Tuesday, August 6, 2013


By: Jeff Ganaposki

Way back in time - before socialism - before FICA - before 1935, there was the dreaded PAUPER'S OATH.


Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was
required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.

One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
“ I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."

In case you did not catch all the subtle ramifications, allow me to expound:
1. Exceeding $20 parallels the 7th amendment's requirement for the value in controversy to EXCEED $20 in order to trigger access to the RULES of the common law. (Common law is nice to free peoples. )
2. Recipients of public charity had to swear that they owned NOTHING more than $20 worth or they were ineligible.
3. As paupers, they were also "status criminals," excepted from constitutional protections.

Coincidentally, after FICA, FDR abolished the Pauper's oath for recipients of "Relief" and other "benefits."
Of course, the people didn't realize that by signing up for FICA, they were pauperized, literally owning nothing more than $20. As "contributors," all their labor and property were pledged as collateral on the public debt.

Government is so nice - they let us keep the stuff - as long as we make a "return of income" and pay skim to the D.C. lords. But ultimately, "they" have first dibs on everything... by our consent.


" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

[The site coyly avoids mentioning that FICA is the means by which all YOUR goods and labor back their worthless IOUs.]

So, do you think that folks in the 1930s would have willingly signed up with FICA if FDR didn't lie and say that "Relief is not charity!"

(In reply to my query, the Congressional Research Service stated that entitlements are synonymous with gifts from the public treasury. That's legal speak for "we're not going to admit that recipients are paupers at law.")

No comments:

Post a Comment