Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 4

by Randy Mauganswith contributions from Keith Hansen (a/k/a “Vyzygoth”)
Presented in four parts:

constitutional corp
Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 1
Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 2
Fatal Flaws of Logic – Part 3

Paul Collins, of the Collins Brothers, plays a set-up scenario, and accuses Vyzygoth,  Gordon Comstock, and myself of “not checking sources”. To wit we respond—with sources—and some corrections on the dishonest assertions:

Vyzygoth Responds:

This response closes the matter in the best possible way, by laying out the precepts of the actual radio show we aired on March 6. Keith’s comment were written independent of my own—and we reach the same space as to the motivations behind Paul Collins’ seemingly irrational scourging. Paul Collins disqualifies himself as a true researcher unless, and until, he can operate from the wide scope of truth rather than his own preconceived notions.-Randy Maugans

In answer to Paul’s post:

You can obfuscate these issues away if you wish… You can deliberately lead the arguments down side streets and into futile labyrinths and dead ends. The truth can be had, but you won’t find it in wikipedia or history texts or mainstream broadcast and print news outlets. This is not about transparency, not in the slightest

First, I’ll present the elements that will give you an idea where I’m coming from and why.

There’s little sense in burying these statements at the end of the following cites that speak to the issues of the United States of America being—not owning the status of—a corporation; the trap of accepting the word person to define us; the misconception that we are not under the unclean strictures of Roman law when dealing with our government, which includes the imposition of maritime/admiralty law in federal courts and in all cases involving revenues and forfeitures.

Human government—any government and, yes, our government—and the instrument of money is of Satan. Scripture bears that out as seen both in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. The way of the world is mercantilism, something not of the Lord. We are enslaved by this system. Few can operate outside this system. The Lord knows it and warns us—as you know—that while we must be in it, we are not be of it. I know of no occasion where Christ ever encouraged His people to run for office or to get involved with politics because, as He said for Himself and for His flock, this is not His kingdom. How interesting, too, that the harshest words Christ had for any particular professions were for the bankers and lawyers.

The way of the world is about the money and doing business. Nations are created not to give shelter to huddled masses that yearn to be free, but to open new markets and new consumers.

The State has always been the diplomatic/governmental face that the bankers and lawyers operate behind. But, from Hammurabi unto this very day, it’s been about the law of the sea, which was taken inland to become maritime/admiralty. Contract law runs the show.

The Constitution, too, is a commercial compact between the states and the government. In the subsequent cites it will state that we the little people are not a party to it. While local and even state courts might grant constitutional “rights” to Americans, it’s because they are not aware that, in fact, we have no rights only privileges, which is one of the reasons the idiot patriots can’t figure out why 1) our “rights” get violated persistently by the federal government and courts; 2) why the faux patriots are disallowed from using the Constitution as a defense.

These are just two cases among myriad more that state that private citizens cannot use the Constitution for protection.

This case was instituted in 1822 by Barron, the plaintiff, against the City of Baltimore, under its corporate title of “The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,” to recover damages for injuries to the wharf property of the plaintiff, arising from the acts of the corporation.

The Supreme Court opinion:

“We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [p*251] Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for theWestern Shore of the State of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof,it is the opinion of this Court that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that State and the Constitution of the United States; whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this court that this writ of error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.”

In other words, Barron could not use the Constitution to seek protection from the city of Baltimore. So much for your fifth amendment rights.

In PADELFORD, FAY & Co. plaintiffs in error v. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH. No. 64. January Term, 1854, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in the Padleford sales tax case that “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the grounds of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, the are entitled to redress.”

I’m not spreading any mythology, but talking about the “law” this government uses on its people, while professing to be our advocate. It’s not all there in the U.S. codes. It’s not all there on the Cornell site. Much of the evidence is in “acts” of Congress, public law, and case law: it is documentedbut it is documented and can be found. We offered one site in particular where there is a centralization of information and resources that comes from two researchers who’ve put in over 40 years of work into this arena. Remember Paul’s punk crack: “Does anyone check their sources anymore? Apparently, he never checked ours. And I know yours, which, for the most part, comes from the government and mainstream—the very sources responsible for the matrix 99% of Americans are wandering around in.

Now to the other issues, the first of which deals with the United States of America as a corporation:

In your exchanges with Randy, Paul, you go to places that aren’t at the center of what we (Randy, Gordon, and I) were talking about. Our focus—at least my focus—was on the U. S. of A. as a corporation and how that impacts Americans.

The corporate U.S. of A and its relationship to Americans took a very nasty turn after the Banking Act of 1933 and the latest imposition of War Powers.

(See: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/wep002.htm and also Trading with the Enemy (www.atgpress.com/inform/wep029.htm).

But to continue with the most immediate issues:

These statements are in error: “The United States . . . absolutely does not exist as a corporate entity. The corporate status exist merely to make representing the United States of America easier in a court of law . . . so the corporate status is merely for practicality.”

Consider this:

The United States of America has a corporate status with its CEO (the President), CFO (Sec. of the Treasury), board (Congress) and its stockholders (bondholders) and its debtors (taxpayers)—the latter term also defined in the U.S. Codes (Title 28 Part VI Chapter 176 Subchapter A 3002) from which you derived your statement about persons, which I will address next.

And, in that section, the first meaning of the United States of America is “a Federal corporation.”

It doesn’t say it owns that status. It states it is a corporation.

If you plug in “United States of America” into the search engine of either of the two corporation search sites—veromi.net or manta.com—you will find the US of A represented as a corporation; in fact, the veromi.net site describes it as a private corporation, which makes sense in that we are shaken down by a private corporation—the IRS—to pay tribute to another private entity—The Fed, which sends the tribute to the private banking association: the International Monetary Fund.

(And, by the way, I pay my taxes as I believe Christ instructed in His statements about rendering the taxes unto the government. The Lord knows we’re being squeezed, but He said He’d make provision for us.)

Other comments about the U.S. as a corporation, as collated by researcher and author Al Coombs (aka The Informer) in his work on atgpress.com and in his books, follow below:

Cohen v. Virginia:

Jefferson’s views of the opinion were vigorously expressed by him two years later in a letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823:

“On the decision of Cohen v. State of Virginia in the Supreme Court of the United States in March, 1821, Judge Roane (presiding judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia) under the signature of Algernon Sidney wrote for the Enquirer a series of papers on the law of that case. I considered these papers maturely as they came out, and confess that they appeared to me to pulverize every word that had been delivered by Judge Marshall of the extra-judicial part of his opinion, and all was extra-judicial, except the decision that the act of Congress had not purported to give to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by their lottery of controlling the laws of the States within the States themselves.
“The practice of Judge Marshall of traveling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court is very irregular and very censurable.”

Third edition of Cases in Constitutional Law, by Cushman & Cushman. In here they quote the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export Corporation, 299 US 304, 1936:

“As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective corporate capacity as the United States of America.

[Coomb’s comments] I purposely emphasized the words because the Crown was still the sovereign INTERNALLY because of his corporate colonies mineral rights that he still controlled. This is found in Mr. Montgomery’s works on www.atgpress.com.]

The fact that the United States is a corporation, see 28 USC 3002 (15), is why the United States can seize property of anyone whenever the need arises. The evidence for this is found in:

16 USC Sec. 831x  TITLE 16 CHAPTER 12A

Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue

“The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America.”

[Coomb’s comments]: The corporation spoken of is the United States or any of its created corporations that take land under eminent domain, such as the States, or any corporation they form in which they own 51 percent or more of that corporation.

