borrowed bank credit on the promise to redeem in gold coins. Creating credit out of thin air the bankers had no risk and no interest because they didn't loan anything of value and thus had no interest in the loan being paid. It was a no interest contract and thus void by the international law of the nations. Therefore America owes no legit debt. And since America only owes the debt by an invalid contract how am I as an American citizen compelled to perform under to an invalid contract under the Admiralty jurisdiction?


"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitututionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statue leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general princples follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ...

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded therby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177