EMERGENCY POWERS
Introduction
Few who receive this report will know of my 12 year struggle to find
out why the United States Government felt it could force me to
register my book, "The $upertrader's Almanac", when the First
Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America so
clearly prohibits such legislation.
As the May 3rd, 1999 trial date neared, I prepared the following paper
for the attorneys with the Institute for Justice, 1717 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006, who are representing
me in TAUCHER V CFTC (1:97CV01711(RMU)).
The Great Illusion
Magicians are known for practicing the "art of illusion" whereby
reality vanishes before our eyes as we are duped into believing that
which is not.
When we willingly and knowingly enter such magic shows, we find such
tricks entertaining.
Not so entertaining are those deceptions which occur in real life and
are so well executed we're not even aware we've been duped.
This is a story of one of the greatest illusions of all time.
It is an illusion which has effected, and continues today to effect,
each and every citizen of the United States.
Unfortunately, this illusion wasn't perpetrated with fun and
entertainment in mind.
It is real and has devastated the lives of many, including those who
struggle to make ends meet today and the parents and grandparents
thereof.
By the time you finish, it is possible that the warm feeling many
American Citizens have in their hearts for Franklin D. Roosevelt,
elected to an unprecedented four terms as President of the United
States of America and widely proclaimed as having rescued the country
from the depths of the Great Depression with his New Deal program, may
change dramatically.
October 6, 1917
Our story begins just after the turn of the century. The "Titanic"
had already gone to the bottom April 15, 1912 just two years before
the Great War broke out in Europe.
Exactly six months after the United States entered the war on April 6,
1917, it was recognized that there might be enemies of the United
States living within our borders in time of war.
Congress thus passed an Act which identified who could be declared
enemies of the United States and gave the government total authority
over those enemies to do with them as it saw fit.
The Act October 6, 1917 legislation was;
"An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy,
and for other purposes."
Where did Congress derive its authority for such enactment? After
all, we are all aware that Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution
for the United States of America preserves the Great Writ of Liberty
with the following words;
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the
public Safety may require it."
This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge
and hold us with a crime unless the procedure of due process is
followed.
We also see, however, that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, be
suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it or when "the
public Safety may require it". At such times, suspension of the basic
foundation of our Liberty is in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.
The 5th Amendment also secures our Liberty with the words;
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, . . . "
It should be noted that the charging power was not given to government
but was reserved by We the People.
In other words, if We the People do not return an indictment through
our Grand Jury, the government cannot proceed against the Citizen.
But note the next few words of the 5th Amendment;
" . . . except in cases arising in the land of naval forces, or
in the Militia, when in actual service in time or War or public
danger . . . "
The concept that a constitution and the rights of the people could be
temporarily suspended is not new and was known even to the Roman
Republic.
In France, the condition under which the constitution could be
suspended is called the State of Siege.
In Great Britain, it's the Defense of the Realm.
In Germany, it was simply called Article 48.
It was the Article 48 powers Hitler used to establish his
dictatorship.
The equivalent in the United States is termed "War Powers".
The 1917 Congress was very careful who could be declared an enemy of
the United States under its War Powers and in Section 2, Subdivision
(c) applied the provisions of the act to those who were
" . . . other than citizens of the United States".
Such exclusion, of course, made sense since it was folly to believe
that a country's own citizens were its enemy.
Section 5, Subdivision (b) of the Act further stated;
"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under
such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange,
export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or
currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits
relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the
United States)."
It is important to thus note that citizens of the United States and
transactions within the United States were both exempted from the war
powers.
Consequently, We the People were still protected by the
Constitution.
The government did not have authority over citizens of the United
States although it could do anything it wanted to its enemies.
Post War Events
The concept of emergency powers is that, once the emergency has ended,
the emergency powers are to end and Constitutional protections are to
be restored.
However, in 1920, Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Hughes stated;
"The conflict known as the World War has ended as far as military
hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially
terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many
of the emergency organizations were still in operation."
- Swisher, "Constitutional Development"
Justice Hughes continued,
"We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established
whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in
this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously
waged."
In 1921, the Supreme Court stated in Stoehr vs. Wallace,
"The Trading with the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is
strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision
empowering Congress 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and
reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water'
Const. Art. I, Sect. 8, cl. 11. P. 241".
Federal Reserve Bank
Just prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, the Federal
Reserve Act was passed by Congress in 1913. One of the basic ideas of
a central bank was that it would serve as a secure repository for the
gold of the people. We the People would bring our gold to the huge,
strong vaults of the Federal Reserve and would be issued a note which
said that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to
the bank and be given back the gold we had deposited.
In a 1967 speech entitled "Gold and Economic Freedom", Alan Greenspan,
Federal Reserve Board Chairman, stated;
" . . . prior to World War I, the banking system in the United
States (and in most of the world) was based on gold, and even
though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free
than controlled.
"When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction
in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the
hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More
disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist
Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of
England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market
forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning
of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal
Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks,
interest rates in the United States would fall to a level
comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop
Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of
having to raise interest rates.
"The 'Fed' succeeded: it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly
destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess
credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into
the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom.
Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the
excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But
it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so
overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching
and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a
result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even
worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her
previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in
1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence
and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world
economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's."
As the Great Depression lingered, many needed to draw on their savings
for sustenance and began to redeem their gold certificates.
Prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, the country
had never experienced the type depression of the 1930s.
Panics and crashes had occurred, of course, but were relatively mild
and of short duration. The economy corrected its excesses and
business went on to new highs. Stable prices and low inflation,
except in times of war, were the order of the day.
Since the introduction of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, however,
the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve "dollar" has constantly
eroded.
March 2, 1933
On March 2, 1933, the Federal Reserve Board of New York responded with
a resolution in response to a letter from President Herbert Hoover;
"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board of New York.
Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of The Federal
Reserve Band of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal
of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now
created a national emergency . . . "
"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that in this emergency, the
Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President
of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March
4, and Monday, March 6 . . . "
Contained in the Federal Reserve Board resolution was the following
proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows;
"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended, that
'the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under
such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange
and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or
silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *'"
The standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a
quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly. At the
point where the "* * *" began, recall that the original Act of October
6, 1917 stated;
"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be
executed wholly within the United States)".
Remember that this verbiage prohibited the government from taking
control of We the People's money and transactions.
The Federal Reserve Board of New York was proposing replacing these
words with;
"by any person within the United States or any place subject to
the jurisdiction thereof."
Further, in the next section of The Federal Reserve Board's proposal
was a provision that anyone found violating the Act would be fined not
more than $ 10,000, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or
both.
At any time, this would be a severe enough penalty. Remember the
harsh times, however, made all the more difficult by the economic
conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time.
Obviously, these harsh conditions were of no concern to the Federal
Reserve Board governors, nor was the plight of the common man.
Note, too, that the proposals were not being advanced by any member of
government or We the People, but by a private banking institution.
Let's review:
The Federal Reserve was stating that, in 1933, at the depths of the
Depression, at a time when We the People, were struggling to stay
alive and keep our families fed,
"People are wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract
we have with them to give them their gold on demand, and we don't
want to give it to them. Therefore, Mr. President, we want you
to protect our interests by declaring that this contractual
obligation is creating a national emergency so that we won't have
to honor the contract and give the People their gold."
President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, believing the
action the Federal Reserve Board governors proposed was "neither
justified nor necessary". - Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover,
p. 1088.
March 3, 1933
In the Congressional Record, footnote # 10, Congressman Lemke stated;
" . . . This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is
bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are
bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are
evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written
instruments amount to about $ 250,000,000,000, and it is
estimated that there is about $ 50,000,000,000 of which there is
no record, making in all about $ 300,000,000,000 of public and
private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property
in the United States is now estimated at about $ 70,000,000,000.
That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In
this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as
bonds, mortgages, and so forth. These are not physical
property. They will have to be paid out of the physical
property. How are we going to pay $ 300,000,000,000 with only
$ 70,000,000,000?" [emphasis added]
March 4, 1933
On March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York was
inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States. The 73rd
Congress was seated.