Regarding the status of “person”:

We do not want to be considered a person of any type. You are right by mentioning the meaning of person in Roman law. You think the Roman Empire ever died? Rome, which embodies the spirit of Satan, has been a chief persecutor of the Lord’s people and has remained alive, most recently as the British Empire, whose king, George III, referred to himself as the “Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” The colonies did not win the War for Independence, as evidenced by the by King George’s drafting of the peace treaty, something the losers don’t get to do. We adopted Britain’s code of law, which carried with it the color of Roman Law, or, as the popes have reminded us through the centuries, that all law is from Ecclesial Law, which vitiated the Magna Charta.

The Roman Empire is rising for a final time in the very land from which it originally sprang. This is what the European Union will facilitate. The lords of the Old World never lost their might, they just sank back and let the peasants have their social democracies and benign monarchies, but they are poised to bring about a New Feudalism more barbaric than before.

This country was not carved out by the Lord, but set up as a commercial enterprise by the Crown, which allowed the colonies to become states, but did not keep the crown from exacting—except during certain intervals—a return on its investment. The Constitution federated the several states under a central government, which the former colonists did not want. Drafting that document—which the Crown reminds us came from its own—appeased the Crown, which had threatened the framers who were conducting business both in the states and in England. And while the Articles of Confederation were not perfect, they were not meant to be supplanted at that meeting in Philadelphia. Neither did the former colonists want a central bank, but got one, into which the Bank of England immediately sank its tentacles.


James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University:

64. The legal conception of leading words.

Inasmuch as the word person, man, thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it, and at the same time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in the Roman, the English and in American law.
Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word “person,” and the latter word interchangeably with “individual” and “man,” whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.

65. The word person defined.

Gaius says “De Juris divisione” [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding his division of the law; then follows, “De conditione hominm” [meaning the condition or status of men]. In the Institutes “De jura personarum” precedes the expression “all our law relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions. The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or status of individuals. (33)

33. Professor John Austin’s view. “Many of the modern civilians have narrowed the Import of the term person as meaning a physical or natural person. They define a person thus: ‘homo, cure statu sue censlderatus, a qauman being, invested with the condition of status. And, in this definition, they use the term status in a restricted sense, as including only those conditions which comprise rights and as excluding conditions which are purely onerous and burthensome, or which consist of duties merely. According to this definition, human beings who have no rights are not persons, but things, being classed with other things which have no rights residing in themselves, but are merely the subjects of rights residing in others. Such, in the Roman law, down to the age of the Antonlnes, was the position of the slave.” Austin’s Jur., vol 1, 358.

1 Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.

The signification in Our Jurisprudence . . . The word ‘Person,’ in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in society, abstractly, without considering the individual.”

Regarding maritime/admiralty law:

In the Unification Act of 1964 (34 FRD 325) quoting Black Diamonds S.S. Corp. v. Stewart & Sons, 336 U.S. 386, 403, 69 S., Ct. 622,93L, Ed.. 754, the dissenting  opinion stated: “To the extent that admiralty procedure differs from the civil procedure, it is a mystery to most trial and appellate judges, and to the non-specialist lawyer who finds himself—sometimes to his surprise—involved in a case cognizable only on the admiralty ‘side’ of the court. ‘Admiralty practice,’ said Mr. Jackson, ‘is a unique system of substantive laws and procedures with which members of this Court are singularly deficient in experience.”


“All revenue is collected under maritime principles. The Huntress (2 Ware (Cav. 82) 89: 4 West Law J. 38; 12 Fed Case 984, at 992:

‘In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of Admiralty cognizance that Congress considered them as civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, “including,” etc. . . . This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gave exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court as a court of the laws of nations.’

Benedict on Admiralty, 7th Ed. Jurisdiction , S 104:

“It is also abundantly established that the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the national government took over the traditional body of rules, precepts and practices known to lawyers and legislators as the maritime law, so far as the courts invested with admiralty jurisdiction should accept and apply them. . . . .”

Citing U.S. v M’cGill, 4 U.S. 426, 1 L.Ed. 844:

“The words of the Constitution must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England (from whose code and practice we derive our systems of jurisprudence and generally speaking, obtain the best glossary) . . . per Justice Washington.”

