WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS
RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY:
Gene Schroder Aivin Jenkins Jerry Russell Ed Petrowsky Russell Grieder Darrell Schroder Walter Marston Lynn Bitner Billy Schroder Van Stafford Fred Peters Tinker Spain Paul Bailey
All words or phrases enclosed in brackets[ ] throughout this book, and the entire
Further Commentary section,
are editing by the reviewer.
["The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists"
J. Edgar Hoover, long time Director of the FBI]
AMERICAN AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT
Box 130 Campo, Colo 81029
[ADDRESS NO LONGER VALID]
"Study the Constitution. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice."
! Abraham Lincoln
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"
! John Adams
"I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent an sudden usurpations..."
! James Madison
A word from the [original] Editor:
We must give a special thanks to the men who have spent years of their lives bringing this information to the public; and we must not forget the women who are not always in the foreground but without whose undying support and endurance this effort would be impossible. These men and women are true Patriots; they not only need your support but deserve it. Let us remember that the word Patriot as defined by Webster's Dictionary as "fellow countryman; a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country". Not everyone can afford to give the long hours of those on the front lines; many others fear their government. Isn't it an outrage that the actions of our own government leaders causes many to not trust them? Where have we gone? How much is your freedom worth? If you can not give your time, please give your support. The American Agriculture Movement and many other organizations need your help to continue their efforts to bring about the Restoration of this Nation. A few dollars a month, in the form of purchasing information to pass on to others, is not too much to ask. Wouldn't it be a tragedy to lose their efforts, from which we will all gain so much, because they were twenty dollars short, and we failed to do our part? Please, become involved; this movement is too important not to do so. We need this Report in the hands of all Americans, so we are not going to copyright it; therefore, permission is hereby granted to reproduce this Report in its entirety. We do ask, however, that you lend your support, if possible, by purchasing an original Report to make copies from so that the quality will be maintained. Thank you.- Paul Bailey
To be able to call oneself "American" has long been a source of pride for those fortunate enough to live in this great land. The word "America" has always been synonymous with strength in the defense of our highest ideals of liberty, justice and opportunity, not only for ourselves, but for those throughout the world less fortunate than we.
America's greatest strength has always been her people, individuals laying their differences aside to work in partnership to achieve common goals. In our greatest moments, it has been our willingness to join together and work as long and as hard as it takes to get the job done, regardless of the cost, that has been the lifeblood of our great land.
From America's inception, we have been a nation of innovators unfettered by hidebound convention, a safe harbor for captains unafraid to boldly chart a new course through untried waters. This courage to dare greatly to achieve great things has made our nation strong and proud, a leader of men and of nations from the very first days of her birth. And since the days of her birth, millions of men and women whose hearts yearn for freedom and the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families have journeyed, often enduring terrible hardship, to our shores to add their skills and their dreams to the great storehouse of hope known as America.
The Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, the Pioneers - the brave men and women who have fought and endured to the end in wars both civil and international - this history of heroism and dedication in defense of ideals both personal and national has long been a treasured legacy of bravery and determination against all odds which we have handed down like family heirlooms from generation to generation.
For we are like family, we Americans, often quarrelling among ourselves but banding together in times of adversity to support one another and fight side by side against a common foe threatening our way of life. This bold and brash, brave young land has long given its best and brightest to lead our country to its lofty position in the world as a bastion of freedom and a beacon of hope for all the peoples of the Earth.
For many, the dreams they had for America were dreams they never lived to see fulfilled, but it mattered not to them, for their vision for this nation was meant to last longer and to loom larger than a mere mortal lifespan. Our national vision of integrity and responsibility, of concern for one's fellow man, the flame inside that demands of us that we shall not rest until there is peace and justice for all - these are the fundamental stones which form the strong foundation of our national purpose and identity.
And on this foundation rests, not only the hopes of those blessed to live in this great land, but the hopes of millions throughout the word who believe in, and strive for, a better life for themselves and their children. For hundreds of years, the knowledge that America was there - proud, generous, steadfast, courageous - willing and able to enter the fray wherever human rights were threatened or denied, has given many who may never see her shores the will to endure despite the pain, to continue trying against sometimes insurmountable odds.
Yet without vigilance and constant tender care, even the strongest foundation shows the effects of stress and erosion. Even the most imposing edifice can eventually crumble and fall. So it is with nations, and with a nation's spirit.
We have seen in this second half of the twentieth century great advances in technology which have impacted every aspect of modern life. Ironically, though we are living in the "age of communication", it often seems as if we have less time now to talk or listen. For most, modern conveniences haven't gotten them off the treadmill; they have only made the treadmill go faster.
Quietly, yet rapidly, the small town values of community and common purpose are vanishing. Instead of strength in numbers, we as a nation are increasingly being split into smaller and smaller competing factions, with the cry of "every man for himself" ringing through the land. It seems that the phrase, "divide and conquer" has taken the place of, "One nation under God indivisible, with truth and justice for all". Americans are retreating behind the locked doors of their individual homes, afraid to enjoy the sunset for fear of the darkness it brings.
When and where did it all begin to crumble? How and why has America, which once was a nation whose strength united was so much more than the sum of its total parts, begin to break apart into bitterly opposing special interest groups? What will this frightening pattern of disintegration mean to the future of America and of those who live within her shores? Let it be remembered, and remembered well, the words of the Holy Bible: "a house divided against itself cannot stand". And let us not flinch from facing the truth that we have become a nation desperately divided.
With the long legacy of pride, determination, and strength in unity, how has it now come to this, that we are fighting ourselves? Finally, and most vitally important of all, what can we do to turn the tide before the values and opportunities which others before us fought and died to preserve are washed
away in the flood to come?
What you are about to see is the result of years of painstaking and meticulous research on the part of dedicated Americans gravely concerned for this nation's future. Please listen closely and give your undivided attention to this presentation, for our future as individuals and free citizens of this mighty land depends upon it.
We are not here to showcase personalities -the speakers could be any one of you here today. We are , first and last, concerned Americans much like yourselves, taking our stand in defense of the nation we love. Much effort has been expended, and great hardships endured, by the American Agricultural Movement and many other organizations and individuals to bring this information to the public forum.
There is a wealth of information about many of the problems we face as a nation today, written from a variety of viewpoints. But as with a deadly illness, there is usually a point of origin, from which the threat first was given life. So it is with the threat we as Americans face today - an illness which could prove fatal if we do not act quickly and in concert to cure the body politic before it dies from the disease within.
Almost all the problems we are facing today can be traced back to a single point of origin, in a time of national trouble and despair. It was at this point, when our nation struggled for its survival, that the Constitution of the the United States of America was effectively cancelled. We are in a State of Emergency!
We are going to begin with a series of documents which are representative (Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from in many cases, reports, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.
Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by Swisher called Constitutional Development. Let's read the first paragraph. It says,
"We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established," said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, "whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged."
How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we'd have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't we? Justice Hughes goes on to say,
"The conflict known as the World War had 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."
What is this man talking about when he speaks of" war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in operation"?
In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states,
"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 is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say,
"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."
What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution.
The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report.
In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads,
"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."
Let's go back to Exhibit 9 just before this. What did that say? It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.
Referring to the middle of this exhibit:
"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"
and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.
In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule."
Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to say:
"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."
The introduction continues:
"And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a peranent state of national emergency."
How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in school? Amazing, isn't it?
Where does this (Exhibit 12) come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America, we find 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."
Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty. This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.
In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Exhibit 13), it says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...".
We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn't we? We didn't give that power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the United States with a crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don't order it, the government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn't they? They could not hold us.
[In reference to the above, "the government" rarely uses the Grand Jury to investigate a situation and issue indictments against people who are reasonably likely to have been involved in a real crime. The government more often brings up "informations" for use by the wayward courts against people who often have committed no real crime. This means that government investigators can have someone charged and tried without the proper mechanism which was designed to prevent unnecessary legal proceedings, or proceedings brought for less than real, common law reasons.
But the government has taken control over the Grand Jury system, carefully not informed the people on the Grand Jury of their rightful powers and duties. The liars have converted this once-great bastion of liberty into a rubber stamp for unnecessary trials.]
But let us recall that, in Exhibit 13, it says:
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of War or public danger...".
We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend [certain of] the guarantees of the Constitution.
Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 14), and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they're talking about these emergency powers and they say:
"They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus."
Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved.
But once it was done, the Constitution was to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it's called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.
If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in existence. And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to Section 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), we will find a law 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 Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9,1933, c. 1, Title I, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)".
Now, what does this mean? 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. Referring back to Exhibit 10, let us remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95 (b) is current law. This is the law that exists over this United States right this moment, today 1994 .
If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What happened on March the 4th of l933?
On March the 4th of l933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address, which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read (Exhibit 16):
"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures 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."
On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural. President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let's see if he got it.
On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.
In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 17), it 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."
What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the Act as "imperatively necessary speedily"? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of self-defense. The law says, "Thou shalt not kill". But also know that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.
Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.
In the Act of March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17), it further states in Title 1, Section 1:
"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."
Where have we read those words before?
This is the exact same wording as is found (Exhibit 15) today in Title 12, USC 95 (b). The language in Title 12, USC 95 (b) is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the Rule of Necessity. We are still in a declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency which has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty [seventy] years.
As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 18), we see that at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:
"An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."
By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War I; at that point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the continental borders of our nation in a time of war.
Therefore, Congress passed this Act which identified who could be declared enemies of the United States, and, in this Act, we gave the government [or rather the government took] total authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the page:
"other than citizens of the United States."
The Act specifically excluded citizens of the United States, because we realized in 1917 that the citizens of the United States were not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this Act.
Section 5 (b) of the same Act (Exhibit 19), states:
"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)".
Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers of this Act. We, the People, were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our enemies.
It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies. Consequently the government, under the war powers of this Act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution [even in a time of declared war]. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the United States will become crucial later on.
In Section 2 of the Act of March 9.1933 (Exhibit 17),
"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;"
So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let's look at how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis is ours):
"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 earnarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
What just happened? As far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. [Also] Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the United States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." 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.
To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 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, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that 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 we were certainly not enemies.
Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The people 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. We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President..". So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of "national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 17)
"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."
What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.
[Many people are beginning to realize the depth of the fraud that has been perpetrated upon us. Often, the lie can be exposed by a full understanding of the terminology being used. It is time to expose another legal trick. In the quote above and earlier, of the legal trick is, "Any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof". In the case of the federal government, the only places it ever directly controlled (with any legitimacy) were and are federal properties. These include Washington, D. C., the U. S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rice, Guam, American Samoa, and possibly a few others. It was never intended that the federal government would have any regular contact with, much less control over, the States or the people. Once the feds overstepped that boundary, and began regulating the States and the people directly, it became an outlaw government. A further explanation is available in the "Further Commentary section.]
In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 20), Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, at:
"48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from
Sect. 5 (b) at this time."
Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.
Now let's find out about the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 21), Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:
"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".
Remember your Constitution? "Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies," all rules.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 22), remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:
"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not
limited to mere commercial intercourse."
This is the case of The Rapid (1814).
"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 standi injudicio".
In other words, they have no personal rights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813),
In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 23), we read the words:
"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 belong 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".
Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:
"The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause he embarks".
Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 24):
"The produce of the soil of the hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner".
From the case (Exhibit 25) of The William Bagaley (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, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended."
From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 26), in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:
"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 belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill."
It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all intercourse is illegal.
That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 22, wasn't it? So once we were declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. We are certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Drivers License, which gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?
Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law: (Exhibit 27)
"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 v. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be "a war for arms and a peace for 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. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned - mustn't it?
The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent right of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, "I'm seizing your ship." Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.
[Note that, after a war is over, even enemy property must be returned, presuming it was not lost during the war. As proof of bad intent by "our" government, during World War II, Americans of Japanese ancestry were illegally rounded up and imprisoned. Further, their property was confiscated. After the war, the captives were set free without so much as an apology. But their property was almost never returned to them. We can count on more such actions by "our" government in the near future, as the false "war" on terrorism takes on new dimensions. More on the fraud of terrorism later.]
Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written in 1933:
"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 use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:
"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation .. . ."
That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis is ours),
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or 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.. .."
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.
[The Federal Reserve is first discussed here. Most people have no idea what this institution is or what it's real function is. So please note the following:
First, the FED was created by false legislation. The Congress had recessed for the Christmas break, but a few insiders waited behind, and "passed" the Federal Reserve Act without most Congressmen knowing anything about it. Eustice Mullens has published many books and articles on the subject of this fraud. Another proof of conspiracy is The Creature From Jekyl Island.
Now, the facts. The "Federal Reserve Bank" is a private corporation, created by fraud, literally in the dark of night. Many believe it was created so Congress could escape the "hard money" clause in the Constitution which prohibits the use of paper money.(Article I, Section 10).
The stated purpose for the FED was to prevent "boom and bust" cycles in the economy, which is probably the reason Congress allowed the fraud committed when they were almost all absent to exist. But, during the "roaring twenties", the FED proved that it was either incompetent or was intentionally doing the opposite of its stated purpose, as it produced paper "bank notes" far in excess of any money on deposit. This is classic inflation by intention. The artificial credit prosperity caused the false prosperity of the 1920's. But, in 1929, the FED began constricting the amount of paper currency available. This caused the market crash and the Depression that followed. The banksters allied with the FED not only knew it was coming, so they could profit by the crash, they caused untold misery and loss for the people who were supposed to be protected from boom and bust cycles.
Note that it was the recommendation of the central banks which FDR used as the excuse for the War and Emergency Powers Act. This was a classic case of "create a crisis, and then offer yourself as the solution." The (fraudulent) government of the United States uses this type of trickery as a habit.
Another bit of information that seems so simple, once one looks at the issue from a thoughtful angle, is this: How could the nation "go broke", owing tons of money to a corporation that the government created to stabilize the economy? The concept, properly viewed is ridiculous. But we are living under the results of that big lie to this very day.]
Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4,1933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.
On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 30) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:
"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency..."
In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act 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 we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.
Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, "People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency."
How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 31):
"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 ..."
In other words. President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time?
Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution (Exhibit 31), we find a 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 earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * * "
Now, in any normal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a fraudulent use of the American language. At that point where that, * * * " began, what did the original Act of October 6,1917, say?
Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917 says:
"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."
This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from taking control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't it?
However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917, as amended on March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17):
"by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and "any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act. Further, we can now see that the usage of * * * " was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.
Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution.
Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the United States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions were "neither justified nor necessary" (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088) . Let us see what happened; remember on March 4,1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9,1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 32:
"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 communication as may be made by the Executive."
On the next day, March 6,1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of Exhibit 32. In Exhibit 32, we find the following:
"Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding"
Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an "unwarranted" manner. Remember, the people of the United States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my gold as I needed for my family and myself a "warranted" action. But the decision was not left up to We, the People.
It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the "purpose of hoarding". The significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039 , wherein the term "hoarding" is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The term, "hoarding", was not to be found in the original version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.
[The above paragraphs carry a standard ploy by the liars in charge: label the other guy with your crime, also known as "the pot calling the kettle black".
In this instance, the people were accused by FDR of planning to "hoard" gold. How could a person hoard that which he or she owns? It was individual people's gold money that the banks were holding for the rightful owners. The only entity which could accurately be charged with hoarding would have been the FED and the government, for stealing the money the people had left on deposit in the banks.
This form of lying, charging the innocent victim with the crime you have committed is now standard procedure for the current federal "government".] Page 17 carries a standard ploy by the liars in charge: label the other guy with your crime, or the pot calling the kettle black. In this instance, the people were accused by FDR of planning to "hoard" gold. How could a person hoard that which he or she owns? It was individual people's gold money that the banks were holding for the rightful owners. The only entity which could accurately be charged with hoarding would have been the FED and the government, for stealing the money the people had left on deposit in the banks.
This form of lying, charging the innicent victim with the crime you have committed is now standard procedure for the current federal "government".
Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, Exhibit 33. In reading from Exhibit 33, we find the following:
"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 transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * * "
exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).
If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:
"by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039 on Exhibits 32 and 33, and now, on Exhibit 33 (a), let's see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:
"Whereas, on March 6,1933,1, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday ..."
We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let's read on:
"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;"
This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed, citing the authority of section 5 (b). The key words here being "all" and "approved". Further:
"Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March 9,1933, in order to accomplish such purposes"
We again clearly see that there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase, "further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 ..." Could this be the beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can this type of action continue? Let's find out.
"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."
We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6,1933 and Proclamation 2040 of March 9,1933, will continue until such time as another proclamation is made by "the President". Note that the term "the President" is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond.
So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing about these actions will to continue "in full force and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation.
It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene its extra session. Yet references are made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b), which had not yet even been confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of Congress' confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we find that confidence was justified. For on March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the amendment of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917.
Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 34):
"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."
Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore. The gold was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door attempting to have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What happened then? The laws were changed to prevent us from asking again, and the military was brought in to protect the Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be the same as public enemy and placed under military authority.
Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):
"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."
By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in their gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision, such violation to be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than ten years. It was a seizure, Whose property may be seized without due process of law under the Trading With the Enemy Act? The enemy's. Whose gold was seized? Ours - the gold of the people of the United States.
[Note, that the penalty for not turning YOUR gold over to the government (FED) was up to ten years and $10,000 dollars. The reader must remember that this was before the FED had destroyed the buying power of money. That amount of money back then would be equal to as much as $400,000 in today's money; enough to buy several houses.]
From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):
"During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of scrip 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 institutions, but this authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing of these certificates was actually begun, but after the 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 banknotes which could be based on any sound assets owned by banks."
Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):
"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' acceptances 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 is this saying? It says (emphasis is ours): "Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the United States . . ." What is a direct obligation of the United States? It's a treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon We, the People, to perform. It's a taxpayer obligation, isn't it?
Title 4 goes on: "or (b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers' acceptances ..." What's a note? If you go to the bank and sign a note on your home, that's a note, isn't it? A note is a private obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of the United States.
In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 38) , we find evidence that our congressmen didn't even have individual copies of the bill to read, on which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for approximately 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."
[The above quote of Congressman McFadden begs an additional comment. The comment comes from a vastly wealthy and powerful banker, Mayer A. Rothschild, who said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
In other words, financial control trumps all other forms of control. A few Congressmen realized what was happening, and resisted it as best they could without actually shooting those who were clearly attempting to destroy the nation.]
Congressman McFadden later says,
"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."
Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however. Congressman McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to change who's going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.
Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again from the Congressional Record:
"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."
We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn't it? We were penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.
Congressman McFadden then questioned,
"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true? "
Mr. Steagall replied,
"Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."
Does that sound familiar?
Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):
"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?"
Who is the collateral? We are - we are chattel, aren't we? We have no rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes.
Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):
"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."
It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs - we were now slaves for the system.
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41):
"When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the Treasurer 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 and our property.
To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy. 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 We, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution. And 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. Pretty broad, sweeping approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?
On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside Chat" (Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:
"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."
It was by this action that the Treasury took over the banking system.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the following words:
"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. 883, 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 proclaimed by the President. 12 U. S. C. A. Sect. 95"
Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the phrase, "present law". The fact that banks are under regulation of the Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.
From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12,1933 (Exhibit 43):
"To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and others to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof."
This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority.
In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed by the government over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all "natural resources". The first hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the United States, its people and its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked about during his campaign and early presidency? His first hundred days.
Now, we know that they took over all contracts, for we have already read in Exhibit 22:
"No contract is considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them remedy in the courts of law of either government, and they have, in the language of civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."
They have no personal rights at law. Therefore, we should expect that we would see in the statutes a time when the contract between the Federal Reserve and We, the people, in which the Federal Reserve had to give us our gold on demand, was made null and void.
Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):
"That (a) any provision contained in or made with any 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 hereinafter incurred."
Indeed, 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 had deposited it.
Returning once again to the Roosevelt papers (Exhibit 45):
"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 11 th 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."
What was the "broad powers"? That was the War Powers, wasn't it? And now we see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did. We should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to result in the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental take-over of their livelihoods.
[ In reference to "farm leaders", a favorite trick of liars and frauds is the use of select groups of "experts", who can be counted upon to approve the plans of the liars and power hungry politicians. The example near the bottom of page 23 shows a collection of "agricultural leaders" supposedly asking FDR to please take over their and other peoples' private property and private businesses. Who do you think was included in that group, other than invited puppets?
The same goes for other tricks, such as polls. The pollsters or the ones running the supposedly honest sampling of opinion stack the deck by calling on only people who will answer the way the pollster wishes. The questions can also be worded so as to predetermine the outcome of the "poll". In one supposed "poll", being taken by the (anti-gun) Clinton White House, those being asked to phone in were preselected and forewarned when and where to call. Unfortunately for the pollsters, several rights groups got wind of the information, and let their members know. The call totals failed to register the expected "landslide" opinion in favor of more gun controls. So the pollsters simply dropped the matter, never making the results public. This presumes that the liars didn't simply falsify the "data" from the outset, which they often do.
So we are left to wonder who FDR's hand-picked "farm leaders" were, ans how hey were rewarded for selling us down the sewer.]
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 46):
"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."
Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember Contracts Payable in Gold? President Roosevelt needed the support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn't he? So he impressed agriculture into the public interest. The farming industry was nationalized.
Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 47):
"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Congress ..."
Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):
"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."
Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government, public policy.
All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws and bills can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for [more than] 60 years. We're not under law. Law has been abolished.
We're under a system of public policy, (War Powers).
So when you go into that courtroom with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He tells you that you have no persona standi 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.
It has become obvious to those of who have tried to use the courts to correct abuses by government agencies, or to reestablish our rights, that the common law and the Constitution are no longer recognized in the courts.
A friend of ours was representing himself well and skillfully in county court, to the irritation of the judge who clearly wanted a conviction. After a few minutes, the Judge told my friend that the Constitution didn't apply in his courtroom, and the defend and had no rights. Further, said the Judge, if my friend brought up the subject of the Constitution or rights again, he would be thrown into jail for contempt. Needless to say, when we paid good money for "official transcripts" of the proceedings, these "comments" were not on the record. THAT is how far our system of legalities has fallen from a justice system to a tyranny under the War and Emergency Powers Act.]
[But there are honest legal opinions amongst the lies, frauds and cover-up.
The Supreme Court in the 1930's did take the coward's way out when confronted with the fraud of the War and Emergency Powers Act and its ramifications. In Erie R. R. v Tomkins, the court took 'silent judicial notice' that the Constitution had been shelved, that the nation was operating under a new form of corporate government, and that we no longer operated under law (common law),but under "public policy". The use of these terms is also evident in the discussion of HJR 192 (exhibit 44).
But many courts have stated that unconstitutional acts are not legitimate and cannot be considered as such.
As you have read in the body of the argumentation in the War and Emergency Powers Act book, "policy" has been given the weight of law by the legal system. But the truth is still available for those who are willing to spend a little energy to uncover it from the piles of lies and cover-ups.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed...
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no ncourts are bound to enforce it because only the valid legislative intent becomes the law to be enforced by the courts.
"A judgement of any court which is based on an unconstitutional law ... has no legitimate basis at all and is not to be treated as a judgement of a competent tribunal.
"These general principles apply to the Constitutions as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and [legitimate] laws of the United States."
The preceding four sentences were quoted from a larger passage on the subject in American Jurisprudence, a compilation of major court rulings
"A long and uniform sanction of law reviewers (courts) and lawmakers...is accorded no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the Constitutional provision." Kingsley v City of Merril, 99 NW 1044
"When any court violates the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no man is bound to obey it." State v Sutton, 65 NW 262.
These are only a few proofs that no one need follow false "laws" or false "court orders" except to the exact extent that one may be damaged or harmed by those enforcing the frauds.]
From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48) (emphasis is ours):
"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 their duties."
If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with a crime, but with an offense.
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):
"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."
Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people. Justice Clark then says,
"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 then made the comment:
"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."
No persona standi in judicio - no personal standing in the courts.
Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):
"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."
These agencies, of which there are now 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. They have become, in fact, permanent agencies, as has the state of national emergency itself. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "We will never go back to the old order." That quote takes on a different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.
In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:
"If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence."
We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,
"Enormous Scope of Powers... A Time Bomb".
Remember, this is Congress' own document, from the year 1973.
Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933 (Exhibit 52):
"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."
From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:
"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..."
Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?
Under Section 1 of the same Act (Exhibit 53) we find the following:
"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 and 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"
What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional [actually quite unconstitutional] dictatorship. There was not even a Congress in session for-six weeks.
When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record: "The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed... " This is the exact language of March 9,1933 and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b), today.
We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be cancelled.' Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit 54):
"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended."
Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.
[The comment that Congress is "in no position to take it (the constitutional system) back" is absolutely naive. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Congress had no legitimate authority to pass the War and Emergency Powers Act in the first place, nor leave it operating far past the supposed economic emergency for which it was supposedly passed. But Congress can, at any time, pass and demand that the President sign, a recission of the fraudulent emergency. In 1973, the Congress recognized that it is largely responsible for the continuation of the false government and the shelving of the Constitution. There is simply no excuse for allowing the situation to continue.]
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress (Exhibit 55):
"Furthermore, it would be 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 acquiesence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation".
It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 60  years.
Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 [70+] years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report, how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this situation would have continued, and with it, the abolishment of the Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?
In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from Senator Church:
"These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased."
Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement (Exhibit57):
"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 intention . . . 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."
Now, a quote from an exclusive reply (Exhibit 58) written May 21,1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the 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 were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition."
From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (Exhibit 59):
"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an extraction for the support of government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended by 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."
What is being said here is that a tax can only be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn't it?
Quoting further from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 60):
"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."
Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under the belligerent capacity of a government over enemies. They are not valid contracts.
Again from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 61): I
"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 and limit 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."
Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its meaning is vital.
The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization, unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said, in effect, "You're turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police" power." What did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the Supreme Court, didn't he? And in 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned.
From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find (Exhibit 62):
"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."
The courts will tell you. that is a political question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law.
The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find (Exhibit 63):
"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."
From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):
"Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. 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."
So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency Administration", a continuation of Exhibit 64:
"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."
Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies are now sitting out there with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.
Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to the question of "booty". The following definition of the term, "prize" is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):
"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."
This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a fact which will become quite clear shortly,
Let us now remember that "Congress shall have the power to make rules on all captures on the land and the water." To reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.
Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we can see that an army is not a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. So the United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we had instead the individual state militias.
Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war. But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental United States, because there was to be no army.
From 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 (Exhibit 66), comes the following quote:
" 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."
This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the continental United States on the land (booty), it must obtain statutory authority.
In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find the following words:
" 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 United States over property captured at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in the absence of Congressional action."
There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared, Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land by positive Congressional action. To continue with (Exhibit 66):
"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."
So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.
In Section 17 of the Act of October 6,1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act (Exhibit 67):
"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."
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental United States. And at the time of the original, unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.
In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law. This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 (Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).
But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act. What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. It was no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution of the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates Admiralty jurisdiction.
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1,1972 (Exhibit 68)states:
"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, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit 69), we find the following:
"... 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). .."
Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an oft-cited support for Presidential authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549:
"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."
The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every American, is what type of acts can "almost anything" cover? What has been, and is being, done, by our government under the cloak of authority conferred by Section 5 (b) ? By now, I think we are beginning to know.
Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94-412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it? But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), 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 bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all.
The alarming situation in which We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to think back to a time over two hundred years ago in our nation's history when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental usurpation of individual rights. Their response, written in 1774, two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great Britain to retain extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the "Declaration of Rights" (Exhibit 72) . And in that document, we find these words:
"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^".
We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed in 1774, but with one crucial difference. 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. In 1994 , it is our own government which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious method. [It was "our own government" then, also.]
Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Is the Act of March 9,1933, treason? That would be for the common law courts to decide. At this point in our nation's history, the point is moot, for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation's money, the citizens' property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the people of the United States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the United States cannot even be determined or argued in the legal sense until the Constitution itself is re-established. For our part, however, we firmly believe that, "by their fruits ye shall know them", and on that authority we rest our case.
As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to exist in a govemmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under such a state of emergency, our Constitution has been set aside, ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency is cancelled.
But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public's good that our government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered by the Constitution's restraining force. The governmental edicts and actions over the past six decades have led us to the desperate state in which we find ourselves today. Besieged on every side, corroding from within, frightened and in despair, we as a nation are being torn asunder.
There IS a national emergency today - one of life and death proportions - but it is NOT the emergency used by our government to continue its abuse of power. It IS this very abuse, this unbridled rape of the American spirit, that is the crux of the emergency we are in today. But this true emergency cannot be cured by setting aside the Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to the laws of God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in whom we placed our trust to protect the national interest.
We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal words, "a government of the people, by the people, for the people". One has only to walk down the highways and byways of this great land to know all too well that this is not a government of the people or for the people. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions taken over the past decades have resulted in an unparalleled decline of American economic and political power, and a weakening of American values and spirit.
This is NOT a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the answer. No, this is a situation in which we firmly believe that the pen will be mightier than the sword. That a state of emergency exists cannot be disputed. That the emergency is one which should concern every American alive cannot be denied. That we must stand together, laying aside our individual differences, to fight the common foe, is of vital importance, for the time to act is now. But this is not a battle of swords, but of knowledge, for only when the deception is exposed to the light of day can the healing process begin.
Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth we bring to you today. Let it be known and understood that it is our intention to make this information available to every concerned American who desires to know the true State of the Union. This is an undertaking of immense proportions, but we have dedicated ourselves to bringing this information to the light of day, and with the help of "We, the People", we will be successful in our efforts.
Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that title. We the People have not only a right, but a responsibility to each other and to those who have gone before us to leam what our government is doing, and to judge whether actions taken benefit the people who will bear the costs. We have been in the dark long enough, content to rest on our past glories and let the government take its course. In a way, we have been like children, trusting in our parents to act in our best interest. But as we have too frequently seen in the nightly news, not all parents have their children's best interest at heart.
The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality, for the time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our elected and appointed officials are no more responsible for the current state of affairs than are we. The strings are being manipulated at far higher levels than the positions most officials occupy. They are working with little knowledge or authority, trying to control problems far bigger than even they realize. Their programs and actions may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time has now come to attack the disease. They are no more guilty than we are, nor will they be any more protected when the nation collapses on us all.
If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly blame ourselves, for it is "We, the People" to whom this nation was given and whose duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who direct the sails of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and while we were dreaming the American dream, a
band of pirates stole the Constitution and put our people into slavery.
And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change -unless we ourselves cause it to be so.
Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away, stand up, stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop dreaming, and start the long work before us. Now is the time to turn back to the principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, the strong foundation from which our national identity springs.
When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become slavery? When is enough enough? Now is when -here and now.
Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off these chains of ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to the point of death. Let us return to the source, the standard of excellence set for us long ago. Our message to Congress and all elected and appointed officials must be, "Let my people go!", for we are all laboring under a system which will eventually crush us, regardless of our religion, our sex, or the color of our skin.
We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we have learned of the deception which lies at the core of our national malaise. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate this great lie no longer, and we must put them on notice that we expect them to resign if they have not the courage and the resolve to help this nation in its hour of need.
We have been fools long enough. Beginning April 1st, 1994, no matter how long after that date you see this report, start each and every week without fail to give a copy of this information to at least one person you know. We also ask you to write a letter to Congress telling them to "Let our People go", or you can use the form letter you will find enclosed in the report.
We must let our elected officials know that we expect them as servants of the people to help us re-establish law and order and restore our national pride. They must repeal Proclamation 2039, 2040, and Title 12 USC 95(a) and 95(b), thereby cancelling the National Emergency, and re-establish the Constitution of this nation.
Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and will accept nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no matter the cost. To do nothing out of fear or apathy is exactly what those in power are hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that the darkness likes best. We must not be a party to the darkness enveloping our nation any longer. We must come into the light, and give our every drop of blood, sweat and tears to bring our nation back with us.