President Roosevelt's inaugural address is often cited for its
courage, vision, and exemplary leadership;
"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the
measure that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world
may require. These measures, or such other measures as the
Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall
seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy
adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take
one of these two courses, and in the event that the national
emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course
of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for
the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis - broad Executive
power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power
that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign
foe." [emphasis added]
President Roosevelt had a plan.
President Roosevelt planned to implement the resolution of the New
York Federal Reserve Board.
President Roosevelt made no secret that he was preparing to ask
Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the
War Powers Act.
One should note that, since, as we have seen, the Trading With the
Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 was still in effect, no further authority
was actually required by Roosevelt to wage war against the enemies of
the United States.
The key is that Roosevelt wanted to redefine who the enemy was.
Pay close attention to the information of the following 5 days, for
you are about to see the greatest slight of hand of the 20th century
revealed before your very eyes!
March 5, 1933
One of President Roosevelt's first acts was to call, in Presidential
Proclamation No. 2038, for an extraordinary session of Congress to be
held on March 9, 1933
"Whereas, public interests require that the Congress of the
United States should be convened in extra session at twelve
o'clock noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such
communications as may be made by the Executive." [emphasis
added]
March 6, 1933
The next day, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which
stated;
"Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of
gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose
of hoarding . . . "
President Roosevelt's conclusion that there had been "heavy and
unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . " relied upon the
opinion of an outside, private institution, the New York Federal
Reserve Board, which had a conflict of interest in the matter and
other objectives.
The conclusion essentially stated that the People who had a contract
with the Federal Reserve Board were withdrawing their own gold in an
"unwarranted" manner.
Most people, in the harsh economic climate of the time, certainly did
not feel that withdrawing their OWN gold to support their family was
"unwarranted".
But Roosevelt did not leave the decision to We the People.
Instead, he relied upon a group of foreign bankers.
"purpose of hoarding" was also a term added by President Roosevelt.
It was used to help support Roosevelt's contention that the United
States was in the middle of a national emergency and that the
extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were
needed to deal with that emergency.
Proclamation 2039 later continues;
"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended,
'that the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit,
under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by
means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign
exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of
gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *'"
This wording is exactly as proposed by the New York Federal Reserve
Board.
48 Statute 1, Title 1, Section 1 would later add the phrase in the
amended Section 5(b);
"by any person within the United States or any place subject to
the jurisdiction thereof"
in place of the asterisks.
Note that, as of this date, the legislation had not yet even been
proposed TO the Congress, let alone adopted BY the Congress!
March 9, 1933
Three days later, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040 which
stated;
"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President
of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the
existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday
. . . "
Note that both a national emergency and bank holiday were declared and
that they both were declared by Presidential Proclamation.
Proclamation 2040 continued;
"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations
heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the
authority conferred by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed." [emphasis added]
The key words are "all", "heretofore or hereafter" and "approved".
Proclamation 2040 continued;
"Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is
necessary to take further measure extending beyond March 9, 1933,
in order to accomplish such purposes" [emphasis added]
In this section, we can see that there are more measures to follow
which will extend beyond March 9, 1933.
What were these "measures to follow"?
In total, they became known as the "New Deal".
For most Americans, mention of the "New Deal" normally produces a
upwelling of pride and warm feelings.
How long will these emergency measures of the "New Deal" last?
We find the answer in the conclusion to Proclamation 2040 which
states;
"Now, therefore, I Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United
States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency
and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of
the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the
Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and
declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of
March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder
are hereby continued in full force and effect until further
proclamation by the President." [emphasis added]
We've already seen that the Proclamation of March 6, 1933 was
Proclamation 2039. These Proclamations, 2039 and 2040, will thus
continue until such time as another proclamation is made by "the
President", "the President" meaning any President and not just
Roosevelt.
Proclamations 2039 and 2040 were both issued March 6, 1933, three days
before Congress was due to convene an extra session.
Yet references were made to such things as the amended Section 5(b)
which had not yet even been adopted or confirmed by Congress.
Finally, note that these Proclamations were to continue "in full force
and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President,
changes the situation.
Act of March 9, 1933
On this same date, Congress approved the amendment of Section 5(b) of
the Act of October 6, 1917.
The enabling portion of the Act states;
"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that
it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies
of uniform national application." [emphasis added]
The phrase which obviously sticks out in this statement is
"imperatively necessary speedily".
The word "necessary" invokes the rule of necessity which knows no
law.
A good example is the concept of self-defense. The law states, "Thou
shalt not kill". You have the right to protect your own life,
however, and if in dire danger, have the absolute right of
self-defense.
Such is the ultimate rule of necessity.
The rule of necessity thus allows one to do what would normally be
unlawful.
We thus know that the legislation to follow would normally be against
the law.
It will also be against the Constitution for the United States of
America or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked
to enact it.
Our suspicions are confirmed right off the bat in Title 1, Section 1
which states;
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and
proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or
issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of
the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October
6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."
Note the inclusion of the Secretary of the Treasury as an integral
part of this scheme.
As we shall later see, the Secretary of the Treasury today is the
integral part of the internationalization of the United States' power
and authority.
Continuing, Section 2 states;
"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat.
L 411) as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows";
"During time of war or during any other period of national
emergency declared by the President, the President may, through
any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate,
regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may
prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by
banking institutions as defined by the President and export,
hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion
or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace
subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Did you catch it?
The deception just occurred before your very eyes!
This point is so critical, the Act of October 6, 1917 and the Act of
March 9, 1933 are both again presented with the common language
underlined for clarification;
"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under
such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange,
export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or
currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits
relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the
United States)."
"During time of war or during any other period of national
emergency declared by the President, the President may, through
any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate,
regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may
prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by
banking institutions as defined by the President and export,
hoarding, melting or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or
bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or
anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Do you see it now?
First, protections afforded domestic transactions in the 1917 Act were
deleted.
Second, "any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers
conferred by the 1917 Act in the 1933 amendment.
As far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were
concerned, citizens of the United States were no longer differentiated
from any other enemy of the United States.
All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope,
were now placed at the whim of the President of the United States
through the authority given to him by the Trading with the Enemy Act.
We can now see that the usage of "* * *" was, in all likelihood, meant
to be deliberately misleading, if not outright fraudulent in nature.
Citizens of the United States were now subject to the power of the
Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. For the
purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business
transactions, citizens of the United States became the same as the
enemy and were treated no differently.
There no longer was any distinction.
It is important to note that the words
"During time of war or during any other period of national
emergency declared by the President . . . "
enabled the President alone, and on his sole discretion and authority,
to invoke the war powers not only in times of war, but also in periods
of "national emergency" as the President of the United States might so
define the latter term.
Do the terms "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", and other such declared
wars not now take on different meaning?
Were these not declared wars against our own against our own citizens?
What might the President do to citizens of the United States under
this section?
The answer is that he can do anything he wants to do.
His actions are purely at his own discretion and he can use any agency
or licensing requirement he desires to control his subjects and
accomplish his goals.
He is a dictator under constitutional perogative. He is, in fact, as
a King and we are as the indentured servants.
"Feudalism (private federalism) is apt to appear whenever the
strain of preserving a relatively large political unit proves to
be beyond the economic and psychic resources of a society."
- Strayer, Joseph R., "On The Medieval Origins Of The Modern
State" (1979)
Congressional Abdication Beginning March 9, 1933
The Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 confirms that our
congressmen didn't have copies of the bill to read, on which they were
to vote. The New York Federal Reserve Board Governors and Franklin
Delano Roosevelt were not alone in their scheme. A copy of the bill
was passed around for about 40 minutes.
Congressman McFadden made the comment;
"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had
no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The first
opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it
was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking
bill. It is a dictatorship over finance in the United States.
It is complete control over the banking system in the United
States . . . It is difficult under the circumstances to discuss
this bill. The first section of the bill, as I grasped it, is
practically the war powers that were given back in 1917."
Congressman McFadden later asked;
"I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this is a
plan to change the holding of the security back of the Federal
Reserve notes to the Treasury of the United States rather than
the Federal Reserve agent."
What Congressman McFadden's query was perceptive and on point.
He is stating that the essence of the legislation would make the
Treasury of the United States the guarantor of the paper money notes
issued by the private entity, the Federal Reserve.