S 105 Benedict supra:

“As to recognition of State regulation of maritime law, the matter is admirably stated in

Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. 358 U.S. 354, 79 S. Ct 468 3 L.Ed. 2d 368 (1959); cf. In the matter of Alexander McNeil, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 236, 20 L.Ed. 624.”

Coombs’ remarks:

“Now, you know why the compact (Constitution) embraced the Navigation Act, (Townshend Act) introduced by the British Board of Trade where maritime controlled all courts. Merchants are corporations and are subject to this law. All insurance, and that includes Social Security because they claim it’s insurance even though it’s not, is subject to this law.”

Lastly, about the Social Security scam, Coombs  cites the “Analysis for the Social Security System, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, November 27, 1953, Part 6):

Mr. Winn speaking: “May I point out that the Bureau of Internal Revenue had said that benefits payable under title II, Social Security Act, are not subject to taxation of the recipients. This points out that the Bureau of Internal Revenue considers such payments to be gratuities, and also goes into the question of the fact that the payments are being paid to promote the general welfare of the United States and it has as a result held then not be taxable.”

“Chairman Curtis: Mr. Altmeyer, is it your view that the title II does not provide an insurance contract?

Mr. Altmeyer: In the sense of individual contracts, it does not.

Chairman Curtis: The individual who has been in covered employment . . . will have to continue to pay these taxes until he is 65, has no contract? Is that your position?

Mr. Altmeyer: That is right.

Chairman Curtis: And he has no insurance contract?

Mr. Altmeyer: That is right.”

Coombs comments:

“It [Social Security] is a unilateral contract that has no contractual obligations and it can be canceled at the whim of the Congress. It proves you are either part of the United States in joint-venture or that you are a government employee receiving a pension or gift from the State, erroneously called ‘government.’”

“The Emergency Appropriations Act of 1935 makes you an employee of the ‘government’ eligible to receive these “pension” benefits when obtaining a Social Slave number.”

“Remember, the Emergency War Power Act made you, the people of this country, the “enemy” of the private federal reserve banks when the banking cartel wrote the act and presented it for the President to sign March 4, 1933.”

The United States of America is a corporation.

Call yourself whatever term you wish, but your labor is pledged to the corporation in more ways than one.

With regard to my opinion of you, your work, and the nature of the post: 

I’ve come to see that what plays in your views in the above matters and in others of considerable importance—such as 9-11, vaccinations, and the documented and centuries-long intrigues of the nation state that is the Vatican—is reliance on the mainstream story, the government story, the story offered up for mass consumption. That gives you the high ground, the “imprimatur” to push the only information that gets through the mass-media censors to keep a population hoodwinked and pliant.

Although you know scripture and know there is a Satan—and that it is he who has dominion over this Earth until the appointed time—you remain on board with the dis- and misinformation and straight out lies that are generated by governments and the institutions and minions under Satan’s control. I don’t see any difference between you and any of the alphabet agencies.

If I had a dollar, seriously, for every e-mail from listeners wondering how in the world you two could be okay with that tripe from the Ministry of Propaganda, I’d have a nice chunk of change right now. Many of us don’t understand and have stopped trying to figure out the world paradigm you’ve constructed, which seems buttressed by some major contradictions.

I told you some time ago that I was not going to fight with you two over the 9-11 and Vatican/SOJ (Society of Jesus, or the Jesuits-Ed.)issues. I stayed away from those issues when you were on. You would allude to them once in awhile or make a crack I didn’t appreciate, but I let it go, or I just quickly stated a point of my disagreement. Not an unreasonable courtesy to extend to you both, but, understand, I took note.

