REBUTTAL: Critique of the Book “They Own It All (Including You)” by Ronald Macdonald and Robert Rowen

This article is an official critique of the content of the following book:

They Own It All (Including You): By Means of Toxic Currency, Ronald Macdonald-Robert Rowen (OFFSITE LINK)

We have read the book and a few of our members recommend it as well. Many of them want to know what we think about it. Because it focuses on the notion of property and the theme of this website is private property ownership, we decided to do a detailed critique of the book in this article, mentioning flaws and errata, inconsistencies with our materials.

We mention this book in a link on the opening page of this site:

Hot Topics: Fake/De Facto Government

The allegation of the book is that fake currency makes us all debtors and never creditors in relation to government. The theme of this book is consistent with the UCC Redemption (Form #08.002) approach, but much more evidence based, which makes it better than those materials.

What we liked about this book:

1. It tries to take a common sense approach to reach a larger audience.
2. It is short and sweet so that the average joe will read it.

However, the book has many factual errors, presumptions, and huge holes in the analysis and evidence it offers. The biggest hole is that the authors do not understand how franchises and privileges work and never relate these things to the concepts they are discussing, even though these things are the central theme of this website.

THIS book contains the following factual errors:

1. It alleges that Federal Reserve Notes are the Mark of the Beast mentioned in the bible, because they operate as what they call a “hypothecation mark”. We disagree. The Social Security Number (SSN) and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) are the “invisible mark” and they function as what the Federal Trade Commission calls a “Franchise Mark”. See;
   1.1 About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/AboutSSNsAndTINs.pdf
   1.2 Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
   http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm
2. It claims that a Federal Reserve Note constitutes a LIEN on your PRIVATE property because it is allegedly owned by the Federal Reserve. But they contradict themselves on p. 50 by also saying that the FRN is an IOU from the government. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are NOT property of the Federal Reserve, but a Promissory Note. Promissory Notes represent a qualified interest in the national government, not in the holder. To this day, the U.S. Code REQUIRES that all Federal Reserve Notes MUST be redeemable in gold and silver, although by fiat and NOT law, this practice is not honored in violation of the law. See:
   The Money Scam, Form #05.041
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
3. It claims on p. 13 that “operation of law” is how the “mark of hypothecation works”. This is false. You can’t acquire a civil obligation not involving a proven injury WITHOUT consent at some point and that is what a “hypothecation mark” does. “Operation of law” obligations only occur when there is either an injury or a death or the original owner (in the case of estate taxes), not consent in some form. See:
   Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf
4. It claims on p. 33 that “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment means “subject to the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction”. This is FALSE. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Wong Kim Ark, that it means “subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction”. Political and legislative are NOT equivalent. See:
   Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006, Section 2.3
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
5. They claim on p. 29 that “United States never adopted the common law” and they cite two U.S. Supreme Cases. They do mention that they are talking about the federal government and not the states of the Union, which did adopt the common law. If you look at those two cases, they both discuss common law CRIMES only, not ALL the common law. Also, the common law IS in fact mentioned in the Northwest Ordinance, Article 2, which was incorporated into the Constitution by Constitution Article 6. Constitution Amendment 7 also mentions the common law. They never mention the implications of these constitutional sources so their analysis is flawed. We mention this in Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010. So the federal government DID adopt the CIVIL common law but not the CRIMINAL common law. And their two case cites on p. 29 are WRONG. The correct cites are:
   5.1 United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch (11 U.S.) 32 (1812)
   5.2 United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 415 (1816)
6. They never distinguish anywhere between PUBLIC v. PRIVATE or STATUTORY v. CONSTITUTIONAL contexts or the equivocation used to confuse these two mutually exclusive contexts. This is CRITICAL to understanding HOW you voluntarily surrender PRIVATE rights. See:
   Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014,
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
7. They state on p. 17 that “No natural right is given to any of us to create a fiction within our common law”. Trusts are fictions and the common law does recognize them. Even the IRS recognizes the right to invoke them on the 1040NR form as a “nonresident alien”. Governments are fictions of law and THEY can be recognized as a defendant under the common law mentioned in Constitution Article 7. So they are flat out WRONG on this subject. This completely false claim is exhaustively rebutted with evidence in the following document:
   Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025, Section 11.11
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
8. They didn’t mention how PRIVATE is converted to PUBLIC, which is through asking for government property or benefits. This gives the government the right to “make needful rules” respecting you under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 and 5 U.S.C. §553. This is covered in:
   8.1 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
   8.2 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
9. The book needlessly hyper-focuses throughout on Maritime and Admiralty law. They claim that roads are waterways, for instance, that admiralty governs naturalization, and that birth in the united states of America is equal to naturalization. None of this is necessary if they would just stick to the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) that governs ALL commerce rather than admiralty/maritime. They offer no court proof that admiralty/maritime can or does regulate commercial relations on land between human beings and governments. Its all theory that is flawed and irrelevant at that. We instead use the U.C.C. to establish how you contract with the government under their franchises and privileges, which is a whole lot more concrete and relevant and useful. If they did this, their book would be half as long.
10. They make many references to various authorities but never describe the exact publication, case, or reference they are referring to. This encourages presumptuous thinking and makes the book more theory than actual evidence you could use in court. We, on the other hand, try very hard to give EVERY source of evidence we rely upon in reaching every conclusion. Further, all of our materials are designed and intended to be used in a real court of law in litigation against government corruption. Their work would never make it into evidence in real litigation.
11. Even the title of the book of fatally flawed by asserting that “they own YOU”. Unless only government public officers are reading the book, then that assertion is FALSE. The Thirteenth Amendment forbids ownership of human beings as chattel. The only thing government can own is what they CREATE, and they didn’t create YOU. Click here for details. They created the civil statutory “straw man” and they own it, but they have to FOOL you into becoming surety for it by volunteering. If you understand how the process of volunteering and works and how the U.C.C. governs that process, you can escape becoming surety for the straw man. See:
    11.1 Proof That There is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
    11.2 Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
    https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm

In conclusion, there are LOTS of mistakes and holes in the book. The authors of that book are not the only ones engaging in such mistakes either. These are common mistakes and omissions because of legal ignorance and illiteracy that is commonplace in modern times. Remedying such holes and mistakes is a primary mission of this website, in fact.

One of our readers inaccurately stated that this book establishes why the government can honestly say that there is no private property and that they own everything. They did this in responding to our Litigation Tool #07.007 U.S. Supreme Court Petition in which we use the laws of property to defeat a U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari. Here was our response:

1. We have and have read “They Own It All” and we agree with much of it, but nowhere near all of it. For our critique of the book, see:
https://sedm.org/critique-of-the-book-they-own-it-all-including-you-by-ronald-macdonald/

2. While we do agree with much of this book, this is an issue that NO ONE in the government we know of has ever or even will ever openly admit because it is a Third Rail Issue.

3. The pleading [Litigation Tool #07.007], section 1, places the burden of proof on the government as the moving party to demonstrate ownership, and they can’t satisfy the burden of proof without committing professional and political suicide by admitting the content of the book you suggest. Therefore, they will lose at least in the court of public opinion by refusing to address this very real issue. Who in their right mind would EVER openly admit in a court ruling that “there is no private property in Amerika, Comrade”.

4. The only way out of this burden of proof is attorney delay, and the Writ of Cert essentially codifies “attorney delay’ as a tool, thanks to President Taft. See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6.7.1. The best attorney is always attorney delay, but at their level, their only escape hatch has been locked.

CHECKMATE.

Facts, law, and evidence refuting any of the above are solicited. Otherwise, a failure to deny constitutes an admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).

We have submitted this article to the authors of the book at: newpeopleorder@gmail.com on 4/3/22