What is astonishing is that this scheme not only made the Treasury of
the United States the guarantor of the paper money notes of the
Federal Reserve, but that the Treasury would not have control over the
issuance of the notes or the quantity of notes to be issued.
In other words, the Treasury of the United States would be on the hock
for however many notes the Federal Reserve issued.
Chairman Steagall responded;
"This provision is for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank
notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the security back
of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank
acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has
referred."
In other words, the obligations of the Treasury were to be backed by
the collateral of the people as evidenced by their property and taxes.
Congressman McFadden continued;
"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and
not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?"
Chairman Steagall;
"Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."
Congressman Britten;
"From my observations of the bill as it was read to the House, it
would appear that the amount of bank notes that might be issued
by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend
entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from
time to time for exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"
Congressman Patman;
"The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is
backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage
on all the homes and other property of all the people in the
Nation."
What's this?
We're backing Roosevelt's scheme with our mortgages and property?
You've got to pay close attention to catch the slight of hand on this
one. Try reading it again if you didn't catch it the first time.
Now note that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve held the people's
gold as security in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which We the
People could redeem at any time.
On March 9, 1933, our gold was seized through emergency powers,
citizens of the United States were made penniless, and the nation's
money was to be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on
which citizens of the United States were the collateral security.
Citizens of the United States had become chattel.
"I can . . . fight this Frankenstein which the New Deal has
created and which is rapidly gobbling up every vestige of right
which the people have and enjoy today . . . . I feel it
necessary that the Congress take some steps against this
bureaucratic invasion, not only of the people's rights, but of
the right of Congress and of every other legislative and judicial
branch of our Government. . . . You are reducing them [the
American people] to the status of a serf." - 78th Congress, 1st
Session, Jan. 1 to Mar. 1, 1943. Words of Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall
on January 27th.
March 10, 1933
President Roosevelt and the Federal Reserve desperately needed the
support of agriculture because of all the millions of acres of
farmland and the value of that farmland.
The mortgage on that farmland was what was to support the emergency
credit.
To accomplish his objective, President Roosevelt had to do something
to stabilize the price of land and cause the creation of Federal
Reserve bank notes through the mortgages on farms.
He planned to accomplish this objective by impressing agriculture into
the public interest through nationalization of the farming industry.
But surely the independent, ruggedly individualistic farmers would
never fall for such a scheme . . .
The Roosevelt Papers state;
"This conference of fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933.
They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were presented
to me at the White House on March 11th by a committee of the
conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for the
same broad powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had
requested for solving the bank crisis."
The "broad powers" Roosevelt specified were his emergency War
Powers.
March 11, 1933
President Roosevelt met with the agriculture leaders on March 11,
1933.
Astonishingly, it was the farm leaders that were asking President
Roosevelt to exercise the same broad War Powers to take control of the
agriculture industry.
Needless to say, Roosevelt was only to happy to accommodate their
demand and take over their property and livelihoods!
By March 11, 1933, comforted by the knowledge that he had agriculture
in his hip pocket, President Roosevelt made his first radio "Fireside
Chat". In this chat, he stated;
"The Secretary of the Treasury will issue licenses to banks which
are members of the Federal Reserve system, whether national bank
or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank cities,
to open Monday morning." [emphasis added]
Licenses are a privilege granted by government. In those industries
subject to a license, it is illegal to operate without one. You can't
practice your trade or sell your goods unless you first gain
government's approval.
This licensing authority is clearly contrary to the unalienable rights
granted to each individual man by our Creator as declared in the
Declaration of Independence.
It is government's requirement that I first license my speech that is
the subject of my First Amendment suit against government I referenced
in the introduction to this paper.
It was by this action that the Treasury took over the banking system.
Again, we see that the Secretary of the Treasury has become a key
player in Roosevelt's scheme, the "New Deal".
Are you beginning to see why many informed American Citizens refer to
Roosevelt's plan scheme NOT as the "New Deal", but as the "Raw Deal"?
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record;
"When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each
Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the Treasury of the
United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or both, for
the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the
Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the
provisions of this paragraph."
The Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury.
The Treasury holds the assets.
We are the collateral - ourselves, our property and our ability to pay
taxes.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 11th Reprint, 1997, defines the
Bank Holiday of 1933 as follows;
"Presidential Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and
No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933, temporarily suspended banking
transactions by member banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to
certain restrictions. The first proclamation, it was held, had
no authority in law until the passage on March 9, 1933, of a
ratifying act (12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95b). Anthony v. Bank of
Wiggins, 183 Miss. 833, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids
member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking
business except under regulations of the Secretary of the
Treasury, during an emergency proclamation by the President
. . ." [emphasis added]
Do Federal Reserve banks transact business today?
Do you see that the business they transact is under the regulations of
the Secretary of the Treasury?
Do you understand that these regulations are only in effect "during an
emergency proclamation by the President"?
Do you understand that the President has issued such emergency
proclamations in Presidential Proclamations No. 2039 and 2040?
Note the term "present law" in the definition which states that banks
remain under regulation of the Treasury as of the 1997 printing of
Black's Law Dictionary.
Can you thus see that the state of emergency is still in existence?
March 13, 1933
Congressman Patman in the Congressional Record of this date;
"I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by
reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your
attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act
provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues
and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the
credit of the Nation - they represent a mortgage upon your home
and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the
Nation - to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall
be collected for the Government."
Confiscation of Gold
48 Statute 1 further stated;
"Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such
action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United
States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may
require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and
corporations to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United
States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates
owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and
corporations."
Note, again, the role of the Secretary of the Treasury.
This is the Statute authorizing action to require everyone to turn in
their gold.
Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision and
would be punishable by a fine of not more than $ 10,000 and
imprisonment for not more than ten years.
In pure and simple terms, it was outright seizure.
Confiscation.
Piracy.
When may the Secretary of the Treasury require the above specified
assets to be surrendered?
ANYTIME!
Whose gold was to be seized?
The enemy's.
Who was the enemy?
Citizens of the United States were and are.
To ensure that citizens of the United States had no right to redeem
their own gold from the Federal Reserve, House Joint Resolution 192 of
June 5, 1933 declared;
"That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to
any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to
require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency,
or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby is
declared to be against public policy; and no such policy shall be
contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter
incurred."
Our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of
Roosevelt's hundred days.
We lost our right to require our gold back from the bank in which we
deposited it.
Before June 5, 1933, there was public money for private debts.
After June 5th, there was private money for public debts.
Since June 5th, one can only use private credit money operating in the
public sector as public policy to discharge, but not pay, private
debts.
"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect
savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe
store of value. If there were, the government would have to make
its holdings illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If
everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits
to silver or copper or any other goods, and thereafter declined
to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose
their purchasing power and the government created bank credit
would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of
the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of
wealth to protect themselves."
- Alan Greenspan (1962), Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank,
Remnant Review Newsletter (June 16, 1989)
Issuance of Emergency Currency
Roosevelt's Papers stated;
"During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some
form of script or emergency currency would be necessary for the
conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would be essential
when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to
meet all possible demands of depositors. Consideration was given
by government officials and various local agencies to the
advisability of issuing clearing-house certificates or some
similar form of local emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the
Secretary of the Treasury issued a regulation authorizing
clearing houses to issue demand certificates against sound assets
of the banking institution, but the authority was not to become
effective until March 10th. In many cities the printing of these
certificates was actually begun, but after passage of the
Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became
evident that they would not be needed, because the Act made
possible the issue of the necessary amount of emergency currency
in the form of Federal Reserve bank-notes which could be based on
any sound assets owned by banks."
The Act of March 9, 1933 thus gave Roosevelt the power to issue
emergency currency.
This currency was to be called Federal Reserve Bank notes.
From Title 4 of the Act;
"Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of
any direct obligations of the United States or (b) of any notes,
drafts, bills of exchange or bankers' acceptance acquired under
the provisions of this Act, any Federal Reserve Bank making such
deposit in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury
shall be entitled to receive from the Comptroller of the currency
circulating notes in blank, duly registered and countersigned."
What was the effect of this provision?
The Treasury through the Comptroller of the currency shall issue a
circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and
countersigned. This emergency currency was to be based on the (a)
public and (b) private obligations of citizens of the United States.
One might recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, which stated;
"The Congress shall have the Power;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
and Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, which stated;
"The Congress shall have the Power;
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin . . ."
How is it that the Executive branch wound up issuing emergency
currency, and citing the Constitution as its authority, when the
authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof clearly
rests with the Congress?
Can you see how the Secretary of the Treasury is beginning to acquire
more financial power than the Congress?
The Agriculture Adjustment Act, also titled the Emergency Farm
Mortgage Act of 1933, stated;
"Title III - Financing - And Exercising Power Conferred by
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money and To
Regulate the Value Thereof."
Section 43 states;
"Whenever the President finds upon investigation that the foreign
commerce of the United States is adversely affected . . . and an
expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international
agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of
various governments, the President is authorized, in his
discretion . . . To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter
into agreements with the several Federal Reserve banks . . . "
Stabilization of the currencies of various governments at various
levels?
To secure by international agreement???
What chicanery and deception is this?
Does this mean all those international summits like the "World Summit
on Global Warming" held in Brazil, GATT and so on?
Here we are seeing a giant step forward in the internationalists'
long-held objective of world-wide control backed by American debt and
military power.
What happened to the "advice and consent of the Senate" in these
currency stabilization schemes?
The deception was so well-executed and the illusion so great, however,
that only a few realized what was happening.
Continuing with the Ag Act, Section 1 states;
"To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be issued in
such amount, or amounts as he may from time to time order, United
States notes, as provided in the Act entitled 'An Act to
authorize the issue of United States notes for the redemption of
funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the United
States, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary
thereto and amendatory thereof."
The Act of February 25, 1862 is the Greenback Act of President Abraham
Lincoln.
When Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, Congress did not assemble
for the first six weeks.
Lincoln did not call an extra session of Congress. Instead, he issued
money, declared war, suspended habeas corpus, and established an
absolute FEDERAL Constitutional dictatorship.
When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, the
following statement was entered into the Congressional record:
"The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or
hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed . . . "
This is the same language used in the Act of March 9, 1933 and
codified in 12 USC 95 (b) today.
This is not the time or place to review the effect of Lincoln's
actions on the Constitution and the country.
It's a subject as important as are the events recorded in this paper,
however.
One clue to how effective the slight of hand has been is that, even
today, you won't find any of this in the history books.
Suffice it to say that some consider it a close race whether Roosevelt
or Lincoln committed the greater Treason against We the People.
March 12, 1933
Roosevelt needed the agricultural assets to support his and the
Federal Reserve Board's credit scheme.
Just one day after President Roosevelt met with our "our farm leaders"
on May the 11th, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, of May the 12th,
Declaration of Emergency stated;
"That the present acute economic emergency being in part the
consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the
prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity has
largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial
products, has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities,
and has seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the
national credit structure, it is hereby declared that these
conditions in the basic industry of agriculture have affected
transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public
interest, have burdened and obstructed the normal currents of
commerce in such commodities and rendered imperative the
immediate enactment of Title 1 of this Act." [emphasis added]
Licensing Requirements
Senate Report No. 113, An Act to Define, Regulate and Punish Trading
with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, states;
"The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in
Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This trade
covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and
made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses
issued by the Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18).
This authorization of trading under licenses constitutes the
principal modification of the rule of international law
forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerent, for the
power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the
operation of law, is given by the bill." [emphasis added]
It says no trade or intercourse can be conducted without a license,
because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all
intercourse is illegal (wait 'till Clinton hears about this).
In the first 100 days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the
licensing authority of numerous industries was seized by government.
As an example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 2, 1933 was
passed;
"To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of
producers and others to engage in the handling, in the current of
interstate and foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or
product thereof." [emphasis added]
This power to determine who would and would not work in the
agriculture industry effectively seized the industry.
Remember, licenses are grants of privilege issued by government which
can be revoked, or taken away.
Similar seizures were completed by government in other industries such
as transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil,
labor, and all natural resources.
In other words, the widely acclaimed first hundred days of F.D.R.
witnessed the nationalization of the United States, its people and its
assets.
Confiscation of Constitutional Protections
In 1933, Congressman Beck stated in the Congressional Record;
"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been
suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of
emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an
emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It
is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today
in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German
republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant
to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even
though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German
republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay
the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same."
Congressman Beck understood that once Congress declares an emergency,
there is no Constitution.
He was saying that we were about to invoke the same powers Hitler used
to establish the Third Reich.
It should not be overlooked by the reader that these are the same
powers in effect today in the United States.
Congressman Beck continued;
"But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining
influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully
prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are
witnessing its death - agonies, for when this bill becomes a law,
if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable
Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its
Constitutional powers."
Congressman Beck was talking about the 1933 Farm Bill.
The 1933 Farm Bill passed by a vote of more than three to one.
Wonder what the margin was in Germany for Hitler?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution for the United
States of America states that Congress shall have the power;
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
The "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law
of Trading With the Enemy" states;
"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This
prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse."
"By the general law of prize, property engaged in an illegal
intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no
consequence whether it belongs to an ally or to a citizen; the
illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and
attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership."
From The William Bagaley case of 1866;
"In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or
agency from the enemy executed after outbreak of war are illegal
and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war
are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships
with an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy,
with certain exceptions, laps; payments to the enemy (except to
agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and
confirmed since war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy
to sue in the courts are suspended."
The "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law
of Trading With the Enemy" further states;
"But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be
carried on without hurting somebody, even at times, our own
citizens. The public good, however must prevail over private
gain. As we said in Bishop vs. Jones (28 Texas, 294) there
cannot be 'a war for arms and a peace of commerce'. One of the
most important features of the bill is that which provides for
the temporary taking over of the enemy property."
This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the
temporary take-over of enemy property.
And who's the enemy?
Citizens of the United States, that's who!
Today, there are over 100 federal asset seizure laws in the United
States.
Finally,
"No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so
far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government,
and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to
sustain a persona stand in judicio."
NON PERSONA STAND IN JUDICIO
In other words, citizens of the United States have no personal rights
at law in court.
Citizens of the United States have no Constitutional rights they might
invoke.
There is no Great Writ of Liberty, Habeas Corpus, for citizens of the
United States.
This clause appears to have negated all contracts, even those between
private parties and, especially, those between government and its
enemies including, but not limited to, citizens of the United States.
"The right to thus occupy an enemy's country and temporarily
provide for its government has been recognized by previous action
of the executive authority, and sanctioned by frequent decisions
of this court. The local government being destroyed, the
conqueror may set up its own authority, and make rules and
regulations for the conduct of temporary government, and to that
end may collect taxes and duties to support the military
authority and carry on operations incident to the occupation."
Macleod v. U.S., 229 U.S. 416 (1913)
"The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory
of the enemy while in its military possession is one of the
incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer.
We therefore do not look to the Constitution or political
institutions of the conqueror for authority to establish a
government for the territory of the enemy in his possession,
during its military occupation, nor for the rules by which the
powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such
authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws of
war, as established by the usage of the world and confirmed by
the writings of publicists and decisions of courts, - in fine,
from the law of nations . . . . The municipal laws of a conquered
territory or the laws which regulate private rights, continue in
force during military occupation, except so far as they are
suspended or changed by the acts of the conqueror . . . . He,
nevertheless, has all the powers of a de facto government, and
can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new
ones." Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 (1901)
"The jurisdiction of the conqueror is complete. He may change
the form of government and the laws at his pleasure, and may
exercise every attribute of sovereignty. The conquered territory
becomes a part of the domain of the conqueror, subject to the
right of the nation to which it belonged to recapture it if they
can." Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 (1850)
"By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and
protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be
considered to all civil purposes as much an 'alien enemy' as if
he were born there." Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.
"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test
of an 'alien enemy' within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act
and Executive Orders thereunder." Executive Order March 11,
1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with
the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374. [emphasis
added]
"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as:
Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United
States was sufficient to characterize him as 'alien enemy' within
Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained
American citizenship." Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265,
142 N.J. Eq. 226.
"Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless
by the king's special favor, during time of war"; 1 Bla. Com 372;
Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166.
"He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an
alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary
allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile
character terminates also"; 1 B. & P. 163.
"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary
as: One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent." 1 Kent
73.
Remember Senate Report Number 113 and its discussion of "citizens of
belligerent".