I am aware of the research that you have done and the thoroughness with which you undertake it. The Ascendancy book was a home run. But I’ve come to realize you only research assiduously those sources that take you where you want to go. With regard to the Vatican issue—which is not a Roman Catholic issue but a geopolitical issue created by an institution that hides its perfidy behind a religious façade—you told me you read Phelps’ book, then trashed him and his work and officially your quest down that particular rode, though ignoring myriad works—many by those once inside the belly of the beast and some by the papal bull itself—across centuries that attest to the Vatican’s less-than-Christian behavior and outright theft and butchery.

I see your attitude toward our show as very much the same as your attitude the Vatican and 9-11 issues. It’s as if, when you don’t want to believe something’s true, you don’t research the sources that might change your mind and, ultimately, you pronounce them as bogus. Alright, fine, but in my thinking, if you don’t want to seriously investigate the work, you don’t get to trash it.

I admit I was taken by surprise by your posting on Randy’s website, not so much that you were at odds with what we spoke about, but that the post was 1) done hurriedly; 2) made sweeping and incorrect assumptions; 3) was deliberately injurious in its ad hominem broadside at Randy, Gordon and me.

Your tone smacked of some superior status you believe you hold, and while it’s fine you feel that way, and that your opinion of yourself with regard to us lowly bipeds may be, in fact, true, it nevertheless demonstrates a certain meanness that nobody—not us, not the listeners of our show, or the readers of your post—appreciate or respect.

You stated in a subsequent e-mail exchange with Randy that “understand that nothing I said was a personal attack against you, Vyz, or even Comstock.”

Are you serious? You shoot the arrows, then tell us how they should feel?

Believe me, I’m not sensitive, but don’t tell me there wasn’t a deprecatory intent in implying very clearly that we were spreading mythology as that which is, apparently, associated with the individual and movements you mentioned.

If you had wanted a legitimate discussion of the work, you could’ve questioned us about it and we might’ve even been able to build a show around it. Instead, you dropped in, turned over some tables, took some swipes, pronounced yourself the authority, and took off like you were late for dinner.

Until reading your post, in which you dropped a couple of names, for the purpose of sullying us with guilt by association, I had never heard of, nor read information from or about, Elvick and the Redemption Movement. Not a thing. I’m not sure what the Freemen are up to, but I have gone on record as rejecting the notions of the militia (based on violence) and the patriots—a term that has been so bandied about it doesn’t make a bit of sense anymore.

For the record, I am anathema to patriot broadcasters and their devoted listenership. They don’t adhere to the stances we espoused in the broadcast. Those poor patriot simps keep yakking about taking their country and Constitution back—neither of which they ever had in the first place. And, oh yeah, they’re also going to vote in good government some day. These are the reasons I coined a term of endearment just for them: Paytridiots.

Lastly, I am going to respond to something else you wrote in an e-mail to Randy. I bring it up to demonstrate how wrong and careless you can be. You stated: “If you’re reading patriot literature, which Vyz frequently does, then you’re bound to run into the idea [espoused by Elvick, et. al.] eventually.”

I don’t read patriot literature, not infrequently, not at all. Where’s that coming from? I haven’t even read The Turner Diaries. What I read is history from authors who are largely dead and gone but whose books survived suppression. And I research newspaper accounts of antiquity, which quite often give accurate assessments of past events that never seem to be used by authors who are hired to present misrepresentations that pass as “real” history. And if some of the information we brought up was treated in some manner by Elvick (and I have no idea if it was), then is that to say that everything he discusses is wrong just because it came from him? Or is your use of patriot an adjective you slap on any literature you don’t like?

I’ve had a long and—what I would consider—in-depth relationship with you both, but, especially, as I see it, with you Paul, which is why it’s even richer that you should be the one to do the hit.

I never believed that our relationship—which, off-mic, covered some personal issues—gave me some kind of indemnity from your criticism of my views, my opinions, or work. But I most definitely believed our relationship gave me reason to expect better treatment than that low-rent post you wrote.

Let’s put it this way: I never did or would do that to you.

I’ll live. I don’t have any bruises. But I don’t know either one of you.