We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing to act now and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm resolve, our freedom to act at all may soon be taken away altogether. New bills, new laws are being presented daily which will effectively serve to tighten the chains of bondage already encircling this nation.
My friends, we are not going into slavery -we are already there. Make no mistake -those in power are already tightening the chains, but they are doing so slowly, quietly and with great caution, for fear of awakening the slumbering lion which is the voice of the American people. There is yet still time for us to slip loose the chains which bind us, and for us to bring about the restoration of this nation.
If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our refusal to accept the future which has been planned for us by those who hold no allegiance to this great land of ours, we can yet demand and see come to pass the day when the state of emergency is cancelled and the Constitution is restored to her rightful place as the watchdog of those for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we repent of our ignorance and our apathy, and return to the God-given laws on which this nation was founded, we may yet be free.
We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information until everyone in America has had an opportunity to hear it and we have set our nation free. We will not tolerate less. We are Americans and that means far more than most of us realize.
If at first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as this information spreads across the land to the great cities and small towns, you will find yourself in
excellent company. You already are as only one, for behind you stand all the heroes of our history who fought and died to keep this nation free.
Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in fact, we implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this deception has made you. Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a fierce determination not to give up until the battle has been won. We are not asking you for lots of money; that's their game, the "almighty dollar". It is the substitution of wealth and possessions for integrity and honor that helped get us into this true state of emergency in which we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for more time than you can give, although we do ask you to give what time you can to get this information out.
What we ask from you is your committment to stand with those around you to help us restore this nation to her rightful place in history, both that written and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln once said, "We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts -not to overthrow the Constitution, but to
overthrow the men who pervert th< Constitution". We must stand togethel now in this, our national hour of need. As the United States Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen U keep the government from falling into error".
Each individual, their attitudes ana actions, forges their own special link in the| great chain of history. Now is the time to! add to that precious inheritance of honor and duty which has kept America alive, because the choices we make and the actions we take today are a part of history too - history not yet written.
The vision for America has not died; the "land of the free and the home of the brave" still exists. There is still time to turn the tide for this great land, but we must join together to make it happen. We have a debt of honor to the past and the future, a call to glory to rescue our homeland from the hands of those who would see her fall. We cannot, we must not fail.
"After emigrating to the U. S. 40 years ago, I have become comfortable living under the Constitution of the United States and its protections. I also attained citizenship under all these great provisions.
"During these years, I heard that our politicians violate our constitution on a daily basis. I had always thought it was such a beautiful document. Today I find out that it is a fantasy." (Rodney F. Wood, Livonia, Michigan, quoted from the (defunct) Spotlight Newspaper, 05/01/00.)
"The lie can be maintained only for such a time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus, by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." (Joseph P. Goebels, Nazi Propaganda Minister [Information officer])
This compilation is not polished. It is not even finished. Nor can it be. There is too much information and too little time. We could not report on all the available information or on all aspects of the demonic tyranny being finalized around us and for us. There is a very short time before the powers that want to control the world will have to make their final push. Then it will be decided whether there will be any freedom and dignity of people, or if we will fall into a literal end time hell on earth.
Gene Schroder and company, in preparing the original Report, politely failed to mention the rest of the story, probably because it would be even harder for the average person to believe than the tyranny he was exposing. In the following, we will touch upon many areas where we have been lied to and enslaved (the term is not too strong to be used here) by those posing as our servants. Our prayer is that we expose the evil to thoughtful people before the tyranny becomes complete.
Before we even begin reasoning on these matters, I want to make one statement: Don't take our word for anything in this discussion.
Unlike officialdom, where your "public servants" demand that you take their word for what the law says and do as you're told, we recommend that you read over and research what is offered both in the forgoing Report and all Further Commentary. The difference in attitude is that the original author and we have nothing to hide. But we all contend that they do. Tyrants and liars always lie for a reason. And that reason is never "for your own good".
The more research and investigation you do, the more you will confirm what we are saying. The lying politicians, bureaucrats, judges and police cannot say the same thing, because they are operating under a lie. They are working for and with tyrants.
We need to remember the basics upon which this nation was formed if we are to understand where it has gone astray.
The federal government was created, empowered and limited in what it is allowed to do by the Constitution. It is not allowed to shelve or discard the Constitution. Allowing such a circumstance could be likened to hiring a contractor to put a new roof on your home, and have him decide to move in, take over the house and put you out into the yard. He is not allowed to do that by the contract under which he was hired. He was empowered only to do certain repairs. If he does anything else to or with your property, he deserves to be punished accordingly.
Well, it is the same with the federal government. It was created and empowered to do certain things.(Article I, Section 8) It was specifically prohibited from doing many things.(Article I, Sections 9 and 10) If the power is not listed, it does not exist. The law and the intentions of the founders are that simple. Everyone, including the courts, used to know that fact, and they know it today. They just hope the people never rediscover the truth before their trap has been sprung.
"The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone." U. S. v Cruickshank.
Just in case the above doesn't explain the situation well enough, reconsider President Jefferson's statement on why the Constitution was written:
"Let no more be heard of confidence in man (humans), but bind him (the public official) down from mischief (illegal actions) by the chains of the Constitution." (Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the united States)
The people are free and have rights only when the government is extremely limited; literally shackled in legal chains.
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington, first President. Does that statement sound like Washington expected us to trust the government in anything it chose to do?
Note in that quote Washington acknowledges that government is the potential enemy of freedom. This was the government he helped to create and the one he led as President for our first eight years.
Our first President, and the man who led through our revolutionary war with an army of armed civilians, was convinced that a sovereign people must be an armed people. He said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
For anyone foolish enough to doubt the common sense of that statement, consider Switzerland. Every adult male, (and women who choose to join in), is armed with a current military automatic rifle , ammunition and equipment, in his personal possession, so he can go to war in moments if it becomes necessary. That is the main reason the government is stable and no outsider has tried to invade for centuries.
The opposite is also the case. Almost every genocide has beed caused by a government against an unarmed people. The atrocity has been possible because the victims were unarmed, by law. These mass murders include the Armenians in Turkey around the turn of the 20th century, the Jews under Nazi control during World War II, and the people in the Darfur region in Africa today. Unarmed people are the victims of armed people. The greatest pity of these atrocities is the very fact that the victims had no way to defend themselves.
One of the ways the founders of this nation planned for us to keep our freedom and to keep control over "our" government was that the people were to be at all times better armed than any force the government could put together.
Virtually all of the founders agreed that the people must protect themselves from common criminals, invading forces and criminal politicians in their own government.
"Before a standing army or a tyrannical government can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword (force), because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to and band of regular troops that can be, under any pretense, raised in the United States." (Noah Webster, 1787)
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them of their discretion by education" Thomas Jefferson.
Now the reader may begin to see the real "reasons" for "gun control" laws.
But, even with the powers of government spelled out and restrictions on its authorities made clear in the Constitution, several of the original States were not satisfied that the central government they were creating was sufficiently limited. So they demanded that a written Bill of Rights be added as a part of the Constitution. That Bill of Rights is a listing of items the federal government is not allowed to interfere with in any way, to any degree or under any excuse.
Read over the Preamble to the Bill of Rights if you doubt that last statement. The Preamble is a statement of intent for writing that listing of rights. "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction (misunderstanding) or abuse of its (the federal government's) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." (Preamble to the Bill of Rights of the u. S. Constitution)(emphasis added)
These listed rights are natural rights, derived from God. They existed before there was a federal government, and cannot be decreased, regulated or removed by the federal government. "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Samuel Adams
The term "infringed" (from the Second Amendment) means 'to touch upon the fringes of the item or subject.' The reason for writing the Bill of Rights and adding it to the Constitution is to prevent either intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of federal powers or the abuse of power by the government. These rights were "excepted" out of federal control of any kind. People with inalienable rights are immune from government interference in their lives, just as people are often immune from a disease.
The bottom line is this. Either we are a nation based upon Law and operated under the rule of law, or we are a nation of personalities, run at the whim of a few people at the top who make all our decisions for us. The issue is that simple. And honest leaders, honest public servants and honest courts, from before and after the enactment of the War and Emergency Powers Act, have recognized that fact.
"The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature please to alter it... Certainly all those who have framed constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature, [which] is repugnant to the constitution, is void." John Marshall, in Marbury v Madison.
The Founders warned us never to let the federal government become supremely powerful. Benjamin Franklin warned us not to ever allow the federal government, even the one he was helping to create, to become the hub of power in this country. "When all forms of government, in little as in great things, shall rely on Washington (D. C. ) as the center of all political power, it will render useless the checks of one government provided on another, and become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated (in our revolutionary war)."
The first level of protection against abuse of power was that the federal government was created in three branches, each of which was to prevent each other from taking on more power than the Constitution allows. It was expected that each branch would be vitally concerned that it keep the other two branches under control, partly to preserve the power of that branch against the others, but mainly to protect the people in the enjoyment of their freedom.
These days, all you hear about is cooperation between the branches of the federal government. That is just one more proof that the current government is not following the Constitution, and it does not have the peoples' interests at heart, but a completely different and unstated agenda.
The second level of protection, if the federal government exceeded its authority, the States were supposed to step in as a protectors of the people against arbitrary power or abuse of power by the feds. Unfortunately for us, the concept of "States' Rights" has long been abandoned by lap dog, powerless whimps in State government. They have come to be a part of the problem of overly-powerful government, rather than as a protection against power.
The States were designed to be the buffer between the federal government and the people; a check on the power of the feds; an added defense of free people against over-powerful government. Unfortunately, and thanks largely to public schools teaching a federal agenda, most people have never even heard of the concept of "checks and balances" within the federal government let alone the one between the federal and the State governments.
Jefferson clarified the powers he and the others intended the federal government to have, "To make us one nation as to foreign affairs, and keep us distinct (separate) in Domestic ones, gives the outline of the proper division of powers between the general (federal) and particular (State) governments."
Benjamin Franklin finalized the founders' intentions with these notations. When asked what kind of government the founders had created, he said, "A republic madam, if you can keep it." By this he meant that the people were to be ever vigilant to prevent the government from taking on excessive powers.
Franklin also warned us not to let the central government take on more and more power, because they can only do so at the expense of our freedoms. He said, "When all forms of government, in little as in great things, shall rely on Washington (D. C.) as the center of all political power, it will render useless the checks of one government provided on another, and become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated (by our revolution)." Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution wreckers, when they created the elaborate scheme being unmasked for you in this Report, made some errors. One was to state that the feds control everyone and everything within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Most people do not know that federal control extends only over federal property, not everywhere within States. Within the States' borders, the States are supposed to be in functional, day to day control and ownership. The federal government has original jurisdiction or direct control only over federal properties.
