Agriculture Adjustment Act, Bank Holiday, booty jurisdiction, Congressman McFadden, enemy of the state, Federal Reserve, HJR 192, maritime law, President Roosevelt, Prize cases, prize courts, Public Policy, Roosevelt papers, sovereign documents, sovereignty, Trading With The Enemy Act, United States v. Butler, voluntary acceptance of debt
Congressman McFadden made the comment:
“Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it was read from the clerk’s desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a dictatorship over finance in the united States. It is complete control over the banking system in the united States … It is difficult under the circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill, as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in 1917.”
Congressman McFadden later goes on to say:
“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:
“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?”
What is the collateral that underwrites the debt?
(Our negotiable signature or voluntary acceptance of debt instruments which represents our ability to produce goods and services into the indefinite future.) We have no rights nor privileges in Admiralty, we as a “natural / biological party” can’t even be acknowledged in admiralty proceedings, the court can’t ever acknowledge our presence. (Our assigned and colorable public vessel however does have such privileges and we MUST do commerce through this vessel, to do business in general.) Our rights remain in a separate and limited jurisdiction foreign to admiralty, which is also termed to be “Civil” in nature. Our ability to produce goods and services underwrites and monetizes all offers of unsecured debt made to us by the insolvent United States Inc. So called “credit money” once issued to a federal reserve bank as unsecured debt and in the form of federal reserve notes, become monitized the moment these as yet un-circulated notes pass from the fed bank, into our hands and we voluntarily accept them as “legal tender.”
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 – To those who don’t understand the debtor scheme, we appear to be economic slaves for the system and held to a condition of involuntary bankruptcy and thereby, peonage.
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record:
“When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the 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 Treasury was taken over by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Holding companies, the Depository Trust Co. and the CEDE Co., hold the assets.
To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy if they were not joined in a limited public private joint venture with the United States Inc, the insolvent party in this joint venture.
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.
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 Federal Reserve took over the Treasury and 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 a 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.”
The enemy has no personal rights at law or statute. 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) :
“That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the united States measured thereby is declared to be against public policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred.“
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:
“This conference of fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were presented to me at the White House on March 11th by a committee of the conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for the same broad powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had requested for solving the bank crisis.”
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.
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency:
“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
“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 regulations can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for over 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.
Statutory/admiralty courts have no jurisdiction over you personally unless you volunteer by “traverse” and grant personum jurisdiction out of ignorance. Judge Bork once made the comment in a public appearance that over 90% of the people in prison today, volunteered to be there. The named or charged party is never you. The named party is however, the colorable/fictional public vessel assigned to you bearing a bastardized version of your given name in styled in ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS.
This slight of administrative hand is the subtle process employed by the courts to cause you to traverse by answering “as” the vessel, rather than “for” the vessel as the vessels authorized representative. When in an admiralty proceeding and the vessel name is called and you erroneously answer in such manner that you believe you are the one being addressed, you have given yourself over to the court.
A quick suggestion in how to respond to a court proceeding in which your public vessel is of course the named party:
When the bastardized version of your name is called, you say nothing, but simply stand up and remain silent until spoke to. The judge will ask the obvious question: “Are you JOHN Q DOE”” You say: “No, I’m not, I am however the authorized representative for the named party and public vessel JOHN Q DOE.”
The judge will probably ask if you’re JOHN Q DOE’S attorney. You would say: “No I’m not, I am however, the Master of this named and colorable Public Vessel JOHN Q DOE and am here to settle and honorably close this particular account. What is owed and who am I to make the check out to?”
According to the judge, the above will of course vary to some degree and you’ll have to be prepared to deal with those variations. Understanding the debtor scheme is how you are going to be prepared to deal with a judge that will try to lead you into a jurisdictional traverse.
From Section 93-549:
“Under this procedure we retain Government by operation of 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.”
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach:
“My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything.”
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 to challenge the Trading With the Enemy Act.
(Thereby, out of necessity and due to the above referenced denial of standing to sue, cause is given for relief, to rebut any and all presumption that this presenter is, or acts as an enemy of the foreign forum, the United States, an insolvent body corporate.)
Continuing with Senate Report 93-549:
“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 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:
“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 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 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:
“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 is in no position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:
“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 acquiescence. 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 65 years.
Now, that’s no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 65 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, 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:
“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 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 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, 1936):
“A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.”
What is being said here is that a tax can all 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:
“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 government over enemies crafted by artifice. They are not valid contracts.
Again from United States v. Butler:
“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 Federal 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. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing.
From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find the following:
“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. (And the common law is the law of men, not fictions.)
The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common law. The courts of today, are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we the American people have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the statute law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find:
“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.”
So . . . . WE THE PEOPLE are, and remain the SOVEREIGN power under the Constitution for the united States.”
From Senate Report 93-549:
“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 Article of 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:
“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 with extreme prejudice in all cases whatsoever and whenever they so summarily chose.
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:
“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, both organized and unorganized.
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, and NO jurisdiction over Sovereign American citizens!
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”, 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 the statutory authority of the Congress.
In this same section, 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:
“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. This “belligerent” approach is consistent with the summary actions of the IRS when seizing property interest throughout the country and bypassing administrative and procedural mandates.
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:
“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, un-amended, 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.
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. (Being in commercial dishonor activates this booty jurisdiction.) It would no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution for the United States with us upon entering a booty courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law or Article III Court, 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 the Admiralty or wartime jurisdiction.
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 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, 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 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 Sovereign 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 94412, September 14, 1976, 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, 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 there under (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (1 2 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 Colonial Rights: Resolutions Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774″. 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 (as it was theirs) which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious method.
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 My part, however, I firmly believe that, “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and on that superior authority I offer this Affidavit and Memorandum for cause and in support of relief and thereby, remedy both out of necessity and operation of law, declaring my foreign neutral status and thereby, persona standi in judicio and within my own court at all times ! The presumption of “Enemy of the State” as implemented under the “Trading with the Enemy Act” stands rebutted with prejudice and for cause. Droit, droit.
By and For: