Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Austin)
 
(Blog Master’s Note) This piece will be divided into two parts, in the first part is the history of the ‘national emergency’ and the powers given to the President while we are in an emergency.  For those worried about S. 1867, the President under the emergency can have anyone, or group, arrested indefinitely by signing an Executive Order with that stated as the objective, and all with out Congress.  I find no evidence that S.1867 is a threat.  Although not covered thoroughly, the ‘national emergency’ began with the Civil War and gave Lincoln extra-ordinary powers.  I was surprised that Kucinich authored H.R. 2990, to do away with the Federal Reserve, the Bill   mentions the ‘national emergency’ throughout. http://keystoliberty.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions/  In the second part Austin gives remedy for the court system  using  All Capital Letter Names for defendants.

 

AFFIDAVIT AND ASSERTION OF

FOREIGN NEUTRAL

THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY ARISING OUT OF HJR-192 and the RESULTING NATIONAL (Military) EMERGENCY AND INTO THE

INDEFINTE FUTURE

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECLARED TO BE THE “PRESUMPTIVE” ENEMY OF THE CORPORATE STATE OF THE FORUM UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AS AMENDED IN 1935 AND SUBJECT TO ALL PROVISIONS EMBRACED WITHIN TITLE 50 USCA

MEMORANDUM AND HISTORY IN SUPPORT

We are going to begin with a series of documents which are representative of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from, in many cases, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.

The first exhibit is taken from a book written by Carl Brent Swisher — American Constitutional Development, A complete constitutional history, from the British colonies to the Truman era. 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, 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 [u]nited 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 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973), 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 1 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 2. 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”

This situation has continued uninterrupted since the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719

In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549:

“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 permanent 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 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 (Latin: …”you have the body.”). 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 not 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 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.

But let us recall that it says:

“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 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 the guarantees of the Constitution.

Also from Senate Report 93-549 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. If we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC Section 95b 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 1, 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 the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, (48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719), 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 2, 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 95b is current law. This is the law that exists over these united States right this moment.

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 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, 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:

“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 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 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 5) today in Title 12, USC 95b. The language in Title 12, USC 95b 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 that has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty 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 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 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 5b of the same Act 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. 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 Please note the distinction between “United States, and that of “united States”…

In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 “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 see 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 ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the (united States) or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” (NOTE: later we will discuss that jurisdiction … for now please take note of this important point.).

What just happened? At 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. 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. (NOTE: change of title now! Exactly whom does the President represent in this situation now??)

To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America’s involvement in World War 1, 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, 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, “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.

 In Senate Document 93-549, 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 9), 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. 1, 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.

PRIZE COURTS AND THE LAW OF PRIZE

 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”, 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.” (Which means commercial intercourse amongst the American people in any form, to include procreation, is illegal and thereby, can only take place, when a “License” is issued , authorizing Americans to interact and do business with other Americans while at all times being held to be (presumptive) enemies of the state.) This is the case of The Rapid (1814).

Additionally,

“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 in judicio.” (Hence all statute or merchant law is copyright and foreign to be employed and used by the enemy

In other words, they have no personal rights at law in these “Prize” courts. This is the case of The Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814), 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.” (Try operating your car on the public highways and by ways without licensing that car and yourself . . . they will seize that car and impound it to be sold at public auction., and you will go to jail as a “Felon.”)

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:

“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”.(Does summary seizure of property by the IRS come to mind? And this is why it became necessary for the American people to be declared the “enemy” of the state under the mere presumption of the “Trading With the Enemy Act” as amended in 1935, thereby, making all interests in the property of the American people a legitimate prize of a foreign corporation pretending to operate under the original constitution of the United States of America.)

From the case 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, 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, wasn’t it? So once we were declared enemies, all intercourse, commercial or otherwise 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. (License of Cosmetology for example, or be charged and declared an “enemy” felon without a license to perform our chosen or God given craft.) We are certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Driver’s 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 13)

“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.

Reading from 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, 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 added),

“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 that government can and will wield once no longer bound by constitutional restrictions.

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 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:

“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, 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 nominal 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 marked by the red asterisk (*) above, ” began, what did the original Act of October 6,1917 say?

Referring back to 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 [u]nited 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 the original text where the red asterisk is (above), it 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:

“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, 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.

Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, 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 be may prescribed, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings 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 . On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039(a), let’s see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:

“Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday…”

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, 1 91 7, 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 there under 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 giving 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:

“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 a public enemy in fact, and placed under military authority.

Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1:

“Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the (U)nited 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.” Notice now to whom we refer as “owning” the money!

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. Are you seeing the fraud here now?

From the Roosevelt Papers:

“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:

“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 …” That 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, 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.

(To be Continued with “Congressman McFadden made a comment” ).

Advertisements