So, according to their own treasonable actions and statements, the feds have no legitimate control over anything or anyone within the borders of any of the 50 States. This means that almost all "Federal" Courthouses and other forms of central government operation are not legal in any of the States. The ramifications for regaining control over our federal servants are endless. But it remains for the people and the States to demand the return of political power to where it belongs.
"Most of the people of the United States had one more thing in common; their dislike for government, all government that was not purely local." James Madison, "the father of the Constitution".
The reason we have a hard time even conceiving of the need to be protected from "our government" is that we have been carefully mis-educated. Remember, at the time of the writing of our Constitution, we had just fought a revolutionary war against "our own government". Before the revolution, we were British subjects with some specific rights. But the government had begun doing things that we believed were against our basic rights as Englishmen. We fought and won our war for independence against, not a foreign nation, but against our own government. THAT was the reason people did not trust ANY government with much power, much less a new, centralized government. And THAT is one fact of history the current "government" hopes few people ever rediscover.
On page 10 of the Report, the concept of the (very narrow) legal jurisdiction of the United States is discussed in an added commentary. We are accustomed to the term "United States", but we have been misled as to its full meaning. This is a concept of critical importance.
Originally, the term referring to the nation was printed "united States". The reason for not capitalizing the first word was that it was understood that the States were supreme in most political activities, and that the national government was extremely limited in its power, authority and scope. It was only after the War Between the States, commonly mislabeled as the "Civil War", that the union presumed to have become sovereign.
We were warned by those who created this nation never to allow the federal government to exceed its allowed authorities. The supposed Civil War was the first crack in our protection.
Now to the discussion of how some self-appointed rulers plan to destroy the freedom system designed into the Constitution, and who they are.
The War and Emergency Powers Act says that the federal government can throw out the rule book that was designed to restrict it from interfering with our lives and property. The government gave itself extraordinary powers. The only way it can get these powers is by disregarding the contract which created and empowered it, and by removing power from the people...us. As was made clear in the Report, the government has reduced the former citizens to the status of aliens to be regulated and controlled.
The War and Emergency Power Act is clearly unconstitutional. A more limited version of it may have been necessary in a time of war, but such complete and sweeping powers were never necessary...or legal. And, as was noted in the Report, there is no excuse for continuing the war powers after the specific "emergency" for which it was "passed" has expired.
Remember, the excuse for "passing"the War and Emergency Powers Act was the economic Depression of the 1930's. The real reason was the request by the Federal Reserve for a bank holiday, because too many people wanted their money from the banks. The real reason is that over its first two decades as the national bank, the FED had printed up far more paper "money" than it had gold to back it. THAT is why the banks were in panic when the people came to reclaim their gold. Since the FED had printed up more paper gold and silver notes than there was real money to back it, the people had to be prevented from access to their own money. The real "reason" for the emergency was a fraud to cover the massive theft of the people's gold and silver.
But even if there had been a situation that called for extraordinary powers, clearly, that "reason" ended long ago. We were not having an economic emergency in the 1950's. Nor the 1960's. Nor the 1970's. Therefore, the continuation of the "economic emergency" of 1933 must be seen for what it was and what it remains: a fraud to cover up the destruction of the law, the usurpation of power by our former servants, and the ruin of the freedom of the people.
Another false argument we are handed for the destruction of the Constitution is that it is "out of date". IF the Constitution had really needed revamping, there is a legitimate and honest way to go about it. The founders planned for the orderly alteration of the Law. It is called the amendment process. But no mere statute law has the power to alter or set aside the fundamental Law. The concept of some law of lesser importance suspending that of fundamental importance doesn't even make common sense. Nor it it legal in the political arena. The court ruling quoted earlier proves that those in government were well aware of that principle.
But that is exactly what the Congress and FDR did.
The following quote was taken from a much longer and more comprehensive piece which can be found in American Jurisprudence, a compilation of cases, used for research and clarification of legal issues by legal professionals.(11th Am Jur, Const. Law, Section 148, p. 827)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed."
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it because only the valid legislative intent becomes the law to be enforced by the courts."
"A void act cannot be consistent with a valid one."
So much for the false concept that anything the legislatures pass or officials sign is valid law.
The above quote, and all legal precedent and common sense agree: The War and Emergency Powers Act never was legitimate. It could not do what it purports to do. No honest person would accept any office or powers offered by it. No citizen or anyone else is bound to obey anything enacted under it. The only way the current "government" can continue operating as it is today is by fraud or brute force. It has no legitimate basis in law.
Consider the full ramifications of the above truth.
Since the War and Emergency Powers Act is clearly unconstitutional, nothing done under the supposed authority of that "Act" was or is legal (legitimate).
Those people posing as the government of the United States are not. Since the Act itself is not legitimate, and its indefinite continuation is even more visibly not legitimate, it follows that nothing done under the illegal Act is legitimate. Therefore, nothing the federal government has "enacted" since March of 1933 has had any legitimacy.
The Federal Firearms Act of 1933 is not legal "law", but is "public policy" of an illegitimate fake government. Nor is any other general coverage anti-gun or anti-rights "law" legitimate.
The same goes for the Social Security system, which is about to collapse anyway, because the same Congress that continued the everlasting "state of emergency" also robbed the assets of the supposed Social Security Trust Fund, leaving behind a trail of unpayable I. O. U.'s. If any company had tried such a scheme, the feds would have been happy to prosecute those responsible. But, since it was several Congresses and several Presidents, and several Supreme Courts that perpetrated the crime upon the citizenry, they let each other get away with it.
All "anti-terrorist" rights removing "legislation" is empty words. The only thing keeping the system operating is the acquiescence of good people to bad "laws", and the willingness of bad people to enforce bad "laws" by force.
Almost any property regulation, from zoning to land use "laws" are not legitimate.
Almost everything the federal government has done or coerced the States into doing has no legitimacy. The ramifications are mind-boggling.
But, in order to fully consider the completeness of the fraud of federal supremacy over us, we need to look at some specifics which most people have never thought about.
Originally, and continually under common law, "law enforcement" was the sole province of the Sheriff. He was (and still is) the only legitimate law enforcement in any county. Constables were hired to work with the Sheriff, but under his authority. Both the Sheriff and Constables are directly elected by the people.
The police are, and always have been regulation enforcers. They are hired by bureaucrats, and are therefore not directly responsible to the people.
But if the Sheriff is the law enforcer, what are the real authorities of the police?
Legal rulings in Pennsylvania (and probably most other States and Commonwealths) define the legal role of the police as "subordinate ministerial employees". By definition, a ministerial employee is a scribe or a clerk. As such, the police have the legal power of a night watchman: observe and report things that are out of place. But the definition includes the term "subordinate". This means that police are, by law, lesser important or lower level scribes and clerks. These facts throw an entirely different light on the true powers of the police.
If the above is the case, then where do police have "authority"?
For over a hundred years, the courts recognized that the police were the private security for a municipal corporation. Yes, most local governments are corporations. As such, the police have authority only over the corporation's assets and (under certain limited circumstances) corporate employees. It was only because of the fraud of the "emergency" that the definition of these and other things were altered, including the supposed powers of the police.
Currently, the police are being taught that it is their job to regulate and control everything and everyone in a certain geographical area. This is not the case; it never was. What they and we have not been told is that most regulation systems come from the state of emergency and the War and Emergency Powers Act. This means that the police have no direct authority over most people in most cases.
Among other misconceptions, the term "cop" has been completely misdefined. It began as a slang term for "constable on patrol". It became generalized to include anyone with a badge and a gun in a uniform.
Two indicators will demonstrate that the role and duties of the police have been reversed from people protecting to people controlling.
First, the uniforms of police used to be blue: the color of service employees. Now they are universally black: the color of domination. Look at the Nazi SS as an example.
Second, the attitude has changed along with the uniforms and the "job description". The police are now taught that it is their job to control the public, under the guise of protecting them, usually "from themselves". This concept follows the "emergency" concept, wherein our rights have been removed, and the people posing as the government need to regulate and control us.
The police are taught that the people are a bunch of undisciplined children who need to be controlled. The police largely have no respect for the "civilian", the term they use for us.
The emphasis today is not on protecting and serving the public. The police now have back-ups, body armor, etc. to protect themselves. Meanwhile, as a real reversal of things, they enforce "laws" which prohibit people from defending themselves.
Further, the police have been "militarized" over the last few years. Their training is in military tactics and control of real estate and everyone on that real estate. Such training and equipment is not necessary for normal criminal control, and is certainly not needed for protecting the citizens from each other. The only rational explanation for the equipping of local police with stun grenades, machine guns, armored vehicles, etc. is for control of the general population, not criminals.
Another term which, upon consideration, shows a path away from constitutional government is that of "police officer" being applied to anyone in a police uniform. As anyone who has been through the military can attest, enlisted people are not officers and do not carry the powers or authorities of an officer. An officer operates at a responsible, decision making level. The enlisted are the information gatherers and action takers.
In accord with the defining legal rulings noted above, police of lower ranks are not empowered to take much of any action on their own. They remain the security watchmen for the corporation, not general peace officials as they are usually portrayed. The use of the term "police officer", when applied to a police person in the ranks, is a misnomer; and an intended misuse of the language.
People have been trained to take orders from officers. Being a former sergeant myself, I am accustomed to such training and the mental conditioning that comes with it. Lower ranks of enlisted personnel take orders from and follow the dictates of officers. But citizens do not come under such discipline, and have no reason to follow police orders, other than fear and coercion.
The transfer from military to civilian life, of the concept that police officers can or should tell you what to do and what not to do, was and is completely illegal. This is just one more proof of the removal of freedom, and the installation of illegal 'people controls', by people controllers.
It has been ruled many times that police have a vested interest in lying under oath. They enhance their arrest and conviction records, justify their existence, and increase government revenues, through fines, penalties and court costs. Most people suspected that this was the case, since most people know someone who has been railroaded through the system, whether that be DUI convictions, drug crimes, or being caught with an unregistered gun (handily planted by your public servants).
Apparently there is a new law or legal guideline which has just come to our attention. It was revealed in a recent case that the court is "required" to accept the police person's testimony as true and accurate, even if witnesses or physical and other evidence runs contrary to that testimony. In other words
Just in case anyone is still living under the (intended) delusion that the police are there to protect you, consider the following two items:
First, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (the government) to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v DeVito, 686 F 2nd 616, (1982).
This ruling agrees with many others, such as Warren v D. C., where some women sued the city for not protecting them. The court ruled that the government not only has no duty to do so, it cannot be held liable if it fails to 'come to the rescue', even if the failure is due to laziness, incompetence or disinterest.
Second, honest public servants will tell you the truth: you are responsible for your own safety. " A high ranking official of the Houston, Texas Police Department told the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (Spring 1989) that, 'The police cannot prevent most crimes. They cannot be everywhere at once, nor can they predict where a criminal will strike next. They can only pick up the pieces, or bodies, after the fact. Armed citizens have to protect themselves. We cannot.'"
For the well-intended police employee, like the one quoted above, you can now see what you have been trained to do, and what most of your compatriots are doing daily. Those who continue enforcing illegal "laws" deserve whatever the awakening public dish out to them.
The reason there is no justice in the courts these days is that there is no law. This nation is operating under public policy. Law has been sidelined indefinitely. As described in the Report, the courts of the United States are currently booty courts. They are run like "prize" courts under admiralty rules, not under common law. We, the people are considered enemy aliens to be controlled and taxed (robbed). The system is not a justice system. It is a prize court system. THAT is why people can't seem to understand how the system works; why they have no rights; why constitutional principles do not apply. The people who run the system talk about rights, and talk about the Constitution and talk about the rule of law, but they know they are operating a system that does not use, apply or allow those things in the courtroom.
Remember the basics of a free society and a free people: free people do what they want and own what they choose, they never ask permission from a superior or sovereign to do or own ordinary things.
Servants never demand, command or control. They advise and aid. The ultimate in illogic is for free people to be required to get permission from their servants for anything. The complete reversal of the roles of "We, the people..." and our "public servants" should be crystal clear.
Another issue which has made enslavement easier has been the removal of our national moral base. And it was done under another lie so huge that most people never even recognized it.
One of the biggest frauds perpetrated upon the people of this nation has been the doctrine of 'separation of church and state'. The separation of tested moral values from government operations was never intended by any of the people who created this nation. The proofs are many, and they were written down so people could avoid being misled by the liars. As before, we recommend that the reader look into the facts and the written history. Don't take anyone's opinion, including ours, on so important a subject as the moral base upon which we should conduct our daily affairs, and our own personal eternal destinies.
What did the founders really say about religion, and particularly the Christian religion?
John Quincy Adams had this to say about government and Christianity, "The highest glory of the American revolution was this. It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity."
Does that sound like someone who believes in separating church and state, as far as morals and values are concerned?
James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, had this to add, "We have stacked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have stacked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Thomas Jefferson, the supposed atheist, said this, "I have always said, and all always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume [Bible] will make us better citizens."
Jefferson said, in another instance, "I have sworn upon the alter of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of men."
But it was not only people during our founding ear who knew that Christianity was our nation's moral foundation. Look at what professional educators had to say a hundred years after our founding as a nation.
The teachers union made a statement, in 1892, on the teaching and the application of Christian principles in the public schools: "Whether this is wise or not is not my purpose to discuss, further than to remark that, if the study of the Bible is to be excluded from all State schools, if the inculcation of the principles of Christianity is to have no place in the daily programme, if the worship of God is to form no part of the general exercises of these public elementary schools, then the good of the State would be better served by restoring the schools to church control."
Note here that the churches were in control of education before the government was allowed to take any active part in education. This nation became the most literate nation in history through purely local and usually church-run schools. The State schools and the teachers union alike knew the benefit of teaching good moral values from an early age. Following the advice of the founders and wishes of the people, the Christian religion was the guiding principle upon which the nation was created.
And the preference for Christian values was not limited to elementary schools, either. Note Rule number 1 of the pre-entry requirements for Harvard University...from its founding: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is life eternal, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Proverbs 2:3)."
The North-west Ordinance was a set of rules under which the developing area west of Pennsylvania and Virginia would be settled and the ground rules under which governments in those areas would operate. In several places, religious freedoms and fundamentals were mentioned, including the following statement: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind..."
John Adams, one of our best known founders, said the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, "Conclude not from all this that I have renounced the Christian religion...far from it. I see [in] every page something to recommend Christianity in its purity, and something to discredit its corruptions... The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Speaking of "corruptions" of Christianity, consider the following statement from the recent court ruling of Stone v Graham, on the reason for the banning the Ten Commandments from being even passively posted on a wall at a school: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditate upon them, and perhaps venerate and observe them. This is not a permissible objective."
In a few words, the court said that we cannot have kids learning such principles as, "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not kill", or "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
Do you still wonder why kids today seem to have no moral base? The founders and wise people from throughout our history warned us to keep good moral values and teach them to our children. It is the failure to abide by that advice which has caused the moral decay we see around us today.
How, you may well ask, did we get to the point of removing the moral base that the founders intended for us? We allowed our moral values to be removed under the same kind of fraud as the War and Emergency Powers Act. The proof is in the facts, for those who care enough to look into the truth. The following is the real story.
The "wall of separation between church and state", and extensions of that statement, are an intentionally fraudulent misrepresentation of a part of a line from a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist Association. The Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists had heard that another "religion" (defined at the time as a denomination of Christianity) was campaigning to have its particular version of Christianity made the "official" religion of the nation. They had written to (then) President Jefferson, complaining that they didn't want to see any particular version of Christianity officially raised over any other. Jefferson wrote back to them, noting that the Constitution prohibits the government from either establishing a national religion, or, and more importantly for our discussion, from interfering with the free exercise of religion. He told the Baptists that the Constitution had erected a 'wall of separation' which prevents the government from interfering with the practice of religion in any way. Look up and read the entire letter, if you doubt the clarity of Jefferson's meaning.
As you can see from the above sample quotes, all the founders believed similarly.
And the courts also understood that Christianity was the moral basis of our nation and our society. The best single example is probably the Trinity ruling form 1892, wherein the court, after years of research and study, ruled that this was indeed a Christian nation, and that it was founded upon Christian principles. They cited dozens of 'proofs' of their reasoning, including oaths of office from several of the States, wherein the oath taker is required to pledge, on penalty of eternal damnation, a fear of doing wrong while exercising his (or her) public duties.
For a hundred and fifty years, the true intent of Jefferson's letter and statements were well understood. The courts often quoted his letter to the Danbury Baptists as proof of the fundamental need for Christian values in private and in public life.
Then, in the 1940's, the courts began misquoting Jefferson's letter; taking those few words knowingly out of context, and reversing the clear and intended meaning. This is about as dishonest an act as one can commit.
And this was no mistake. Supreme Court "Justices" are learned legal scholars and researchers. They have every research tool on earth available to them. They have the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service available to them. There can be no mistake that they knew they were reversing truth and lying massively on the record.
The best proof that the Supreme Court lied is so simple it could easily be missed, especially by people who are not accustomed to reading court rulings.
Courts, especially courts of appeal, cite constitutional basics, founder's comments, former court rulings, and all manner of "evidences" to back up each facet of their rulings. These are found throughout the text of any ruling. There are between dozens and hundreds of these "citations" in any one "opinion".
But the ruling wherein prayer was removed from our public schools was the first case in the history of the Court where the "learned legal scholars" came up with NO support at all for their claim that prayer can be banned from public schools. A year later, probably because the people and schools failed to laugh at the false ruling, the court banned the Bible from public schools also.
The schools and the people who pay for them and the churches all let the grand liars get away with it...so far. But the lie can only have effect on our lives because people, churches, school administrators, etc. continue to go along with what is now known to be a complete lie and fraud.
On the issue of following fraudulent, immoral court rulings, our founders were quite clear. They knew that people cannot trust governments, even the one they were creating. Thomas Jefferson even warned us specifically not to trust or obey obvious false rulings by any court, including the "Supreme Court". He said, "...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under a the despotism of an oligarchy."
Indeed, those who founded this nation went much farther than merely disobeying immoral court rulings. They fought a war against "their own government" to separate permanently from fraud, controls over people, and false representation of the peoples' wishes in the government.
What are we doing today?
We need to relearn the common sense, common law definitions for some very important concepts.
By definition, a common law crime that 'notable harm or damage done to a person or property' be done by some identifiable person. This makes sense. If no harm or damage, especially a notable amount, has been done, why would we want to waste the courts' time, or bother charging people with anything? And outlawing entire groups of people or things because some individual may someday use them to cause harm or damage is neither reasonable nor legitimate.
We will mention more on this subject as we move along. The point is that most arrests and most prosecutions of people today are for "crimes" against regulatory laws...all of which are unconstitutional. The technical terms for most "crimes" today are "offense" or "infraction". In most cases, no harm or damage was done. Some "emergency power" was violated. That means that most people who are charged and convicted of things today have done nothing wrong, common sensibly or constitutionally. Think about that the next time you are fined for some "infraction" or "offense". We should be the ones offended, and perhaps need to do some serious infracting of our own.
It often appears to people that the legal system operates on the premise that you are guilty until you can prove your innocense. This is confusing, because, in a constitutional republic, where common law is practiced, one is innocent until the prosecutor can prove your guilt...and that beyond any reasonable doubt. This state of affairs is one more proof that we are living under a dictatorial system of rule from above, not a constitutional system belonging to "We, the people...".
One step toward regaining our freedom is to stop using the false use of terminology of our oppressors. Refuse to let them get away with the false use of words.
Examples include: terrorism. The real terrorist is the government. People live in fear of a letter from the IRS. They take fright when teh see a police car behind them. Foreigners complain that "our government" intrudes on their sovereignty, and invades any place it wishes. This is the current image of the United States.
This is only one example of reversal of roles or "projection". In this trick, a thief calls someone else a thief, to throw suspicion off of himself. Those posing as our government label anyone they don't like as a terrorist. Hitler and Stalin did the same thing in their day. The current government has been using this and many other tricks and emotional ploys to maintain control over a frightened populace.
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." Charles A. Beard, Historian.
Remember the concept of freedom that the people shall always be better armed thah any force the government could gather up to remove their freedom? That was the reasoning behind the militia concept of a totally armed population. But look at what happens under the "emergency powers", along with gun controls which disarm the general population. The following is not a pleasant realization.
The government has, through many unconstitutional and fraudulent regulations, demeaned the ownership of firearms and those people who choose to be able to protect themselves and others. The 'powers that be' have gotten people and "law enforcers" accustomed to the idea that the government can control the issue of who owns what guns and who can carry a gun. None of these concepts are constitutional, nor are the "laws" which generated them. Anyone who reads the Second Amendment, or the firearms rights declarations in the State constitutions, cannot help but see that the people are to always be better armed than their servants. But the Constitution and the state constitutions are no longer in operation. They have been put on a shelf.
Other nations that used to "allow" guns in private hands have been removing that privilege. One recent example is Australia. The reason we have (had) a Constitution with a listing of rights the government could not touch was to prevent just such a disarming, and many other freedom-removing actions.
The next step toward tyranny is for our own military is being groomed to control the people of the nation. They have been sent to foreign countries to fight wars that we always, upon retrospect, recognize as unnecessary interventions into sovereign nations. Korea was an early example. Viet Nam is probably the biggest single example. Iraq is the latest.