Who is the belligerent?
The United States Government, that's who!
Abdication of the Supreme Court
The final adjudicator of the laws passed by the legislator and signed
by the President is the Supreme Court (Marbury v Madison).
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution for the United States of
America vests the judicial power of the United States in the supreme
Court and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish.
In United States vs. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), the Supreme Court
stated;
"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict
Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of the
government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money
from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means
in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating
agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment
Act."
In other words, the Supreme Court here was saying that a tax could
only be an exaction for the support of government and not an
expropriation from one group for the use of another. If such were the
case, we would have socialism.
Also;
"The regulation of farmer's activities under the statute, though
in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion through
economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a
farmer's consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no
better. At best it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds
submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the
states."
The Supreme Court is clearly stating that such regulation is obtained
through coercion.
The contracts are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an
inferior.
These adhesion contracts are under the belligerent capacity of
government over captives and enemies.
The Supreme Court appears to be stating that they are not valid
contracts.
"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in
support of the tax were accepted, this clause would not only
enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of
agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish
the means whereby all of the other provisions of the
Constitution, sedulously framed to define the limit of the powers
of the United States and preserve the powers of the states, could
be broken down, the independence of the individual states
obliterated, and the United States converted into a central
government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the
union superseding all local control over local concerns."
[emphasis added]
Can it be more clearly stated, and by no less an authority than the
Supreme Court itself?
The objective of Roosevelt's New Deal was to dissolve the sovereignty
of the individual states and what remained of the balance of power
upon which our Republic rests.
The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal and the
nationalization unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
The Supreme Court stated, in essence, that Roosevelt was turning the
federal government into an uncontrolled police state exercising
uncontrolled police power.
So what did Roosevelt do in return to save his precious New Deal and
his federal police state?
He stacked the Supreme Court and in 1937, United States vs. Butler was
overturned!
The 65th Congress during Woodrow Wilson's Presidency stated, 1st
Session, Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of
Laws of War, page 7, Clause II;
"The existence of war and the restoration of peace are to be
determined by the political department of the government, and
such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and
deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining
as a question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to
exist."
In other words, the courts will not hear the question of the exercise
of the war powers because they do not have jurisdiction.
The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of
the common laws. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and
we have no persona stand in judicio. We have no personal standing
under the law.
Further;
"When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into
operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will.
But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation
can exist in the court."
Now we jump ahead to Senate Report 93-549 which is referencing the
Vietnam War;
"In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a
fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the
President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the
separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon
again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal
resolutely with a serious national emergency."
As can be seen, the system of checks and balances is null and void.
The 10th Amendment preserved for the States, respectively, or to the
people those powers not granted to the United States by the
Constitution.
As can be seen, the 10th Amendment is, according to the Senate Report,
null and void.
The report, "The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to
Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States",
published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading
entitled the Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War,
stated;
"4. Should the President desire to utilize the services of the
Federal courts of the United States in promoting this purpose or
military undertaking, since these courts derive their
jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the
military establishment, they must secure from Congress the
necessary action to confer such jurisdiction upon said courts.
5. The laws and usages of war make a distinction between
enemies' property captured on the sea and property captured on
land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the Untied States over
property captured at sea is held not to attach to property
captured on land in the absence of Congressional action."
What this means is that, since confiscation of property on land is
booty and not prize, once war is declared, if the government is going
to confiscate property within the continental United States on the
land, it must obtain statutory authority from Congress and Congress
must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land
by positive Congressional action.
Continuing;
"The right of confiscation is a sovereign right. In times of
peace, the exercise of this right is limited and controlled by
the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government. In
times of war, when the right is exercised against enemies'
property as a war measure, such right becomes a belligerent
right, and as such is not subject to the restrictions imposed by
domestic institutions, but is regulated and controlled by the
laws and usages of war."
From this we see that our government acts in two capacities;
(a) in a peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it
by the Constitution and restrictions placed on the Constitution
by We the People, and
(b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its
belligerent capacity not limited by the Constitution, but only by
the laws of war.
Section 17 of the Act of October 5, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy
Act, states;
"That the district courts of the United States are hereby given
jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and
otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such
process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce
the provisions of this Act."
This means that Congress conferred upon the district courts of the
United States the jurisdiction over enemy property within the
continental United States in times of war or national emergency.
At the time of the original unamended, Trading With the Enemy Act, we
were, in fact, at war. Therefore, the booty jurisdiction over
enemies' property in the courts was appropriate.
Citizens of the United States were, as we have seen, originally
exempted from this 1917 Act.
The March 9th, 1933 Act amended the 1917 Act, however, and placed
citizens of the United States under the amended version of the Trading
With the Enemy Act.
"After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror
the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until
abrogated by the new sovereign." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1
Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In International Law -
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
In 1934, Congress passed an Act merging equity and law and abolishing
common law.
This Act was the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Act.
The Supreme Court initially refused transmittal which did not occur
until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938.
They did not come into effect until 6 months after the letter of
transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress.
It was no longer necessary to bring the Constitution for the United
States of America into the courtroom for the court was no longer a
court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court had previously decided that there was no federal
common law in Wheaton vs. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834).
A general federal civil commercial common law was established by the
Supreme Court, however, primarily at the backing of Justice Joseph
Story, to create uniformity in commercial disputes involving
negotiable instruments in federal and state courts in Swift v Tyson,
26 Peters 1 (1842).
As a result of the substance of the common law being used in commerce,
a jury trial was possible in the federal circuit courts.
The proceedings were strictly operated under the authority of Article
III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Swift v Tyson also assured a trial by jury in a civil cause between
states even if there was no gold standard in the future.
In 1938, the Roosevelt-stacked Supreme Court ruled in Erie Railroad v
Tompkins, 304 US 64, that there was no longer "general federal common
law."
The man who sued the railroad in Erie had no constitutional standing
because he did not know who he was.
As a 14th Amendment person, he was unable to invoke the general
federal commercial common law that still existed in the Republic for
protection.
He was thus thrust into an Article I legislative court which operated
outside the Constitution.
Remember the House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 which
suspended the fixed gold standard?
Erie Railroad was based on HJR 192 because the fixed standard of money
had been removed.
It was assumed that all citizens of the United States were in
contractual commerce of the private law merchant outside the
Constitution as allowed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
The fixed standard of money, $ 35.00 per troy ounce of weight and
fineness of money, had been removed. Gold was thus commoditized. It
became subject to the laws of supply and demand like any other
commodity.
The result was the ever-declining value of the Federal Reserve Bank
Note (inflation).
Money is now the only thing in the United States that has no fixed
standard.
The public debt now operates outside the "judicial power" of Article
III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
The judicial system appears to operate only under Article I and
Article IV as judicial functions, or administrative courts.
In these courts, every judge can render decisions based on his own
prejudices, not on constitutional law of the Republic.
They are immune from suit because they are exercising a judicial
function, as opposed to the judicial power of Article III, Section 2
of the Constitution.
As a result, the flag flown today in most American courtrooms is not
the American red, white and blue flag of 4 USC 1, but a gold fringed
flag of Admiralty jurisdiction, otherwise known as statutory
jurisdiction.
The Uniform Commercial Code has replaced the common law.
"There is no Federal Common Law, and Congress has no power to
declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State,
whether they be local or general in their nature, be they
commercial law or a part of the law or torts." Erie Railroad Co.
v. Tomkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed 1188.
The 50 States are now federal states by treaties and covenants of the
United Nations and GATT and other agreements. Oklahoma now operates
as the federal STATE OF OKLAHOMA. The federal states and their
citizens are subject to the World Bank.
The following is from the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS, 102d Congress, 2d Session, Exec. Rept. 102-23
January 30, 1992;
Page 6, # 5, obligations of Federal States ICCPR, January 30,
1992 states that obligations undertaken by the Parties extend to
all parts of federal states "without limitations or exceptions".
The Constitution of the United States no longer exists as a
working document due to the bankrupt de facto corporation, and as
a result of treaties and covenants made with foreign entities, as
a result of accepted privileges by the United States government
and the States.
The fifty States are no longer Sovereign individual Jurisdictions
subject to God Almighty.
In 1934 the States became sureties for the bankrupt United
States. After the United States joined the United Nations in
1945 the fifty States became federal states belonging to the one
world government. Its citizens are slaves and valuable only as
long as they can produce labor and products for sale on the world
market.
During the negotiation of the Covenant, the "federal state" issue
assumed some importance because there were legally justified
practices, at the State and local level, which were both
manifestly inconsistent with the Covenant and beyond the reach of
Federal authority under the law in force at that time; that is no
longer the case (see page 18).
The proposed understanding is similarly intended to signal to our
treaty partners that the U.S. will implement its obligations
under the Covenant by appropriate legislative, executive and
judicial means, federal or state as appropriate, and that the
Federal Government will remove any federal inhibition to the
States' abilities to meet their obligations (see page 18).
Nothing in the Covenant requires or authorizes legislation, or
other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the
Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United
States (see page 24).
Remember, this is all a result of the emergency powers.
They're not new to the country, either.
For instance, the following is from Gen. Orders No. 100 by President
Lincoln, April 24, 1863;
"Art. 13. Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that
which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is
derived from the common law of war.
"Art. 12. Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases
of individual offenders by Military Courts"
The second floor of the Supreme Court building, where higher law is
practiced, has purportedly been empty since 1933.
Supreme Court rule 45 recognizes Executive branch authority with its
admission that all process issues under the executive branch.
In other words, the Presidency has even captured and seized the
entirety of the judiciary.
Two years before the Declaration of Independence in 1776, our
forefathers penned the "Declaration of Rights".
We find these words in that document;
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British
Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of
America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts
expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various
pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath
imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a
board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and
extended the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only
for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes
merely arising within the body of a county."
Today, we have come full circle to the situation which existed in
1774.
The only difference is that, in 1774, Americans were protesting
against a colonial power which sought to bind and control its colony
by wartime powers in a time of peace.
Now, it is our own government which has sought, successfully to date,
to bind its own People by the same subtle, insidious methods.
It is in the process, each and every day, of solidifying its
stranglehold on its own citizens.
Public Policy and the Public Interest
The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 674, of 1862 stated;
"But in defining the meaning of the term 'enemies' property', we
will be led into error if we refer to Fleta or Lord Coke for
their definition of the word, 'enemy'. It is a technical phrase
peculiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles of public
policy as distinguished from the common law." [emphasis added]
From the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency;
"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Congress . . ."
Once the emergency is declared and the common law and the Constitution
are abolished, we fall under the absolute will of Government as
annunciated through public policy.
All government needs to continue is to have public opinion on its
side.
If public opinion can be maintained on the side of government,
statutes, laws and bills can continue to be passed.
The Constitution has no meaning and offers no protection since it is
suspended.
To be clear, we are not under law. The Law of the Land was seized
over 60 years ago. Law has been abolished.
We're under a system of public policy.
We're under the War Powers.
Hence, when you go to court with your Constitution and the common law
in your hand, what are you told by the judge?
You are told that you have NO PERSONA STAND IN JUDICIO!
You have no personal standing at law.
He tells you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court,
because it is not a Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal
operating under a totally different jurisdiction.
Your only remedy is if statutory authority, such as 42 USC 1983,
recognizes protections secured by the Constitution.
Your remedy then is still not as a result of the Constitution itself,
but is because of statute which recognizes the protections of the
Constitution.
It is important to understand that statutes which provide remedies
because of violations of protections secured by the Constitution can
also withdraw the remedies, and, thereby, the Constitutional
protections, should the statute be revoked by Congress or not enforced
by the Judiciary.
An example may be seen in my particular situation.
Section 3. of the Commodity Exchange Act is titled, "NECESSITY FOR
REGULATION" and states;
"Transactions in commodities involving the sale thereof for
future delivery as commonly conducted on boards of trade and
known as 'futures' are affected with a national public interest.
Such futures transaction are carried on in large volume by the
public generally and by persons engaged in the business of buying
and selling commodities and the products and by-products thereof
in interstate commerce. The prices involved in such transactions
are generally quoted and disseminated throughout the United
States and in foreign countries as a basis for determining the
prices to the producer and the consumer of commodities and the
products and by-products thereof and to facilitate the movements
thereof in interstate commerce. Such transactions are utilized
by shippers, dealers, millers, and others engaged in handling
commodities and the products and by-products thereof in
interstate commerce, rendering regulation imperative for the
protection of such commerce and the national public interest
therein.
In Section 4l, we see;
"It is hereby found that the activities of commodity trading
advisors and commodity pool operators are affected with a
national public interest in that, among other things -
(1) their advice, counsel, publications, writings, analyses,
and reports are furnished and distributed, and their
contracts, solicitations, subscriptions, agreements, and
other arrangements with clients take place and are
negotiated and performed by the use of the mails and other
means and instumentalities of interstate commerce . . . "
None of this, of course, is consistent with the intent of the Founding
Fathers or the original, de jure documents which spoke very eloquently
of how the Creator granted unalienable rights to the People and how
government was conceived to protect the People's individual and Sacred
unalienable Rights.
Individual State Constitutions are even more explicit.
The Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, for example, quite clearly
states that government was conceived to protect We the People's
unalienable Rights.
Return of Property
The principal that governs property seized under emergency provisions
is that the property must be returned when the emergency is declared
over.
Document No. 43 of 1933, "Contracts Payable in Gold", states;
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State;
individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of government,
i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance
with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
Who owns all the property you call "yours"?
Who has the authority to mortgage property?
A Supreme Court decision, United States vs Russell, is instructive;
"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation . . . "
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond
all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war of
immediate and impending public danger, in which private property
may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or
appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the
consent of the owner . . . "
The first citation is the peacetime protection secured by the
Constitution.
The second citation is today's reality of the war powers and the law
of necessity as stated by the Supreme Court itself.
We are the chattel. We have become the collateral. Our rights were
suspended along with the Constitution. We have no rights. We have
become the chattel property of the corporate government. Our
transactions and obligations are the collateral for the issuance of
Federal Reserve bank notes.
It is thus no wonder that credit became available after the
Depression. The credit was needed to back our new monetary system and
was backed by our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs and the
entirety of our existence.
Codification
If the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on
March 9, 1933 is still law today, it should be recorded in the United
States Code.
There are 50 Titles in the United States Code today. The section on
banking is in Title 12. If we turn to 12 USC 95 (b), we will find a
law which reads;
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and
proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or
issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of
the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the amended
12 USCS sec 95a, are hereby approved and confirmed."
"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and
proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or
issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of
the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October
6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."
Title 1, Section 1 of the Trading with the Enemy Act of March 9, 1933
is reproduced in the second paragraph above.
The words common to both are underlined for clarification.
Again, 12 USC 95 (b) is current law and part of the United States Code
today.
It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the
Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or anything that the
President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do,
is automatically approved and confirmed.
In other words, it is the current law governing citizens of the United
States that . . .
. . . THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY SINCE 1933 AND
REMAINS IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY TODAY !!!
We are still under the Rule of Necessity and have been for over 60
years.
The Public Papers of Herbert Hoover stated;
"That those speculators and insiders were right was plain enough
later on. This first contract of the 'moneychangers' with the
New Deal netted those who removed their money from the country a
profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was debased."
The Power of the Secretary of the Treasury
Here is a submission of January 28, 1993;
"Lloyd Bentson, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the
International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor
of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for
a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American
Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the
African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of
the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development
Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development." Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.
At the same time, 12 USC 7, Banks and Banking, provides;
"Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other
provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time
regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes
of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions
under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers
or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and
the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting,
denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be
final."
Doesn't this appear as just a bit of a conflict of interest to you?
Whose interests is the Secretary of the Treasury representing?
Those of the United States, those of the various international
organizations, or those of the internationalists?
Perhaps we see the true answer by the actions of current Secretary of
the Treasury and former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin.
When Rubin's Goldman Sachs buddies were hemorraging in Mexico a few
years ago, Rubin willingly committed several tens of billions of
dollars of public money guarantees to bail out his buddies' bad
investments.
And was it really any surprise in early 1996 when Rubin miraculously
"found" $ 18 Billion to break the budget freeze of the Congressional
class of 1994?
The bond market went straight downhill for 6 months afterwards.
And the Republican Congress really believed it controlled the purse
strings!
Foreign Involvement
Why did the international bankers allow our nation to over extend so
much and not cut us off earlier?
Obviously, in 1934, they could have called in the debts and seized the
whole country.
Is the United States being used by the international bankers for the
purpose of loaning money to third world and other countries with the
objective of enslaving them as we are so enslaved?
Is our military might being used to control unruly countries and to
collect the debt?
Is One World Order the eventual purpose of this scheme?
Before you answer, consider Congressman McFadden's speech to Congress
as recorded in the Congressional Record, June 14, 1934;
"I hope that is the case, but I may say to the gentleman that during
the sessions of this Economic Conference in London there is another
meeting taking place in London. We were advised by reports from
London last Sunday of the arrival of George L. Harrison, Governor of
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and we were advised that
accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor, and James P.
Warburg, of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family, of New York and Hamburg,
Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the pay of Great
Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr. Norman,
Governor of the Bank of England, and now supposed to represent our
Treasury. These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of
England for a private conference, taking their luggage with them,
before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been
taking place for the past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of
England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the Bank of England
and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and
the head of the Bank of France, Mr. Maret. They are discussing war
debts; they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal
Reserve System, I may say to the Members of the House.
"The Federal Reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our
premier, who is dealing with debts behind the closed doors of the Bank
of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by
O. M. W. Sprague, who until the last 10 days was the representative of
the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the son of
the principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are
being settled behind the closed doors of the Bank of England by this
group. No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the
Congress passed amendments to the Federal Reserve Act and that the
President signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve
System the complete total financial resources of money and credit in
the United States. Apparently the domination and control of the
international banking group is being strengthened."
Senate Report of 1973
Despite the clear and convincing evidence, many will not be able to
accept the undeniable findings and conclusions presented herein.
If there be any remaining doubt about the story told in this report,
however, it is dispelled by Senate Report 93-549 of 1973 the
introduction of which states;
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all
their lives under emergency rule . . . "
and
"For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by
the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws
brought into force by states of national emergency . . . "
and
"And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in
times of great crises have - from, at least, the Civil War - in
important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state
of national emergency."
Is this what you were taught in school?
Or was government teaching you and your children of our cherished
beliefs and Constitutional protections while knowing, at the very same
time, we have no such protections and haven't had for generations?
The first sentence of the 1973 Senate Report states;
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state
of declared national emergency."
This is the United States Senate speaking.
It is saying that for the last 60 years, the United States has been,
in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.
Senator Frank Church, D-Idaho, specifically stated;
"These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President
total authority to do anything he pleased."
Remember, we have seen that no Constitutional protections exist during
a state of declared national emergency.
Contracts are cancelled and citizens of the United States, have non
persona stand in judicio.
The middle of the report stated;
"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough
authority to rule the country without reference to normal
constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these
statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control
the means of production; seize commodities, assign military
forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all
transportation and communication; regulate the operation of
private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of
particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
At the time of this report in 1973, this condition had been in
existence for 40 years.
Where had these guys been?
Did they truly mean to state that they were just discovering the
consequences of their own handiwork?
As of this writing, the condition has now been in effect for over 60
years.
Can any present or future Congressman or Senator claim to be ignorant
of how government actually works, especially since the Senate clearly
admitted to the emergency condition in 1973?
The Senate further admitted how the emergency condition was instituted
against the American People;
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly
found in the Act, was deleted from Sec. 5 (b) at this time."
As we have seen, the deletion was that which included "any person" as
an Enemy of the United States and deleted the "other citizen of the
United States" exemption originally contained in the October 6, 1917
Act.
The time of the deletion specified in the Senate report was March 9,
1933.
With respect to our Constitutional Rights;
"Under this procedure we retain Government by law - special,
temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know
the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be
asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute
of their rights and duties."
In other words and as we have seen, the only reason citizens of the
United States have any rights at all is because they have been
statutorily declared through the Legislature (Congress) and signed
into Law by the President.
In reality, citizens of the United States thus have no Rights at all,
only privileges and benefits granted to them.
In return for these privileges, Duties are spelled out.
If you violate the orders of the statutes, you are not charged with a
crime, but with an offense. A statutory offense.
Such is further seen from the following discourse;
Mr. Katzenbach;
"My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued
straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the
Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so
broad, it would justify almost anything."
and
Justice Clark;
"Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court,
you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the
litigant. But I don't think it has reached the point, presently,
that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits."
Senator Church;
"What you're saying, then, is that if Congress doesn't act to
standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no
one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest."
NON PERSONA STAND IN JUDICIO - no personal standing in the courts!
Permanency of the Emergency
The 1973 Senate Report contained this self-description in its title;
"Enormous Scope of Powers . . . A Time Bomb"
Senator Church stated;
"Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of
delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of
conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than
their original intension . . . Machiavelli, in his 'Discourses of
Livy', acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the
Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers
in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be
conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted,
and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt
the people."
Senate Report 93-549 further stated;
"The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the fact that
it created a permanent agency designed to eradicate an emergency
condition in the sphere of agriculture."
Agriculture was not the only area in which a permanent agency was
created.
As the same Senate Report stated in the "Emergency Administration"
section;
"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was
Roosevelt's general polity to assign new, emergency functions to
newly created agencies, rather than to already existing
departments."
These agencies, which now number in the many hundreds, if not
thousands, and which now control every aspect of our lives, were
ostensibly created as temporary agencies meant to last only as long as
the national emergency itself. They have become, in fact, permanent
agencies, as has the state of the national emergency itself.
Each now possesses emergency functions to rule us in all cases
whatsoever and govern each and every aspect of our daily lives.
The Attorney General of the United States stated in a May 21, 1973
reply regarding a study by the Department of Justice on the question
of termination of the standing national emergency;
"As a consequence, a 'national emergency' is now a practical
necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and
normal method of governmental actions. What we intended by
Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most
extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have
become every day powers, and a state of 'emergency' has become a
permanent condition."
Our Constitution has been set aside, ostensibly for the public good,
until the emergency is cancelled.
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said,
"We will never go back to the old order."
If Roosevelt is correct, this means we will never return to the
protections of Constitutional government, the cherished principles of
the Founding Fathers, and will never exercise or experience our Sacred
unalienable Rights.
Your children will literally grow up in a police state and Big Brother
WILL be watching!
As Senator Church said;
"If the President can create crimes by fiat without congressional
approval, our system is not much different from that of the
Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence."
And this was over 20 years ago!
It is ironic that, at a time when the wall came down in Berlin in
1989, the American People were unable to see the Walls which had been
erected in their own country over recent decades.
Do you now see why it doesn't matter whether we elect Republicans,
Democrats or Independents?
Do you also understand why these times have become so dangerous?
Big Government and the international bankers have no alternative but
to either surrender their franchise or use their powers to expand its
hold on other nations.
Just as Sam Walton discovered a secret formula which enabled Wal Mart
to establish its franchise in every town across America, so is the
United States Government today using its franchise to extend debt to
third world nations, create a false prosperity, withdraw the credit,
and then claim the foreclosed assets. It's happening in one country
after another.
The United States Government has become both the Lender of Last
Resort, World Debt Collector and Police Enforcer of it all.
Don't believe me?
Let's take another look at all that authority granted the Secretary of
the Treasury.
To those who become aware of the collusion and deception of the
Federal Reserve Board, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 73rd
Congress, and all willing participants since, such words as "Land of
the Free, Home of the Brave" will now and forever ring a bit hollow.
For many, such words will not only ring hollow, but will serve as
bitter reminders of the chains which shackle both their own and the
freedoms and liberties of loved ones.
Such words will be especially painful for those who have lost loved
ones or sacrificed greatly in the name of "our county" in such
incursions as Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, Lebanon, Waco, Serbia, or . . .
It's just like the rapidly changing weather in Oklahoma.
. . . a short wait should produce another "vital interest" we need to
bomb into oblivion so that we may then rescue the devastation and
clear our conscience with the bankers' billions.
Can We Ever Reclaim Our Full Constitutional Protections?
We already know that, in order to terminate the extraordinary powers,
the national emergency itself must be cancelled.
As Section 13 of the Agricultural Act declared;
"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President
finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in
relation to agriculture itself has ended."
In other words, it is action of the President himself that is required
to terminate the national emergency.
From Senate Report 93-549;
"Furthermore, it would be a largely futile task unless we have
the President's active collaboration. Having delegated this
authority to the President - in ways that permit him to determine
how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping
emergency declarations alive - we now find ourselves in a
position where we cannot reclaim the power without the
President's acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these
declarations without the President's signature, so we need a
large measure of Presidential cooperation."
It is important to realize that Congress abdicated its authority to
revoke the powers on its own. It's part of the Great Illusion.
Congress simply has no power to revoke the powers, having given the
authority to the President.
Hence, if no President is willing to sign the termination
proclamation, the access to and usage of the extraordinary powers does
not terminate.
Obviously, no President in over 60 years has been willing to give up
this extraordinary power.
In Senate Report 93-549, Mr. Katzenbach stated;
"My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued
straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the
Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so
broad, it would justify almost anything."
An example is provided by Executive Order No. 11677 issued by
President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 which stated;
"Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority
vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of the
United States, including Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued
existence of the national emergencies . . . "
Later, same Executive Order;
" . . . under the authority vested in me as President of the
United States by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 95a) . . . "
What has been and is being done by our government under the cloak of
authority conferred by Section 5(b)? Vince Foster? Ron Brown?
Just what type of acts can "almost anything" cover?
Juanita Broadderick? Watergate? Filegate? Chinagate?
We've already established by the capture of Manuel Noriega and removal
to the United States for trial that removing the Head of State of
another Sovereign Nation is not beyond the bounds of authority of "our
government".
We've already established by the assault on the Sovereign nation of
Yugoslavia that a military assault in violation of the United Nations
Charter and the Geneva Convention is not beyond the bounds of
authority of "our government".
We've already established through the commando attacks at Waco, Ruby
Ridge, Malibu, and other such incidents that a military assault
against We the People is not beyond the limitations of "our
government".
In short, "our government" appears to have sent a very loud and clear
message to the nations of the world and its domestic enemies, citizens
of the United States, that "our government" is willing to do anything
required to protect its franchise.
When a President such as Bill Clinton finds that he can invoke the
power of the United States Military in such incursions as Somalia,
Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Serbia and command the nation's
media through the power of license to support his incursions and sway
public opinion, why should we expect that such power will ever be
peacefully yielded when the holder has the ability to deflect public
criticism from other issues (Chinagate) and secure his place in
history?
Further, when have you ever seen the emergency War Powers the main
subject of a Presidential campaign?
How many times have citizens of the United States proffered such
demand?
Final Senate Report
The Senate finally completed its study of the national emergencies in
1976.
Public Law 94-412 of September 14, 1976 stated that they would
terminate the existing national emergencies.
At first, we would expect that citizens of the United States should be
able to heave a sigh of relief knowing that the termination of the
national emergencies came with the corresponding termination of the
extraordinary Presidential powers.
We have seen, however, that such powers, once attained, are hard to
let go.
It should come as no surprise that instead of terminating the
emergency, the Congress, once again, defrauded citizens of the United
States.
The proof is undeniably seen, in the 1990s, by the fact that 12 USC 95
is still part of the United States Code.
How did this happen?
In the very last section of the Public Law 94-412, Section 502, we
read the following words;
"(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following
provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby
and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5(b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a; 50 U.S.C. App. 5b)"
The Great Masters of Illusion.
At the same time Congress was saying one thing, it was doing another.
Citizens of the United States had, again, been had!
The Great Illusion of 1933 had been repeated.
The situation had not changed at all.
Citizens of the United States were once again defrauded.
And what has the media been providing us?
As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the "Titanic" has
recently become a media sensation as the story of the sinking of the
ship has turned into a media event.
Of the stories of the early 20th century available to be told,
however, the media has once again diverted the attention of the public
from the one true event which affects us all to this very day.
When you know the sickening truth of the Great Illusion, it is like
having to stand by and watch your children be molested.
Asset Forfeiture
Now we come to perhaps the most odious aspect of this entire paper.
Remember Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution for the
United States of America which states that Congress shall have the
power;
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
What is a letter of Marque?
"A commission granted by the government to a private individual,
to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an
injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The
prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the
privateer, the captain, and the crew"
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914
We return to the 1921 the Supreme Court decision Stoehr vs. Wallace,
255 U.S;
"The Trading with the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is
strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision
empowering Congress 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and
reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water'
Const. Art. I, Sect. 8, cl. 11. P. 241".
Now consider the following;
"The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may
require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or
otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish
under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to
time and at any time or times, complete information relative to,
any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917." Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.
If this is not sufficiently stunning for you, then consider President
William Jefferson Clinton's Executive Order of June 6, 1994 in which
Clinton delegated the Alphabet agencies their own power to obtain
money and the military if need be to protect themselves.
Remember, these are unelected officials.
"The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the
authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other
delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or
hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6,
1917, as amended (12 USC 95a)"
Clinton delegated power to the unelected officials of these agencies,
including the IRS, FBI, DEA, ATF, and so on, that he was granted as a
result of the 1996 elections.
How can Clinton declare that power cannot be taken away from these
unelected officials by either the voters, the courts or the Congress?
Obviously, through martial law under the War Powers Act.
Summary
On October 6, 1917, at the beginning of America's involvement in World
War I, Congress passed a Trading With the Enemy Act empowering the
government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or
business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within
our continental borders. That Act also defined the term "enemy" and
excluded from that definition citizens of the United States.
In Section 5(b) of this Act, the President was given unlimited
authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies,
but credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the
United States were excluded from that controlling authority. As
transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority,
the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business
conducted by the citizens of the United States because citizens of the
United States were certainly not enemies.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in
1917 and the transactions conducted by citizens of the United States
within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions.
On March 9, 1933, citizens of the United States, in all their
domestic, daily, and commercial transactions, became the same as the
enemy.
Section 2 of the Act removed the phrase excluding wholly domestic
transactions from the amended vision and replaced the phrase with "by
any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the
jurisdiction thereof."
The President of the United States, through licenses or any other
form, was given the power to regulate and control the actions of
enemies.
He made citizens of the United States, chattel property; he seized our
gold, our property and our rights; he suspended the Constitution.
We know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations
issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of
the Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress.
We have seen how the Congress abdicated its responsibility and how
Roosevelt captured and corrupted the Supreme Court.
We have seen how the United States Government, and not the Government
of the United States specified in the Constitution, has become an
international thug as it executes the wishes of the internationalists
in the American People's name.
Conclusion
People today know that something's not right.
They know we don't use lawful, Constitutional money.
They know the number of people in prisons has doubled in the last
decade and is now the highest per capita rate in the world.
They know that Americans are paying the highest percentage of their
income in combined taxes at all levels ever - and this at a time of
"peace".
They know that a single family wage earner simply cannot make it
today.
They worry about what their children are being taught in government's
schools and are tired of being told they have to accept values they
despise and don't want their children to learn.
To most of them, their only contact with the federal government is
with the Internal Revenue Service each year who they both fear and
despise.
They don't understand why it takes 41 bullets to subdue an unarmed
Citizen in New York City or why 5 people were killed by government
storm troopers in a city as placid as Tulsa this past year.
They don't quite understand why the City of Tulsa, for instance, needs
an armored personnel carrier or how the United Nations has become
Protectorate of American lands.
They wonder why, in a city such as Tulsa, some local police wear army
combat boots while others display gold-fringed American flags on their
sleeves.
Is Congress aware?
Let's look at a speech on the House floor by Congressman Traficant,
March 17, 1993;
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress
are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization
of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government."
Those who have read this report will be able to begin to address the
hereinabove concerns.
Herein are not the only answers, but, nevertheless, they are answers.
The first step is to unveil the illusion.
The great federal government truly has no clothes!
To re-establish law and order and restore protections secured by the
Constitution for the United States of America, Proclamation 2039,
2040, and Title 12 USC 95(a) and 95 (b) need to be repealed, thereby
cancelling the National Emergency and re-establishing the Constitution
of this nation.
"When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into
operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will.
But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation
can exist in the court."
Need I bring to your attention that We the People are still the ONLY
Sovereign authority in this country?
Sincerely,
Frank Anthony, Taucher, Jr.