"Our soldiers" are currently being trained to go from house to house to confiscate anything the leaders tell them to confiscate.
The police already do. New Orleans after Katrina is one example.
Where do you think, linking all these items together, we may be headed?
"Playing along" with a clear illegality is a child's game, but with adult consequences. Congresspeople must essentially say, "Yes, I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign ad domestic, but, since the Constitution is not functioning, I can not be held to that oath." I submit the opposite. The reason for having people take the oath of office before taking on the authority of any public office is to prevent exactly what the Congresses, Presidents and all the federal employees have been doing to us for the last seventy plus years: violate the Constitution, which created, empowered and limited a collection of servants of the people. There is no excuse for allowing the continued violation of the Constitution or the rights of the people it was designed to protect from excesses by the government. They pay homage to the papers, the documents while they knowingly participate in the destruction of the principles written thereon. Such people deserve no honor, or trust or obedience.
If December 7, 1941 is "a day that will live in infamy", then what is March 9, 1933, the day the government became an illegal, rogue entity?
The feds always take more power than they are allowed to have. The people never knowingly allow them to have it, because increased power in the centralized government means fewer choices (less functional freedom) for the individual or the people in general. But we have allowed our former servants to take away far more of our freedom than we should have, and it is high time we demanded the return of our freedoms, our property and our rights.
The federal Senate has, through the Church Committee, acknowledged that the War and Emergency Powers Act was questionably legal in the first place, and far past any legitimate use for the "emergency" of the economic Depression of the 1930's. But notice that the Attorney General concluded that the "emergency powers" had been in use for so long that returning to Constitutional government would be nearly impossible. That's his opinion.
The standard responses from the liars who are enslaving you include evasion or avoidance of the issue by diverting your attention from the issue, often with some emotional ploy. A standard retort to the challenge that the government is way outside its legitimate bounds is, "This is still the freest country on earth!"
First off, you have been diverted from the issue if you begin discussing relative freedoms. This nation was designed to preserve the greatest level of freedom anywhere. Those entrusted with it have been doing the opposite of their duty. If they can't answer you accurately, or they have to resort to diverting your attention, they have something to hide.
Remember, when government agents, (former servants of the public), demand all manner of answers from you; when they require that you let them inspect your car, trunk or whatever; when they want to look around in your home, with or without a warrant, they always expect your full cooperation. If you question their actions, which are almost always unconstitutional and often not legal even under regulatory "law', they always ask what you have to hide. They imply that you are guilty of something, simply because you don't like your servants prying into your personal property or affairs.
The best answer to the above challenge is, "My personal and private affairs." But they find that unacceptable any more.
Second, this country is far from the most free. Among other evidences; the U. S. has the highest percentage of its population in jail or on some form of government control (probation, etc.) of any nation on the planet. Yes, that includes those "repressive regimes" like the Muslim nations, Russia, etc.
The proofs that we have lost control of our lives and our futures as well as our government and nation are many. One way to see the erosion of freedom is to look at the application of the principle that was created with the War and Emergency Powers Act.
After we ceased to be sovereign citizens, served by a government of public servants, and became enemies to be controlled by the new form of government, many things occurred.
The government created many new bureaucracies and many new "laws"(public policies), and hired on many new police officials and law enforcers at all levels. The principle involved here is that, if you create enough "laws", everyone will trip over one or two eventually.
At first, the new laws are not enforced strictly. The enforcers, we are told, are being lenient with us wayward subjects.
Soon after, the government states a need for stricter enforcement. They must "crack down" on these no good "scofflaws"; there must be a "zero tolerance" attitude toward people who think they can just do whatever they want.
Soon we see enforcement of highly questionable "laws" against people we know to be no danger to anyone. This enforcement is often carried through trials by enforcers falsifying "evidence" and giving false testimony, just to gain convictions. The courts recognized and condemned this as a standard practice of police years ago.
The next step in a totalitarian legal system is to manufacture incidents or crimes from nothing. This is done to criminalize and remove from society anyone the government sees as dangerous to its plan.
We have already come through the forgoing steps. Anyone who has been through the courts in the last several years knows this first hand.
The last step, coming soon. The police simply murder people who don't do whatever they are told immediately. If the reader thinks this is a stretch of the imagination, look at the evidence. American Free Press reporters have been accosted and arrested out of their front yard for reporting to the local police that a suspicious car was wandering around the neighborhood. It turns out the car was full of police who didn't like being "reported". Or look at the article on Lew Rockwell's web site, on the cold blooded murder and cover-up of a retired Marine by local police in Delaware. (www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html). The crime here is not "simply" that the local police executed a man for doing nothing. The point is the fact that several other police agencies did the opposite of their presumed job, by helping to cover-up the crime of the local police. If that doesn't scare you into some form of action, nothing ever will.
We already live in the long-feared police state. That fact has just not become plain to most folks...yet.
We are up against a serious evil here, equivalent in every way to the enforcers of Nazi Germany, which we fought against at great expense of lives and treasure. Most people either haven't noticed it yet, because it has not come upon them directly yet, or they choose to ignore it, hoping that it will go away or someone else will do the necessary fighting to remove it. Well, it will never go away without effort of good people. And it will take a number of honest and willing people to force it out of our lives. That is a harsh realization, but the only one thinking people can come to, after looking over the facts and history.
Further proofs abound.
The driver's license is a government allowance for professionals to use the public roads for commercial purposes. Free people do not need a license (permission to go to the grocery store), especially from their servants. This issue has been tried in courts in every state, so the people controllers can't say they don't know the truth.
Courts have ruled many times, in common sense, that a driver's license can be used for driving purposes only. It is never to be used as a general identification card. That would come too close to the Nazi inspired government identification paper system. Such things are never legal in a nation of free people.
The Social Security Act would never have been passed without first shelving the Constitution which prevents government from interfering with businesses like annuities, investments, pensions, etc. The concept that the state will take care of you is right out of Communist philosophy. Further, the original legislation contained a provision that was inserted by Congressmen who saw what Hitler was doing at the time, and wanted to prevent the same from happening here. These Congressmen got a provision added to the Social Security Act which prohibited the use of teh Social Security Account number for any purpose other than the stated purpose: Social Security business. People who joined the Social Security Scheme up through the 1950's and even later remember their Social Security card stated in red ink right on the front that the number was never to be used for general identification.
Today, as this writer has warned for years, the federal government has passed and intends to enforce "the Real I. D. Act" of 2005. That "Act" demands that all people have and carry a government I. D. card, and present it to any official who requests it, for any reason or for no reason...or go to jail. The card will consist of a (now required) driver's license with the person's Social Security number and other general and specific identifying information on it.
Does this still sound like a free country?
Part and parcel of people-controlling, along with demanding that we get licenses for things that used to be rights under a Constitutional system, is ever increasing regulation of everything. More and more things and activities are coming under regulatory control. More and more things are becoming illegal to own or to do. More and more activities are becoming crimes.
George Gordon, who helped create several schools of common law study, labeled this activity "the law enforcement growth industry". The trick is to illegalize ordinary things and activities, but do so a few things at a time, so very few will notice each new level of restriction. What's legal to own or to do today may not be tomorrow. And most people will find out that something was made illegal "by law" (by "emergency" regulatory statute), only after they trip over it, and end up in court or jail over it. Yes, this can and will happen to you.
The cycle is endless, until everything can be considered a crime for which the former free person can be tried and fined or jailed.
The U. S. currently has a higher percentage of its people in jail than any other nation on the planet. Some one out of every 36 people in this country are "in the system", either in jail or on some sort of government probation and control.
The more laws get made, the less freedom remains. Make ordinary activities into controlled activities. Then make ordinary people into criminals. It's that simple. With enough laws and enough "law enforcers", no freedom at all will be left to us. And that's the plan.
If one looks at the details, the intent becomes even more transparent. Take two minor issues having to do with the job and direction of "law enforcers". The courts recognized and stated on repeated occasions that police have a vested interest in lying on the record. They make money from and justify their jobs by finding crimes and criminals. So they find it "necessary" to embellish their stories, even on the record or on the stand in court. Next, a "law" was recently passed in at laest a few states that directs courts and judges to accept police testimony as true, even if it is clearly not; even if it is against all other testimony; even if it is against the physical evidence. In a recent court trial, a Trooper lied so plainly that his own dash cam record proved ha was lying on several major points. The judge saw the evidence, and ruled in favor of the police testimony. This is another proof of the end of any appearance of justice in the system.
The last step in this chain of events will be some disaster, natural or man-made. It will "require" (their term, not mine) martial law, and the absolute control of government over people..."for our own good" or "for the security of the nation", or some other lie. Like the War and Emergency Powers Act, the disaster (or terrorist act) will be planned or expected. The outcome was also long ago planned. We have documented the path so far. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look down that path to its end result.
The government has recently introduced the concept of "zero tolerance" for crimes and criminals. We agree entirely. But the criminals, the people who are enslaving a formerly free people are the criminals. The greatest fear of the people controllers is that a significant portion of the population wake up to the already accomplished removal of the Constitution, and the coming total enslavement of the entire population of formerly free people. As you have seen, we are not free now, but have become a community of regulated, government controlled, government owned property. That's the way you are viewed adn treated by the current non-constitutional government.
We recommend that we take a new "zero tolerance" attitude toward all of officialdom and all government activities that ar not in strict compliance with the original Law: the Constitution. If we do not, the end is near for the last semblance of freedom of the individual, the small group, the minority, the non-conformist, the free person.
We have already proved that the War and Emergency Powers Act was never legitimate "law". The good news, as recognized in the Report, is that the war powers were always stated to be temporary. Once the fraud has been exposed, as it is being with the distribution of this and other material, the federal juggernaut can be reduced literally over night to its rightful place, power and position.
The great lie of the emergency, and the false powers that come with it, can be ended in a flash. The Congress can recognize and announce that the Congress of 1933 never had the authority to pass it in the first place...and nullify it. The Congress never had the power to shelve the Constitution by a simple "act" of Congress. The least it would take to alter the fundamental law would have been a Constitutional Amendment. But an "act" can nullify an "act". So the Congress can remove the fraud at any time.
Or, the President, any President, can end the growing nightmare any time he chooses. He can simply state the obvious truth: the "emergency" of the 1933 financial crisis of the FED is over.
It's that simple. IF either the Congress or the President were honest.
Once the false emergency has been officially ended, the federal government can be immediately reduced to its former size and authority. Most agencies of government were created under the false pretenses of the false emergency. That means almost all the current agencies of government can be closed immediately. Departments of Energy, Education, Highways, etc. can be dismantled overnight. All the socialist aid systems can be dropped instantly. Foreign Aid also can be stopped in seconds.
The closing of all illegal federal offices, agencies and bureaucracies would reduce the federal budget by at least 75% in moments. People could do whatever they wanted with their property again, as long as they did no notable harm or damage to others.
We could return to the state militia system, disband the illegal standing army, get out of other nations' business, bring our people home, and regain a positive international image.
All this and more: a restoration of the freedoms removed by a fraudulent corporate federal "government".
We've seen the kind of scheming that created the current situation since we were kids. There are always dishonest people who want to saddle honest people with a ton of rules, but they don't obey any rules, especially the ones they created for others. They demand that you obey all the rules, while they disregard them.
Jesus noted the same attitude in the self-important religious rulers of His time. He noted that the hypocrites love to load burdens on the ordinary people, while the leaders won't lift a finger themselves.
People never change. The liars and power seekers always put restraints on us, while they do whatever they please, including break the "laws" they formulate for us to live under.
That is exactly what those in charge of the United States are doing today. A quote attributed to French General and President Charles DeGaulle encapsulates the concept, "The politician, in order to become the master, poses as a servant."
All public servants are required to take the oath to the Constitution, and usually the state constitution also. If they never bothered to read and understand it, that is not our problem. To quote an oft used phrase, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse (for violating it)." If that can be applied to us concerning the tons of regulatory rules masquerading as "law", we can certainly demand an equal level of obedience to the basic law to which they swore their oath.
Since almost 100% of what the legislators pass and the police enforce as "law" is really public policy dressed up to look like law, and since we the people always come out the losers when these false "laws" are applied to us, it is about time we quit riding on this merry-go-round.
The honest person is at a tremendous disadvantage. As quoted on the opening page of the introduction, people can be faced with an evil so huge that they cannot bring themselves to believe it. He or she must try to comprehend the kind of mind that wants to be hugely wealthy, and have power over other people either without their knowledge or against their will; by trickery or by brute force. These people are self-appointed elitists. They live by no rules, but saddle everyone outside their little elite club with tons of them.
And we can expect more of the same to come:
Now that they have most people thinking that they must have a driver's license, etc. expect more driving "laws". Recent examples include these. If your windshield wipers are on, even in intermittent mode, your headlights must be on also, or you can be "fined" for an "infraction". Also, all snow must be removed from you car, to the satisfaction of whatever police person sees you, or you can be "fined" for "infracting" the new rules. Once they have you jumping through their hoops, they increase the number and difficulty of the hoops.
The driver's license and increases in regulations for "drivers" is only an example of what the people controllers have in mind for every aspect of your life, and your children's lives.
Expect more "terrorist" incidents. But you now know that many of them are created by the very government that promised to keep us safe from such things. And they will demand more and more powers and "authorities" to deal with the terrorism they are creating. The Oklahoma City Federal Building is a perfect example. The feds had "anti-terrorist" (anti rights) legislation already written and waiting for an incident to occur. When one didn't, the feds created one of their own, and blamed it on McVeigh. They tried and executed him quickly, but not before they rammed their "anti-terrorist" legislation through Congress. The real story, or what of it that has surfaced, is available on "Cover-up in OKC" through www.Godandcountryclub.com or 888-820-2126, and other patriotic groups.
Other "terrorist" acts and attacks on civilians that the government committed or covered up include the missile shoot down of TWA flight 800 over Long Island New York. A report on the incident by a former Navy Commander, a report that was commissioned by Congress, demonstrates not only that the civilian aircraft was brought down by a missile, but that the NTSB, the aircraft accident investigation specialists, was pushed to one side, and the FBI covered and destroyed evidence. Just like they did in the aftermath of the Branch Davidian murders outside Waco, Texas.
In the TWA 800 instance, the feds tried to concoct a cover story so childishly stupid that no one with any knowledge of aircraft or fuels would believe it; center wing fuel tank explosion indeed. That one is as incredible as the single bullet theory of President John Kennedy's assassination. Only a fool could swallow some of these concoctions.
For the moment, people need to learn and teach others about the treason being committed daily by "our own government". People also need to send copies of this to their "representatives" and other public officials. They cannot be allowed to continue to claim that they don't know there is a problem.
We are beyond the point where those responsible for this massive fraud can let us retake control of "our" lives or "our" government.
First, they are having too much fun living like royalty at our expense.
Second, if they admit to what they have been doing for decades, they probably will have to escape to some desert island to prevent being hang by the neck.
The only way the power elite can remain in power is through trickery and force. Hopefully, we have removed much of the blanket of fraud, lies, tricks and cover-ups that hide the truth.
The only thing left to the vermin in charge, after enough people discover the truth, is force. And that's where the police and military come in.
Minimum Recommended Readings and Research:
Most of these are still readily available through Amazon.com or other outlets. The book sellers' systems even offer you others books of the same subject areas when you order any of the following:
1984, by George Orwell. This novel is a classic exposure of what is planned for all the people of the world, if the self-appointed elites get away with their plans. Many decry it as "just a novel". But, upon seeing enough proofs that there really is a conspiracy, and who is involved in it, and where it clearly is pointing the world, it becomes predictive, not speculative.
The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, by G. Edward Griffin. This expose is proof not only that there was a conspiracy to take over control of the financial and economic systems of the United States, but who was involved in the conspiracy. If you ever wonder why it is that the elite people controllers are always downplaying any conspiracy theories, it is because they are the ones who are doing the conspiring, and they don't want people waking up to the fact until their control over you is complete.
Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace, by Leonard C. Levin and Victor Navasky. By publishing these noted from a very secret meeting of intellectual elite, the author exposes another part of the removal of freedom, constant crisis mentality, and promises from the ruling power to take care of everything...none of which is real.
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Anthony C. Sutton. As one of the power elite
let slip once...In politics, nothing major happens without a plan. For those who have wondered at such things as how Hitler took an impoverished and defeated nation from rags to the foremost military power of its day in about six years, here's how he did it: with huge financial and other help from wealthy, powerful people who finance all the wars, and get rich from them.
Philip Drew: Administrator, by Edward Mandell House. Mr. House is one of the power elite, and this is his blueprint for taking control of people. Create lots of regulations and bureaucracies, and then use them to "administer" or regulate all aspects or people's lives. For those who refuse, enforcement is your final resort. People "cooperate" better when they know they will be punished for not doing so. This book describes how to remove freedom.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. There are tens of thousands of people who, after coming to see that they are working for an evil system, quit and find honest work. There are a few very brave ones who expose the evil system for what it is. The real destroyers are the ones who, after coming to realize the evil behind the system, keep working for it, making it far more evil than it was without their help. Worse yet are the ones who created an operate the sinister system in the first place.
Cover-up in OKC, a video mentioned in the text. Hitler had his henchmen burn down the Reichstag, the Congress building of the Weimar Republic. He blamed that action on his enemies, and demanded "extraordinary powers" to deal with the "threat to the nation's security". The lying vermin who run this nation used exactly the same tactic when they destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and blamed the destruction on patriot groups, militia people, etc. And they also demanded further unconstitutional powers to deal with the groups they had demonized, but who had nothing to do with the collapse of the building. And the media looked away from the evidence. And the public fell for the lie.
The Holy Bible. If you want to see clear examples of the best and the worst that can and will happen to mankind, this book carries it all. The culmination of the world under an evil world government is described in the final section: Revelation. But, like any other extremely complex issue, one cannot read the last chapter, the summation of the text, and understand all that is presented. Like the gargantuan conspiracy that is creeping over the world, one must understand many of the idiosyncracies and pieces of the plot before trying to comprehend the big picture.
Below are a few further quotes and statements by well known people. Some are founders of our nation. Others are simply wise people from other places and other times. But all carry wisdom on the subject of government and legitimate authority.
"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the [people]." Declaration of Independence
"Government, in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine
"Men...must necessarily be controlled by a power within them, or apower without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of men; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."Robert Winthrop, u. S. representative
"Yes, we did create a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destructin." Jefferson
"The history of liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." "...concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties." President Woodrow Wilson, May 19, 1912.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." SUpreme Court ruling in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491.
"In cases of conflict, that which is paramount necessarily controls that which is subordinate." Northern R. R. v North Dakota, 250 US 135.
"It is clear, of course, that no act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution." Almeida Sanchez v U. S., 413 US 266, (1973).
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
"On every question of construction (meaning of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, , and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,conform to the probable on in which it was passed." Jefferson, June 12, 1823
"I concur entirely in the propriety in resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is a legitimate Constitution. And, if that be not teh guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistant and stable government." James Madison, 'the father of the Constitution'
"Liberty has never come from government... The history of liberty is the history of resistance." Woodrow Wilson
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they may exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
"In order to become the master, the politician poses as a servant." credited to Charles DeGaulle, French General and President.
"In my judgement, Congress has lost its ability to manage itself. Since the orgy of reforms that took place from the late 1960's through the mid 1970's, it has been incapable of fulfilling some of its most basic constitutional duties." President Gerald Ford.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists. J. Edgar Hoover, founding Drector of the FBI.
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to teh masses over generations, the truth will seem preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." Unknown
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself, for the traitor appears not as a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feaqred." Cicero, Roman Orator.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." Jefferson
"The Supreme Court has periodically disregarded various provisions of the Bill,of Rights. From the New Deal until recent years, for instance, the Supreme Court has largely ignored provisions protecting property rights, such as the takings clause." Irving Brant, Historian
"The penalty good men pay for indifference in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." Edmund Burke.
"When you compromise, you have to give up something and every time you compromise you lose until you lose everything." Adolph Hitler
"There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe
"Find out what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Frederick Douglass, Civil Rights Activist, August 4, 1857.
On whether or not a conspiracy exists: "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations), too plainly proves a deliberate, systematical plan to reduce us to slavery." Jefferson
"The high office of President has been used to forment a plot to remove the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." John Kennedy, at Columbia University, November 12, 1963, ten days before his assassination.
"I worked for the President, and thus thought I was above the law, like all the other executive servants." Daniel Ellsberg, former White House staffer.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Thomas Jefferson
From Article X of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, 1784, "Right of Revolution: Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the whole community and not for the interested or emoluments of any one man, family or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are preverted, and the public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to, refom the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
"[Injustice must be resisted.] No doubt the non-violent way is always the best, but where that does not come naturally, the violent way is both necessary and honorable. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly. It must be shunned at all costs." "He who cannot protect himself and his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor." Mohandas Gandhi, quoted in The State v The People, p. 463.
"When we resist ...concentrations of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power always precedes the destruction of human liberties." President Woodrow Wilson, 1912.
"If good words and gentle means will not reclaim the wicked, they must be dealt with in a more severe manner." Noah Webster.
"Full bellies and education, as such, are not bulwarks for or against freedom and morality. The struggle for the world is not based on hunger vs. plenty, ignorance vs. education totalitarianism vs. democracy. The war for the world is between good and evil." Tom Anderson, Commentator
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better tghan the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms. Couch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill