• Home
  • Commentary/Survival
  • Edible/ Medicinal Plants

Freedom Documents

~ documents from sovereigns on how to attain freedom- Not legal advice-just what has worked for others

Freedom Documents

Tag Archives: HJR 192

The Declaration Of Seperate And Equal Stations

27 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

18 U.S.C. 331, 22 U.S.C. 286 et. seq., 22 U.S.C. 287 et. seq., 31 U.S.C. 463, 31 U.S.C. 822a, 5 U.S.C. 5305, 5 U.S.C. 5335, 5 U.S.C. 903, 7 U.S.C. 1332, 7 U.S.C. 1371, 8 U.S.C. 1101, admiralty jurisdiction, Agriculture Control Act, Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, Bennett v. Butterworth, Bretton Woods Agreement, Bretton Woods Par Value Modification Act, Coinage Act of 1965, Craig v. Missouri, Erie v. Tompkins, Executive Order 10033, Federalist Papers No. 31, Federalist Papers No. 44, Federalist Papers No. 83, HJR 192, International Monetary fund, League of Nations, Monetary Control Act of 1980, Proclamation No. 3972, Reorganization, Senate Report 93-549, Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, Swift v. Tyson, Tax Lien Act of 1966, United Nations, United States v. Burr, United States v. Marigold, Ward v. Smith

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 

(Blog Masters Note:
This is from an e-mail from Frank ‘Austin’ England III,  titled an ‘A Very Informative Read’ and is a teaching tool.   The original can be found Here.

All past posts are now in a drop down below comments. )

THE DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION

A TREATIS ON THE HISTORY OF THE CORRUPT
MONEY SYSTEM OF THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES

The document below is an exact copy of the original document that Mr.John Nelson wrote on February 21, 1992 with the following exceptions: (1) many statements have been made bold or italicized to emphasize their importance. The original document had neither bold nor italic text.

TO: The American� People, The People Of The State Of Colorado, U.S.A. February 21, 1992 DECLARATION OF CAUSE AND NECESSITY TO ABOLISH AND DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION I suggest you read Senate Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973), “Summary Of Emergency Power Statutes”, consisting of 607 pages, which I believe you will find most interesting. The United States went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and by Executive Order 6260 on March 9, 1933 (See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594), under the “Trading with The Enemy Act” (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 5, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a. On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank System, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for criminal acts. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon (See: Congressional Record, pp. 4055-4058). Congress confirmed the Bankruptcy on June 5, 1933, and impaired the obligations and considerations of contracts through the “Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933”, (See: House Joint Resolution 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session). The several States of the Union pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous socialist committees, such as the “Council Of State Governments”, “Social Security Administration” etc., to purportedly deal with the economic “Emergency.” These Organizations operated under the “Declaration of INTER-dependence” of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in “The Book of the States.” The 1937 edition of the Book of the States openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal “Tenants” on their Land. Book Of The States, 1937, pg. 155.

This of course was compounded by such activities as price fixing of wheat and grains 7 U.S.C.A. 1332, quota regulations 7 U.S.C.A. 1371,  and livestock products 7 U.S.C.A. 1903(Blog Masters Note:Repealed), which have been consistently below the costs of production, interest on loans and inflation of the paper “Bills of Credit”, leaving the food producers and others in a state, and thereby a condition of abject peonage and involuntary servitude, constituting the taking of private property, for the benefit and use of others, without just compensation.

NOTE: The Council Of State governments has now been absorbed into such things as the “National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws”, whose Headquarters Office is located at 676 North St. Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and “all” being “members of the Bar”, and operating under a different “Constitution and By Laws”, far distant from the depositories of the public Records, has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported “Uniform” and “Model” Acts and pretended statutory provisions, to “help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable.” (See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, pg. 2). This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote “we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.”(See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130). This association has been engaged in activities such as turning “Marriage” (licensed) into “International Private Law”, through its International Liaisons, which meet at such places as the Hague Conferences (See: Handbook Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws, 1966 Ed., pg. 156-157). On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning “common law,” in the Federal Government. “THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE, WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL OR GENERAL IN THEIR NATURE, BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS”

(See: Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188). The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our personal right to inalienable Liberty (See: Stephen, A Treaties On The Principles Of Pleading, Introduction, Pg. 23; Hemmingway, History Of Common Law Pleading As Evidence Of The Growth Of Individual Liberty And Power Of The Courts, 5 Alabama Law Journal 1; Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1, 10 L.Ed. 865; Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Amendments VII, IX and X.) The members and association of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws “to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives”, including hodge podging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as “One Form Of Action.” (See: Constitution And By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, supra, see also, Colorado Methods of Practice, West Pub., Vol. 4, pgs. 2-3, Authors Comments.) NOTE: The enumerated, specified and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution (1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further hodgpodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was once again brought inland. “This is the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as the 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION between ACTIONS AT LAW and SUITS IN EQUITY, this change would ABOLISH THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY.” (Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17, also see, Federalist Papers No. 83 ; Declaration Of Resolves Of The First Continental Congress; Oct. 14, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of Taking Up Arms; July 6, 1775, Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776, Bennett v, Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669.) The United States thereafter entered the Second World War during which time the “League of Nations” was re-instituted under pretense of the “United Nations” (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287 et. seq. ), and the “Bank For International Settlements” re-instituted under pretense of the “Bretton Woods Agreement” (See: 60 Stat. 1401, 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. seq.) as the “International Monetary Fund” (The Fund) and the International Bank For Reconstruction And Development” (The Bank). The United States as a corporate body politic (artificial) came out of World War II in worse economic shape than when it entered, and in 1950 declared Bankruptcy and “Reorganization.” The Reorganization is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The “Explanation” at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The “Secretary of Treasury” was appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy. (See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967). The United States went down the road and periodically filed for further Reorganization. Things and situations worsened, having done what they were Commanded NOT to do, (See: Madison’s Notes , Constitutional Convention, August 16, 1787, Federalist Papers No. 44) and in 1965 passed the “Coinage Act of 1965” completely debasing the Constitutional Coin (gold & silver i.e. Dollar). (See: 18 U.S.C.A. 331, ; 332 United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560, 13 L.Ed. 257). At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, then President Lyndon B. Johnson stated in his Press Release that: “When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States….” “Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress, who are here on this historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it.” It is important to take cognizance of the fact that NO Constitutional Amendment was ever obtained to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE, amend, abridge or abolish the Constitutional mandates, provisions or prohibitions, but due to internal and external diversions surrounding the Viet Nam War etc., the usurpation and breach went basically unchallenged and unnoticed by the general public at large, who became “a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or cheap source of SLAVE LABOR.” (See: Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars, TM-SW7905.1, pgs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 & 56). Congress was clearly delegated the Power and Authority to regulate and maintain the true and inherent “value” of the Coin within the scope and purview of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the ordained Constitution (1787), and further, under a corresponding duty and obligation to maintain said gold and silver Coin and Foreign Coin at and within the necessary and proper “equal weights and measures” clause (See also: Bible, Dueteronomy, Chapter 25, verses 13 thru 16, Proverbs, Chapter 16, verse 11, Public Law 97-289, 96 Stat. 1211).

Those exercising the Offices of the several States, in equal measure, knew such “De Facto Transitions” were unlawful and unauthorized, but sanctioned, implemented and enforced the complete debauchment and the resulting “governmental, social, industrial economic change” in the “De Jure” States and in United State of America (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5936, 5945, 31 U.S.C.A. 314, 31 U.S.C.A 321, 31 U.S.C.A. 5112, C.R.S. 11-61-101 C.R.S. 39-22-103.5 and C.R.S. 18-11-203 ), and were and are now under the delusion that they can do both directly and indirectly what they were absolutely prohibited from doing (See: also, Federalist Papers No. 44, Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters 903). In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the “ Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 “, by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. “Essential Engine” (See: Federalist Papers No. 31 ) was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. (See: Public Law 89-719 , Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see; C.R.S. 5-1-106 ). The Uniform Commercial Code was of course promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with American Law Institute for the “banking and business interests.” (See: Handbook Of The National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws. (1966) Ed. pgs. 152 &153). The United States being engaged in numerous United Nation conflicts, including the Korean and the Viet Nam Conflicts, which were under direction of the United Nations (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287d), and agreeing to foot the bill (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287j), and not being able to honor their obligations and re-hypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly dishonored and disavowed their “Notes” and “Obligations” (12 U.S.C.A. 411 ) i.e. “Federal Reserve Notes” Through Public Law 90-269, Section 2, 82 Stat. 50 (1968) to wit: “Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking ‘and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes’.” 22 U.S.C.A. 287 et. seq.

Things steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970, then President Nixon issued Proclamation No. 3972, declaring an “emergency” because the Postal Employees struck against the de facto government(?) for higher pay, due to inflation of the paper “Bills of Credit.” (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 596). Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under the control of the “Department of Defense.” (See: Department Of the Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 (1969 ed.)). “The System had been faltering for a decade, but the bench mark date of the collapse is put at August 15, 1971. On this day, then President Nixon reversed U.S. International Monetary Policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of the “U.S. dollar” (the Federal Reserve Note (FRN)) into gold.” (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5937 & Senate Report No. 93-549, Foreword, pg. III, Proclamation No. 4074, pg. 597, 31 U.S.C.A. 314 & 31 U.S.C.A. 5112). On September 21, 1973, Congress passed Public Law 93-110, amending the Bretton Woods Par Value Modification Act, 82 Stat. 116, 31 U.S.C.A. 449, and reiterated the “Emergency”, 12 U.S.C.A 95a, and Section 8 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1945 ( 22 U.S.C.A. 286f ), and which included “reports on foreign currency transactions.” (Also See: Executive Order 10033). This act further declared in Section 2 (b) that: “No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold.” On January 19, 1976, Marjorie S. Holt noted for the record, a second “Declaration Of INTER-dependence” and clearly identified the U.N. as a “Communist” organization, and that they were seeking both production and monetary control over the Union and People through International Organization promoting the “One World Order.” (See: Congressional Record, January 19, 1976, Extension of remarks; also see, 8 U.S.C.A. 1101 (40) , 50 U.S.C.A. 781 & 783). The socio/economic situation worsened as noted in the Complaint/Petition, filed in the U.S. Court of Claims, Docket No. 41-76, on February 11, 1976, by 44 Federal Judges, Atkins et al. vs. U.S.. Atkins et al. complained that “As a result of inflation, the compensation of federal judges has been substantially diminished each year since 1969, causing direct and continuing monetary harm to plaintiffs…the real value of the “dollar” (FRN’s) decreased by approximately 34.5 percent from March 15, 1969 to October 1, 1975….As a result, plaintiffs have suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of earnings”, and in the prayer for relief claimed “damages for the constitutional violations enumerated above, measured as the diminution of his earnings for the entire period since March 9, 1969.”

It is quite apparent that the persons holding and enjoying Offices of Public Trust, Honor and/or Profit knew of the emergency emergent problem and sought protection for themselves, to the damage and injury of the People and Children, who were classified as “a club that has many other members” who “have no remedy.”

And knowing that “heinous” acts had been committed, stated that they [judges/lawyers] would not apply the Law, nor would any substantive remedy be applied (“checked more or less, but never stopped”) “until all of us [judges] are dead.” Such persons Fraudulently swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and several Republican States of the Union, but never the less intentionally breached that Duty to protect the People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and stealthy encroachment.� (See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074, The Tempting of America, supra, pgs. 155-159 also see, 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69-71, C.R.S. 24-75-101). This is verified in Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5944, which states: “Moving to a floating exchange rate for international commerce means private enterprise and not central governments bear the risk of currency fluctuations.” Numerous serious debates were held in Congress, including but not limited to, Tuesday, July 27, 1976 (See: Congressional Record – House, July 27, 1976), concerning the International Financial Institutions and its operations. Representative, Ron Paul, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, made numerous references to the true practices of the “International” financial institutions, including but not limited to, the conversion of 27,000,000 (27 million) in gold, contributed by the United States as part of its “quota obligations”, which the International Monetary Fund (Governor-Secretary of Treasury) sold (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5945 & 5946), under some very questionable terms and concessions. (Also see: The Ron Paul Money Book, (1991), by Ron Paul, Plantation Publishing, 837 W. Plantation, Clute, Texas 77531). On October 28, 1977 the passage of Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 declared most banking institutions, including State banks, to be under direction and control of the corporate “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5942, United States Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-481). The Act further declared that: “(2) Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 ( 31 U.S.C.A. 822a (now 22 U.S.C. 286e) ) is amended by striking out the phrase ‘stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar’…” (c) The joint resolution entitled ‘Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States’, approved June 5, 1933 ( 31 U.S.C.A. 463 (now 5118) ) shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.” The International Organizations, Corporations and Associations, had refused to pay their debts and could not pay their debts, and determined that they could pass the loss of their non-redeemable, non-current notes, bonds and evidences of debt off on others, and thereby crown their fraud with success. (See: Letter, October 26, 1989 from Department of Treasury, Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel (International Affairs), as recorded in the Office of Clerk and Recorder, Baca County, Colorado, at Book, 540 Page 364). The de facto United States as Corporator, (22 U.S.C.A. 286e, et seq.) and “state” (C.R.S. 24-36-104, C.R.S. 24-60-1301, Article IV(h) ) had declared “Insolvency.” (See: 26 I.R.C. 165 (g)(1), U.C.C 1-201 (23), C.R.S. 39-22-103.5, Westfall vs. Braley. 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W.2d 911 Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall 447). In 1980 Congress passed, among other things, Public Law 96-221, providing for the furtherance and expansion of the profligate re-hypothecated debt pyramid scheme, and reduced the reserve requirements on “transaction accounts” to a minimum of 3% per centum to a maximum of 14 per centum (See: Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980 Section 103(b) (E)(2)). “In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, a dollar will only exchange for a dollar. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount….” Compare this with the United States Constitution, which says: “No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt…” and which also says: “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof…” (Italics added for emphasis; this paragraph added to the original John B. Nelson document of February 21, 1992 on July 18, 1999 to reiterate what was stated previously in this document and to demonstrate, first hand, yet another way the Constitution is being usurped, in fact and in intent). “In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered several centuries ago. At one time, bankers were merely middlemen. They made profit by accepting gold and coins brought to them for safekeeping and lending them to borrowers. But they soon found that the receipts they issued to depositors were being used as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.

Then bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving borrowers their promises to pay (bank notes). In this way, banks began to create money.

More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment. Transaction deposits are the modern counter-part of bank notes.

It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could “spend” by writing checks, thereby “printing their own money.” (See: Modern Money Mechanics , a workbook on deposits currency and bank reserves., 1982 Rev. Ed., Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, P.O. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois 60690, pgs. 3 & 4).

Seventy four (74) years is NOT “temporary.” It’s a permanent state of “Emergency”, and was clearly instituted, formed and erected within the Union through gross usurpations, abridgments, malfeasance and breach of legal and fiduciary duties, and the continual contrivance, misrepresentation, conversion, fluctuations, fraud and avarice of the International Financial Institutions, Organizations, Corporations and Associations, including the Federal Reserve, their “fiscal and depository agent” 22 U.S.C.A. 286d. This profligate practice has led to such “Emergency” legislation as the “Public Debt Limit-Balance Budget And Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985”, Public Law 99-177, etc. The government by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A 286e ) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter (See: The Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, United States v. Burr, ). The real party in interest is not the dejure “United States of America” or “State”, but “The Bank” and “The Fund.” (22 U.S.C.A 286, et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103). The acts committed under fraud , force and seizures are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” i.e. “recapture.” (See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323 ). Such principles as “Fraud and Justice NEVER dwell together” Wingate’s Maxims 680, and “A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.” Broom’s Maxims 297, 729; Cowper’s Reports 343; 5 Scott’s New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800, are too high of a thought concept, as is “Due Process”, “Just Compensation” and Justice itself.� Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses, nor will the color of the cloth one wears cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery, deceits and the outright furtherance of the fraud. When Black is fraudulently declared to be White, not all will live in darkness. As astutely observed by Will Rogers, “there are men running governments who shouldn’t be allowed to play with matches”, and is as applicable today as Jesus’ statements about Lawyers. The contrived “emergency” has created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgments of delegated Powers and Authority. As stated in Senate Report 93-549: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidential proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971. These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal Law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process. 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.” (See: Foreword, pg. III). The “Introduction”, on page 1, begins with a phenomenal declaration, to wit: “A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. 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…”

According to the research done in 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, no “emergency” justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. Arguendo, “Supremacy Clause” and “Separation of Powers”, it is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549 that abridgment has in fact occurred.

The statements heard in the federal and state Tribunals, on numerous occasions, that Constitutional arguments are “immaterial”, “frivolous” etc., is based upon the concealment, furtherance and compounding of the Frauds and “Emergency” created and sustained by the “Expatriated”, ALIENS of the United Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and Associations.

(See: Letter , Insight Magazine, February 18, 1991, pg. 7, Lowell L. Flanders, President, U.N. Staff Union, New York) 8 U.S.C.A. 1481 is one of the controlling statutes on expatriation, as is 22 U.S.C.A. 611, 612 & 613 and 50 U.S.C.A. 781. The Internal Revenue Service entered into a “service agreement” with the U.S. Treasury Department� (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26) and the Agency for International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91.

The Agency For International Development is an International paramilitary operation (See: Department Of The Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1-10(7) (c)(1), 22 U.S.C.A. 284), and includes such activities as “Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area.” (See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)) also see, Agreement Between The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of the United Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that the “Agreement” regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See: Congressional Record – Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in the first instant. The International Organizational intents, purposes and activities include complete control of “Public Finance” i.e. “control, supervision, and audit of indigenous fiscal resources; budget practices, taxation, expenditures of public funds, currency issues, and banking agencies and affiliates.” (See: FM 41-10, pgs.2-30 thru 2-31, Section 251. Public Finance). This of course complies with “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars” Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1, which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people (See: pg. 3 & 7), monetary control by the Internationalist, through information etc. solicited and collected by the Internal Revenue Service ( See: TM-SW7905.1 , pg. 48, also see, 22 U.S.C.A 286f & Executive order No. 10033, 26 U.S.C.A 6103 (k)(4)) and who is operating and enforcing the seditious International program. (See: TM-SW7905.1, pg. 52). The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 further describes the International “Civil Affairs” operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the A.I.D. is autonomous and under direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency, and at page 3-8 that the operation is “paramilitary.” The International Organization(s) intents and purposes was to promote, implement,, and enforce a “DICTATORSHIP OVER FINANCE IN THE UNITED STATES.” (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186). It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service Agents. etc., are “Agents of a Foreign Principal” within the meaning and intent of the “Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” They are directed and controlled by the corporate “Governor” of “The Fund” a/k/a “Secretary of Treasury” (See: Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480 & 481, 26 U.S.C.A 7701 (a)(11), Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10), and the corporate “Governor” of “The Bank” 22 U.S.C.A 286 & 286a, acting as “information-service employees” 22 U.S.C.A. 611 (c)(ii), and have been and do now “solicit, collect, disburse or dispense” contributions [Tax-pecuniary contribution, Blacks Law Dic. 5th ed.], loans, money or other things of value for or in interest of such foreign principal 22 U.S.C.A 611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements with a Foreign Principal pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91 i.e. the “Agency For International Development.” (See: 22 U.S.C.A)

And that . . . is the corruptible history of American finance over the past ninety plus years and the slippery slope of foreign manipulation and intervention by international banking interests who by their pre-meditated contrivance, have disassembled and subverted our Constitutional protections of the guarantee to protect and preserve the honest and substantive money of the America people, bringing upon our American shores in derogation of our Common Law, the statute merchants law of Admiralty process, and thereby, secretly move our country and its people under the badge of peonage imposed by the law merchant who by encroaching judicial precedent, establish an ever expanding condition of perpetual involuntary bankruptcy and the endless generational economic bondage of the wage slave!

Note: Congress was clearly delegated the Power and Authority to regulate and maintain the true and inherent “value” of the Coin within the scope and purview of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 & 6 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the ordained Constitution (1787), and further, under a corresponding duty and obligation to maintain said gold and silver Coin and Foreign Coin at and within the necessary and proper “equal weights and measures” clause (See also: Bible, Dueteronomy, Chapter 25, verses 13 thru 16, Proverbs, Chapter 16, verse 11, Public Law 97-289, 96 Stat. 1211).

He who does not freely speak the truth is a betrayer of the truth {Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat proditor est veritatis};

He who does not blame, approves {Qui non improbat, approbat};

He who is silent appears to consent {Qui tacet, consentire videtur; 6 Toull. liv. 3, t. 3, n. 32, note; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 393; 2 Supp. to Ves. jr. 442; 1 Dane’s Ab. c. 1, art. 4, � 3; 8 T. R. 483; 6 Penn. St. R. 336; 1 Greenl. Ev. 201; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1313; Jenk. Cent. 32; 6 Barb. N.Y. 28, 35;};

He who does not speak the truth freely is a traitor to the truth {Veritatem qui non liber� pronunciat, proditor veritatis; Coke, 4th Inst. Epil.};

Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action {Volenti non fit injuria};

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Doctrine Of Debt Adjustment (And Set-Off)

18 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Albright v. Gates, bankruptcy, Congressman Traficant, Davidovich v. Welton, debt adjustment, HJR 192, In Re Davidovich, In Re TLC Hospitals, Lee v. Schweiker, Logical Relationship Test, Malinowshi v. N. State Department of Labor, Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, Newbery Corp. v. Fireman's Fund, Pinkstaff v. Untied States, recoupment, set-off, United States v. Bulson, United States v. Nordic Village Inc, University Medical Center v. Sullivan

 

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 

 

DOCTRINE OF DEBT ADJUSTMENT (and SET-OFF)

IN BANKRUPTCY (BOTH SIDES OF THE ACCOUNT)

On March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant stated in the House of Representatives: (“Mr. Speaker. We are now here in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.”): Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33.

. . . the primary issue of the above doctrine is in reference to the symbiotic nexus of the debt “CREATED UNDER HJR-192” and the necessity of two parties (The American people sponsoring the credit and being in joint venture with government the debtor) as lying within the same operative facts (which is what requires that the public debt be discharged dollar for dollar.)  This sets up a self executing dynamic that must and does arise out of NECESSITY in our quasi relationship with THE FED AS THE FED HAS AN OBLIGATION TO EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY,(Emphasis on the Individual Account) AND THAT OBLIGATION IS THAT EACH OF US ARE A PRE-PAID PRINCIPAL TO OFFER CREDIT TO THE TREASURY AND THEREBY, COLLATERALIZE THE FED TO DO BUSINESS AS THE DEBTOR ENTITY IT IS DESIGNED TO BE.  THEREBY . . . WE COME WITHIN THE  same set of operative facts UNDER HJR-192 as the (OR ANY) initial claim i.e. offer or claim initiated  AND THEREBY . . . .  THAT CLAIM OR OFFER instantly activates additional (PRE-PAID) legal rights otherwise dormant in the (alleged) debtor (taxpayer/transmitting utility) or defendant in possession through “its” attorney in fact or authorized representative, being the natural person. (Who by his or her nature is always within their own court of paramount or natural right)  The term “same set of operative facts” identifies the necessity of both side of the account equaling ZERO.  (Keep in mind, that this is all about the necessity re the remedy and/or relief through the bankruptcy and thererby re-organization process to avoid the imposition of a condition of involuntary bankruptcy/servitude or peonage upon each and every natural person.)

The justification for the defensive use of recoupment in bankruptcy is that there is no independent basis for a “debt,” and therefore there is no “claim” against estate property. Harmon, 188 B.R. at 425; § 101(5) (claim is a “right to payment” or “right to an equitable remedy”); § 101(12) (“‘debt’ means liability on a claim”). Since recoupment is neither a claim nor a debt, it is unaffected by either the automatic stay or the debtor’s discharge. Id.; In Re:TLC Hospitals, 224 F.3d at 1011; Newbery Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins., 95 F.3d at 1399-1400; Mercy Hosp. of Watertown v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 171 B.R. 490, 494-95 (N.D.N.Y. 1994);§ 524.

In recoupment, the respective claims may arise either before or after the commencement of the bankruptcy case, but they must arise out of the same transaction. Newbery, 95 F.3d at 1399. The creditor is allowed “to assert that certain mutual claims extinguish one another . . . in spite of the fact that they could not be ‘set-off’ under 11 U.S.C. § 553.” Lee v. Schweirker, 739 F.2d 870, 875 (3rd Cir. 1984).

The “same transaction” requirement essentially distinguishes recoupment from “set-off” or “off-set,” a similar equitable doctrine of debt adjustment, governed by § 553, which requires the existence of mutual, prepetition debts. Id. Therefore, if Aetna is not entitled to recoupment, the debtor’s bankruptcy discharge would prevent an off-set of Aetna’s discharged prepetition claim against the debtor against its post-petition obligation to the debtor. Davidovich v. Welton,(In re Davidovich), 901 F.2d 1533, 1539 & n. 4 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Johnson v. Rutherford Hosp. (In re Johnson), 13 B.R. 185, 189 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1981)).

In this appeal, Aetna argues that recovery of the debtor’s LTD overpayment falls within the common law doctrine of equitable recoupment because the pre-petition overpayment arose out of the same transaction as the debtor’s claim for post-petition LTD benefits. In the Ninth Circuit, in order to determine if two claims arose from the “same transaction,” we must apply the “logical relationship” test. TLC Hosps., 224 F.3d at 1012; Newbery, 95 F.3d at 1403.

A. Logical Relationship Test

 Historically, both recoupment and set-off functioned as equitable rules of joinder, enabling parties to litigate in one proceeding claims that would otherwise have been pursued separately. Lee, 739 F.2d at 875 & n. 5; 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc., Civ. 2d

 § 1401 (West 1990). Recoupment is the common law precursor of the compulsory counterclaim, whereas setoff is the precursor of the permissive counterclaim. Id.

The common-law claim for recoupment is analogous to a “compulsory counterclaim interposed solely to defeat or diminish plaintiff’s recovery.” 6 Wright et al., supra, § 1409 at 50. The “logical relationship test” is applied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a) to determine a compulsory counterclaim, i.e., whether the claim “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7013/Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a); Schulman v. State of California,  (In re Lazar), 237 F.3d 967, 979 (9th Cir. 2001).

A logical relationship exists when the counterclaim arises from the same aggregate set of operative facts as the initial claim, in that the same operative facts serve as the basis of both claims or the aggregate core of facts upon which the claim rests activates additional legal rights otherwise dormant in the defendant.

Pinkstaff v. United States, (In re Pinkstaff)974 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).

In applying this standard, “courts have permitted a variety of obligations to be recouped against each other, requiring only that the obligations be sufficiently interconnected so that it would be unjust to insist that one party fulfill its obligation without requiring the same of the other party.” 5 Collier, supra, ¶ 553.10[1].

Under the “logical relationship” test, the word “transaction” is given a liberal and flexible construction. See Newbery, 95 F.3d at 1402 (citing Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 610 (1926) and Albright v. Gates, , 362 F.2d 928, 929 (9th Cir. 1966)); United States v. Bulson, (In re Bulson), 117 B.R. 537, 541 (9th Cir. BAP 1990), aff’d, 974 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has opined: “‘[t]ransaction’ is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship.” Moore, 270 U.S. at 610.

In addition, the term “same aggregate set of operative facts” does not mean that there must be identical facts, “since the facts relied upon by the plaintiff rarely, if ever, are, in all particulars, the same as those constituting the defendant’s counterclaim.” Id.; Albright, 362 F.2d at 929 (“Two bundles of facts seldom are identical for comparing ‘transactions,’ and so close judgments must be made from time to time.”)

By comparison, some other circuit courts do not use the “logical relationship” test. They believe a narrow interpretation of the “same transaction” requirement should be used in the bankruptcy context. For example, the Third Circuit holds that “a mere logical relationship,” i.e., involving “the same two parties . . . and a similar subject matter, “is not enough” to warrant recoupment in the bankruptcy context. University Medical Center v. Sullivan, (In re University Medical Center), 973 F.2d 1065, 1081 (3rd Cir. 1992) (withholding of Medicare payments in one year to adjust for overpayments in another year was not the “same transaction”). It applied a “circumscribed” definition of “transaction,” which requires that both claims arise out of the “identical transaction,” or out of a “single integrated transaction, so that it would be inequitable for the debtor to enjoy the benefits of that transaction without also meeting its obligations.” Id. at 1080-81. Accord, Malinowski v. N.Y. State Department of Labor,(In re Malinowski), 156 F.3d 131, 133 (2nd Cir. 1998) (holding that, in bankruptcy, “transaction” is given a more restricted definition than in the context of compulsory counterclaims under the rules of civil procedure). That approach has been expressly rejected by the Ninth Circuit, and we must follow the Ninth Circuit definition. See Newbery, 95 F.3d at 1402; TLC Hosps., 224 F.3d at 1013.

Under either standard, however, courts evaluate the equities of the case, the main difference between them being the “degree of interconnectedness required with respect to the relevant obligations.” 5 Collier, supra, ¶ 553.10[01] at 553-104.

However, when a governmental unit formally invokes the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court by filing a proof of claim, government exposure to counterclaim liability exists under 11 USC 106(a) [In re Pinkstaff, 974 F2d 113 (CA9 1992); see United States v. Nordic Village Inc., 503 US 30— [112 SCt 1011] (1992)]. Under Pinkstaff, the court applies a so-called “logical relationship” test. For purposes of 106(a), a logical relationship exists when the counterclaim arises from the same set of operative facts as the initial claim in that the same operative facts serve as the basis for both claims or the aggregate core of facts upon which the claim rests activates additional legal rights otherwise dormant in the defendant.

So . . . with the above in mind . . . when government makes the natural person an offer (presentment) to respond with a line of credit to the Treasury for some federal project and thereby related monitizing of said credit request made by the principal for acceptance for value and return to the offerer the rule is (the officer or agent of the debtor in possession of all property interests in America being the United States Inc. is the party asking for “Funding”) Upon acceptance of said offer in joint venture, there is at that point no controversy as the original offer has been honored and returned for value and that accounting is brought to zero. If however, the party that made the offer dishonors the acceptance and attempts to mislead the principal re said principals specific performance of having accepted and returned for the express purpose to honor the aforesaid request, but the offering agent’s purpose is to gain unjust enrichment re the transaction and access to the principals exemption to defer the tax on that request and at the principals personal expense . . . this is when the same set of operative facts are self executing and counterclaim becomes operative against the offering officer or agent personally under operation of law and gives cause for fraud to exist as against said officer and his or her complicit parties.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Trading With The Enemy Act

15 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

8 U.S. 2, admiralty jurisdiction, belligerent, district courts are prize courts, HJR 192, Jennings v. Carson, judges are administrator's, remedy for trading with the enemy act, Trading With The Enemy Act, TWTEA remedy, U.S. District Courts of Prize

(For Austin)   

(Blog Master’s Note: The remedy at the bottom of this post, may work for other statutes that name American Citizens as the enemy.   Such statutes continue to multiply, and will probably continue to, regardless of the party in power.)

The district courts of the United States are in fact, courts of prize !

Considering the above, the necessity arose, to declare the American People (presumptive) Enemies of the State (of the forum) and thereby classify every man woman and child a “belligerent” of the United States Corporation. The ongoing and various states of emergency under the war powers act provides the belligerent classification as a permanent condition and for the reason to summarily plunder and pillage the American People into the indefinite future and generally, their meager property interests as well while in the hands of the “Administrator’s” aka Judges of these U.S. District Courts of Prize.

It should follow, that in all cases where charges are brought in the name of the “Estate” of an American Citizen by the United States of America” before any U.S. District Court; failure of that court to establish that the American Citizen who is collaterally joined to that named Estate pursuant to public policy and as said policy owes its origin from HJR-192. Whereas, said court has the mandatory burden to establish the legislatively crafted “presumption” of “Enemy of the State” as attaching and thereby becoming the prejudicial badge of “belligerent” as factually applicable to the party in question.

RECAPTURE, war. By this term is understood the recovery from the enemy, by a friendly force, of a prize by him captured. It differs from rescue. (q.v.)
     2. It seems incumbent on follow citizens, and it is of course equally the duty of allies, to rescue each other from the enemy when there is a reasonable prospect of success. 3 Rob. Rep. 224.
     3. The recaptors are not entitled to the property captured, as if it were a new prize; the owner is entitled to it by the right of postliminium. (q.v.) Dall. Dict. mots Prises maritimes, art. 2, Sec. 4.

 

JENNINGS V. CARSON, 8 U. S. 2 (1807)
Case Preview
Full Text of Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jennings v. Carson, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 2 (1807)

Jennings v. Carson
8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 2
Syllabus

The owner of a privateer capturing neutral property is not liable to a decree of restitution unless the property or its proceeds came to his hands.

The district courts of the United States are courts of prize, and have power to carry into effect the sentences of the old continental courts of appeals in prize causes.  In all proceedings in rem, the court has a right to order the thing to be taken into custody of the law, and it is to be presumed to be in custody of the law unless the contrary appears.

The thing does not follow the appeal into the superior court, but remains in the court below, which has a right to order it to be sold, if perishable, notwithstanding the appeal.

By the Judicial Act, the district courts of the United States are also courts of admiralty, and no law has regulated their practice. Yet they proceed according to the general rules of the admiralty.

It must be supposed that a court of admiralty having prize jurisdiction, and consequently proceeding in rem, and not having its practice precisely regulated by law, would conform to those principles which especially govern those courts proceeding in rem and which seem necessarily to belong to the proper exercise of their functions.

A sentence of reversal and restoration, by which property captured on the high seas is again restored to the owners, is not conclusive evidence that the captors were wrongdoers.

A belligerent cruiser which, with probable cause, seizes a neutral and takes her into port for adjudication and proceeds regularly is not a wrongdoer — the act is not tortious. The order of restoration proves that the property was neutral, not that it was taken without probable cause.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in a cause civil and maritime in which Jennings was the libellant and Carson the respondent, the former claiming to be owner of the sloop George and cargo, captured in the year 1778 by the American privateer Addition, commanded by Moses Griffin, of which the respondent Carson was part owner and which was libeled and condemned on 31 October, 1778, as lawful prize by the Court of admiralty for the State of New Jersey, from which sentence of condemnation there was an appeal to the continental court of appeals, established under authority of the old Congress, where the sentence of condemnation was, on 23 December, 1780, reversed and restitution ordered, but never obtained. In the meantime, however, the vessel and cargo had been sold by the marshal of the state court of admiralty for paper money under an order of the court contained in the sentence of condemnation, and it did not appear what had been done with that money. No measures were taken to enforce the decree of restitution during the old confederation.

On 19 May, 1790, after the adoption of the present Constitution of the United States, Jennings filed his libel in the district court for the District of Pennsylvania alleging that he was a subject of the States

Page 8 U. S. 3

General of the United Provinces, an inhabitant and domiciled at the island of St. Eustatius, and owner of the sloop George and her cargo, at the time of capture bound to the port of Egg Harbor in the United States, and consigned to A. and G. Caldwell,

in the prosecution of which voyage she was illegally captured by the privateer Addition,owned in part by the respondent, Carson, and praying process for arresting Carson to answer, &c. A supplemental libel was filed setting forth the proceedings against the vessel in the Court of Admiralty of New Jersey; the sentence of condemnation, the appeal, the reversal of that sentence, and the order of restitution.

Neither the original nor supplemental libel prayed any specific or general relief other than process for arresting Carson, so that he should appear to answer the libellant

“in his said complaint of the wrongs and injuries aforesaid according to the resolutions of the continental Congress, the laws of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the laws and usages of nations in this behalf practiced, used, and established.”

Carson, being taken upon the writ of arrest, appeared and filed his plea and answer, averring the sloop George to have been the property of a subject of the King of Great Britain at the time of capture and employed in carrying goods to the British army and navy; that the goods were imported directly or indirectly from Great Britain or Ireland, contrary to the regulations of Congress and the law of nations, the King of Great Britain then being at war with the United States.

It admits that Carson was the owner of one-third of the privateer. It admits the capture, the condemnation, and sale, the appeal and reversal, and the order of restitution, but denies that any part of the proceeds of the sale ever came to the hands of the owners of the privateer or either of them, but remained in the hands of the marshal of the Court of Admiralty of New Jersey, who alone is answerable for the same. It avers that Griffin, the commander of the privateer, had probable cause for
Page 8 U. S. 4
making the capture, and therefore the owners are not liable.

It denies the jurisdiction of the district Court of Pennsylvania to take cognizance of the question, the same belonging exclusively to the Court of Admiralty of the State of New Jersey and to the court of appeals established by the continental Congress. It denies the jurisdiction of the court as a prize court in any case, and especially in cases of capture made during the British war, and avers that it has no authority to carry into effect a decree of either of those courts established under the old government.

After filing his plea and answer, Carson died and Jennings filed a petition suggesting the death of Carson and charging his executors with assets, and praying that the suit may stand revived against them, upon which a citation issued and the executors appeared and answered generally by a reference to the answer and plea of their testator, and further pleaded that by the law maritime, the law of the land, and the laws and ordinances of the United States, they, as executors, are not liable to be proceeded against in that court for the several matters set forth in the libel, for that they are not answerable for the wrongs and offenses, or the pretended wrongs and offenses of their testator, and also for that courts maritime have not authority to intermeddle with the estates and effects, real or personal, of deceased persons, or to give relief against the same, or to seize or take the same effects or estates in execution, or to imprison the bodies of executors for the default of the testator.
To these pleas and answers there were general replications.
On 30 March, 1792, the judge of the district court gave an opinion in favor of its jurisdiction in general cases as a prize court; but on 21 September, 1793, he dismissed the libel on the ground that the district court was not competent to compel the execution of a decree of the late continental court of
Page 8 U. S. 5
appeals. This sentence was affirmed in the circuit court on 11f April, 1798, but was reversed by this Court at February term, 1799, so far as the same
Page 8 U. S. 6
decreed that the district court had not jurisdiction to carry into effect the decree of the court of appeals, and the cause was remanded to the district court for further
Page 8 U. S. 7
proceedings, the respondent being at liberty to contend before that court, as matter of defense to the merits or to the form of proceedings, that the libel should first
Page 8 U. S. 8
have been filed in the District Court of New Jersey, but not to make the decision of the judge on that point a ground of excepting to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Pennsylvania, and that costs should await the event of the cause.
Page 8 U. S. 9
Upon the second hearing of the cause, on 2 April, 1802, the judge decreed in favor of the libellant for the amount of sales of the sloop and cargo, reduced by the scale of depreciation with interest until two months after the order of restitution by the court of appeals and from the time of the institution of the present suit until the day of final decree, which decree was, on 10 May, 1804, reversed by the circuit court, and the libel dismissed with costs. From which sentence, the libellant appealed to this Court.
Page 8 U. S. 20

Trading with the Enemy Act 1917

, an Act of the United States; still in force, amended in 1933.TITLE 50, APPENDIX App.> TRADING > ACT > § 1

§ 1. Designation of Act
This Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] shall be known as the “Trading with the enemy  Act.”

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App.> TRADING > ACT > § 6

§ 6. Alien Property Custodian; general powers and duties
The President is authorized to appoint, prescribe the duties of, and fix the salary of an official to be known as the alien property custodian, who shall be empowered to receive all money and property in the United States due or belonging to an enemy, or ally of enemy, which may be paid, conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to said custodian under the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix]; and to hold, administer, and account for the same under the general direction of the President and as provided in this Act [said sections]. The President may further employ in the District of Columbia and elsewhere and fix the compensation of such clerks, attorneys, investigators, accountants, and other employees as he may find necessary for the due administration of the provisions of this Act [said sections]; Provided, That such clerks, investigators, accountants, and other employees shall be appointed from lists of eligibles to be supplied by the Civil Service Commission  and in accordance with the civil-service law.

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App.> TRADING > ACT > § 7

§ 7. Lists of enemy or ally of enemy officers, directors or stockholders of corporations in United States; acts constituting trade with enemy prior to passage of Act; conveyance of property to custodian; voluntary payment to custodian by holder; acts under order, rule, or regulation

(a) Every corporation incorporated within the United States, and every unincorporated association, or company, or trustee, or trustees within the United States, issuing shares or certificates representing beneficial interests, shall, under such rules and regulations as the President may prescribe and, within sixty days after the passage of this Act [Oct. 6, 1917] and at such other times thereafter as the President may require, transmit to the alien property custodian a full list, duly sworn to, of every officer, director, or stockholder known to be, or whom the representative of such corporation, association, company, or trustee has reasonable cause to believe to be an enemy or ally of enemy resident within the territory, or a subject or citizen residing outside of the United States, of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident within the territory, or a subject or citizen residing outside of the United States, of any ally of any nation with which the United States is at war, together with the amount of stock or shares owned by each such officer, director, or stockholder, or in which he has any interest.

The President may also require a similar list to be transmitted of all stock or shares owned on February third, nineteen hundred and seventeen, by any person now defined as an enemy or ally of enemy, or in which any such person had any interest; and he may also require a list to be transmitted of all cases in which said corporation, association, company, or trustee has reasonable cause to believe that the stock or shares on February third, nineteen hundred and seventeen, were owned or are owned by such enemy or ally of enemy, though standing on the books in the name of another: Provided, however, That the name of any such officer, director, or stockholder, shall be stricken permanently or temporarily from such list by the alien property custodian when he shall be satisfied that he is not such enemy or ally of enemy.

Any person in the United States who holds or has or shall hold or have custody or control of any property beneficial or otherwise, alone or jointly with others, of, for, or on behalf of an enemy or ally of enemy, or of any person whom he may have reasonable cause to believe to be an enemy or ally of enemy and any person in the United States who is or shall be indebted in any way to an enemy or ally of enemy, or to any person whom he may have reasonable cause to believe to be an enemy or ally of enemy, shall, with such exceptions and under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe, and within thirty days after the passage of this Act [Oct. 6, 1917], or within thirty days after such property shall come within his custody or control, or after such debt shall become due, report the fact to the alien-property custodian by written statement under oath containing such particulars as said custodian shall require. The President may also require a similar report of all property so held, of, for, or on behalf of, and of all debts so owed to, any person now defined as an enemy or ally of enemy, on February third, nineteen hundred and seventeen: Provided, That the name of any person shall be stricken from the said report by the alien property custodian, either temporarily or permanently, when he shall be satisfied that such person is not an enemy or ally of enemy. The President may extend the time for filing the lists or reports required by this section for an additional period not exceeding ninety days.

(b) Nothing in this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] contained shall render valid or legal, or be construed to recognize as valid or legal, any act or transaction constituting trade with, to, from, for or on account of, or on behalf or for the benefit of an enemy performed or engaged in since the beginning of the war and prior to the passage of this Act [said sections] or any such act or transaction hereafter performed or engaged in except as authorized hereunder, which would otherwise have been or be void, illegal, or invalid at law. No conveyance, transfer, delivery, payment, or loan of money or other property, in violation of section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix], made after the passage of this Act [Oct. 6, 1917] and not under license as herein provided shall confer or create any right or remedy in respect thereof; and no person shall by virtue of any assignment, endorsement, or delivery to him of any debt, bill, note, or other obligation or chose in action by, from, or on behalf of, or on account of, or for the benefit of an enemy or ally of enemy have any right or remedy against the debtor, obligor, or other person liable to pay, fulfill, or perform the same unless said assignment, endorsement, or delivery was made prior to the beginning of the war or shall be made under license as herein provided, or unless, if made after the beginning of the war and prior to the date of passage of this Act [Oct. 6, 1917], the person to whom the same was made shall prove lack of knowledge and of reasonable cause to believe on his part that the same was made by, from or on behalf of, or on account of, or for the benefit of an enemy or ally of enemy; and any person who knowingly pays, discharges, or satisfies any such debt, note, bill, or other obligation or chose in action shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed to violate section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix]: Provided, That nothing in this Act [said sections] contained shall prevent the carrying out, completion, or performance of any contract, agreement, or obligation originally made with or entered into by an enemy or ally of enemy where, prior to the beginning of the war and not in contemplation thereof, the interest of such enemy or ally of enemy devolved by assignment or otherwise upon a person not an enemy or ally of enemy, and no enemy or ally of enemy will be benefited by such carrying out, completion, or performance otherwise than by release from obligation there-under.

Nothing in this Act [said sections] shall be deemed to prevent payment of money belonging or owing to an enemy or ally of enemy to a person within the United States not an enemy or ally of enemy, for the benefit of such person or of any other person within the United States, not an enemy or ally of enemy, if the funds so paid shall have been received prior to the beginning of the war and such payments arise out of transactions entered into prior to the beginning of the war, and not in contemplation thereof: Provided, That such payment shall not be made without the license of the President, general or special, as provided in this Act [said sections].

Nothing in this Act [said sections] shall be deemed to authorize the prosecution of any suit or action at law or in equity in any court within the United States by an enemy or ally of enemy prior to the end of the war, except as provided in section ten hereof [section 10 of this Appendix]: Provided, however, That an enemy or ally of enemy licensed to do business under this Act [said sections] may prosecute and maintain any such suit or action so far as the same arises solely out of the business transacted within the United States under such license and so long as such license remains in full force and effect: And provided further, That an enemy or ally of enemy may defend by counsel any suit in equity or action at law which may be brought against him.

Receipt of notice from the President to the effect that he has reasonable ground to believe that any person is an enemy or ally of enemy shall be prima facie defense to any one receiving the same, in any suit or action at law or in equity brought or maintained, or to any right or set-off or recoupment asserted by, such person and based on failure to complete or perform since the beginning of the war any contract or other obligation. In any prosecution under section sixteen hereof [section 16 of this Appendix] proof of receipt of notice from the President to the effect that he has reasonable cause to believe that any person is an enemy or ally of enemy shall be prima facie evidence that the person receiving such notice has reasonable cause to believe such other person to be an enemy or ally of enemy within the meaning of section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix].

(c) If the President shall so require any money or other property including (but not thereby limiting the generality of the above) patents, copyrights, applications therefor, and rights to apply for the same, trade marks, choses in action, and rights and claims of every character and description owing or belonging to or held for, by, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, an enemy or ally of enemy not holding a license granted by the President hereunder, which the President after investigation shall determine is so owning or so belongs or is so held, shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, or the same may be seized by the Alien Property Custodian; and all property thus acquired shall be held, administered and disposed of as elsewhere provided in this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix].

Any requirement made pursuant to this Act [said sections], or a duly certified copy thereof, may be filed, registered, or recorded in any office for the filing, registering, or recording of conveyances, transfers, or assignments of any such property or rights as may be covered by such requirement (including the proper office for filing, registering, or recording conveyances, transfers, or assignments of patents, copyrights, trade-marks, or any rights therein or any other rights); and if so filed, registered, or recorded shall impart the same notice and have the same force and effect as a duly executed conveyance, transfer, or assignment to the Alien Property Custodian so filed, registered, or recorded.

Whenever any such property shall consist of shares of stock or other beneficial interest in any corporation, association, or company or trust, it shall be the duty of the corporation, association, or company or trustee or trustees issuing such shares or any certificates or other instruments representing the same or any other beneficial interest to cancel upon its, his, or their books all shares of stock or other beneficial interest standing upon its, his, or their books in the name of any person or persons, or held for, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of any person or persons who shall have been determined by the President, after investigation, to be an enemy or ally of enemy, and which shall have been required to be conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him, and in lieu thereof to issue certificates or other instruments for such shares or other beneficial interest to the Alien Property Custodian or otherwise, as the Alien Property Custodian shall require.

The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore or hereafter conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, or required so to be, or seized by him shall be that provided by the terms of this Act [said sections], and in the event of sale or other disposition of such property by the Alien Property Custodian, shall be limited to and enforced against the net proceeds received therefrom and held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States.

(d) If not required to pay, convey, transfer, assign, or deliver under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, any person not an enemy or ally of enemy who owes to, or holds for, or on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of an enemy or of an ally of enemy not holding a license granted by the President hereunder, any money or other property, or to whom any obligation or form of liability to such enemy or ally of enemy is presented for payment, may, at his option, with the consent of the President, pay, convey, transfer, assign, or deliver to the alien property custodian said money or other property under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe.

(e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order, rule, or regulation made by the President under the authority of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix].

Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of money or property made to the alien property custodian hereunder shall be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same to the extent of same. The alien property custodian and such other persons as the President may appoint shall have power to execute, acknowledge, and deliver any such instrument or instruments as may be necessary or proper to evidence upon the record or otherwise such acquittance and discharge, and shall, in case of payment to the alien property custodian of any debt or obligation owed to an enemy or ally of enemy, deliver up any notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or obligation, or any security therefor in which such enemy or ally of enemy had any right or interest that may have come into the possession of the alien property custodian, with like effect as if he or they, respectively, were duly appointed by the enemy or ally of enemy, creditor, or obligee. The President shall issue to every person so appointed a certificate of the appointment and authority of such person, and such certificate shall be received in evidence in all courts within the United States. Whenever any such certificate of authority shall be offered to any registrar, clerk, or other recording officer, Federal or otherwise, within the United States, such officer shall record the same in like manner as a power of attorney, and such record or a duly certified copy thereof shall be received in evidence in all courts of the United States or other courts within the United States.

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App.> TRADING > ACT > § 12

§ 12. Property transferred to Alien Property Custodian

All moneys (including checks and drafts payable on demand) paid to or received by the alien property custodian pursuant to this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] shall be deposited forthwith in the Treasury of the United States, and may be invested and reinvested by the Secretary of the Treasury in United States bonds or United States certificates of indebtedness, under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe for such deposit, investment, and sale of securities; and as soon after the end of the war as the President shall deem practicable, such securities shall be sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury.

All other property of an enemy, or ally of enemy, conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the alien property custodian hereunder shall be safely held and administered by him except as hereinafter provided; and the President is authorized to designate as a depositary, or depositaries, of property of an enemy or ally of enemy, any bank, or banks, or trust company, or trust companies, or other suitable depositary or depositaries, located and doing business in the United States. The alien property custodian may deposit with such designated depositary or depositaries, or with the Secretary of the Treasury, any stocks, bonds, notes, time drafts, time bills of exchange, or other securities, or property (except money or checks or drafts payable on demand which are required to be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury) and such depositary or depositaries shall be authorized and empowered to collect any dividends or interest or income that may become due and any maturing obligations held for the account of such custodian. Any moneys collected on said account shall be paid and deposited forthwith by said depositary or by the alien property custodian into the Treasury of the United States as hereinbefore provided.

The President shall require all such designated depositaries to execute and file bonds sufficient in his judgment to protect property on deposit, such bonds to be conditioned as he may direct.

The alien property custodian shall be vested with all of the powers of a common-law trustee in respect of all property, other than money, which has been or shall be, or which has been or shall be required to be, conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act [said sections], and, in addition thereto, acting under the supervision and direction of the President, and under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe, shall have power to manage such property and do any act or things in respect thereof or make any disposition thereof or of any part thereof, by sale or otherwise, and exercise any rights or powers which may be or become appurtenant thereto or to the ownership thereof in like manner as though he were the absolute owner thereof: Provided, That any property sold under this Act [said sections] except when sold to the United States, shall be sold only to American citizens, at public sale to the highest bidder, after public advertisement of time and place of sale which shall be where the property or a major portion thereof is situated, unless the President stating the reasons therefor, in the public interest shall otherwise determine: Provided further, That when sold at public sale, the alien property custodian upon the order of the President stating the reasons therefor, shall have the right to reject all bids and resell such property at public sale or otherwise as the President may direct. Any person purchasing property from the alien property custodian for an undisclosed principal, or for re-sale to a person not a citizen of the United States, or for the benefit of a person not a citizen of the United States, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, and the property shall be forfeited to the United States. It shall be the duty of every corporation incorporated within the United States and every unincorporated association, or company, or trustee, or trustees within the United States issuing shares or certificates representing beneficial interests to transfer such shares or certificates upon its, his, or their books into the name of the alien property custodian upon demand, accompanied by the presentation of the certificates which represent such shares or beneficial interests. The alien property custodian shall forthwith deposit in the Treasury of the United States, as hereinbefore provided, the proceeds of any such property or rights so sold by him.

Any money or property required or authorized by the provisions of this Act [said sections] to be paid, conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to the alien property custodian shall, if said custodian shall so direct by written order, be paid, conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to the Treasurer of the United States with the same effect as if to the alien property custodian.

After the end of the war any claim of any enemy or of an ally of enemy to any money or other property received and held by the alien property custodian or deposited in the United States Treasury, shall be settled as Congress shall direct: Provided, however, That on order of the President as set forth in section nine hereof [section 9 of this Appendix], or of the court, as set forth in sections nine and ten hereof [sections 9 and 10 of this Appendix], the alien property custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, shall forthwith convey, transfer, assign, and pay to the person to whom the President shall so order, or in whose behalf the court shall enter final judgment or decree, any property of an enemy or ally of enemy held by said custodian or by said Treasurer, so far as may be necessary to comply with said order of the President or said final judgment or decree of the court: And provided further, That the Treasurer of the United States, on order of the alien property custodian shall, as provided in section ten hereof [section 10 of this Appendix], repay to the licensee any funds deposited by said licensee.

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App.> TRADING > ACT > § 16

§ 16. Offenses; punishment; forfeitures of property

(a) Whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of the Act [said sections] shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, be fined not more than $100,000, or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both.

(b)

(1) A civil penalty of not to exceed $50,000 may be imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury on any person who violates any license, order, rule, or regulation issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix].

(2) Any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, that is the subject of a violation under paragraph (1) shall, at the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be forfeited to the United States Government.

(3) The penalties provided under this subsection may be imposed only on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing in accordance with sections 554 through 557 of title 5, United States Code, with the right to prehearing discovery.

(4) Judicial review of any penalty imposed under this subsection may be had to the extent provided in section 702 of title 5, United States Code.

(c) Upon conviction, any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together with tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, concerned in any violation of subsection (a) may be forfeited to the United States.

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App.> TRADING > ACT > § 41

§ 41. Divestment of estates, trusts, insurance policies, annuities, remainders, pensions, workmen’s compensation and veterans’ benefits; exceptions; notice of divestment
(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) hereof [of this section], all rights and interests of individuals in estates, trusts, insurance policies, annuities, remainders, pensions, workmen’s compensation and veterans’ benefits vested under this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] after December 17, 1941, which have not become payable or deliverable to or have not vested in possession in the Attorney General prior to December 31, 1961, are divested: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not affect the right of the Attorney General to retain all such property rights and interests and to collect all income which is payable to or vested in possession in him prior to December 31, 1961.

(b) Nothing contained in this section shall divest or require the divestment of any portion of any such interest the beneficial owner of which is a natural person who has been convicted personally and by name by a court of competent jurisdiction of murder, ill treatment, or deportation for slave labor of prisoners of war, political opponents, hostages, or civilian population in occupied territories, or of murder or ill treatment of military or naval persons, or of plunder or wanton destruction without justified military necessity.

(c) At the earliest practicable time after the effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall transmit to the lawful owner or custodian of any interest divested by this section written notice of such divestment.

SO THE QUESTION REMAINS, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH ALL THE ABOVE AND THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT?

Simply with an offer of “Peace.”

Place you “Seal”( your thumbprint) over the statement.

“I come in peace, there can be no controversy!”

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Affidavit and Assertion of a Foreign Neutral – part 2

29 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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:

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Affidavit and Assertion of a Foreign Neutral – Part 1

25 Sunday Dec 2011

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

enemies of the state, Federal Reserve, H.R. 2990, hidden American history, hidden history, HJR 192, Law of Prize, national emergency, permanent state of emergency, President Hoover's public papers, President Roosevelt :Papers, prize courts, sovereign documents, sovereignty, Trading With The Enemy Act

(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” ).

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Payment Of The Debt Is Against Public Policy

08 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

bill of exchange, federal reserve notes, HJR 192, International bill of exchange, pledging the debt, public debt, sovereign documents, sovereinty, tender of debt, United States cannot pledge debt against citizens, United States Code Chapter 31

(For Austin)

N.D.C.C. §28-26-04 rather than 28-26-01(1) is controlling since the Court finds the lease in this case constitutes “evidence of debt”. Thus, the provision in the lease providing for the payment of attorney’s fees in case of default in payment is against public policy and void. Accordingly, the Court on reconsideration declines to award James attorney’s fees in this case since an award of attorney’s fees would be a violation of N.D.C.C. §28-26-04. Copy and paste the below to the net to pull up the case.

 NOTICE OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL BILL OF EXCHANGE

Points and Authorities in Support of International Bills of Exchange or International Promissory Notes Those who constitute an association nationwide of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against these obligations of the United States due them; whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government’s debt and currency, by legal definitions, a “national banking association”; such notes, issued against these obligations of the United States to that part of the public debt due its Principals and Sureties are required by law to be accepted as “legal tender” of payment for all debts public and private, and are defined in law as “obligations of the United States”, on the same par and category with Federal reserve notes and other currency and legal tender obligations.” RE: Item tendered for Discharge of Debt.

TENDER OF DEBT BY THE PEOPLE i.e. the SURETY IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE U.S. TREASURY

(The instrument tendered to whomever, and negotiated to the United States Treasury for settlement, is an “Obligation of THE UNITED STATES,” under Title 18USC Sect.8, representing, as the definition provides, a “certificate of indebtedness ….drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States,” (in this instance the Secretary of the Treasury) “issued under an Act of Congress” (see: public law 73-10, HJR-192 of 1933, Title 31 USC 3123 and 31 USC 5103) and by treaty (see: UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL PROMISSORY NOTES (UNCITRAL) and the Universal Postal Union headquartered in Bern, Switzerland). TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 1. > Sec. 8. Sec. 8. – Obligation or other security of the United States defined The term  ”obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. The International Bill of Exchange is legal tender as a national bank note, or note of a National Banking Association, by legal and/or statutory definition (UCC 4-105, 12CFR Sec. 229.2, 210.2, 12 USC 1813) , issued under Authority of the United States Code 31 USC 392, 5103, which officially defines this as a statutory legal tender and is issued in accordance with 31 USC 3123 and HJR 192(1933) which establish and provide for its issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES. This is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for discharge of lawful debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to that portion of the public debt it is intended to reduce. During the financial crisis of the depression in 1933, gold, silver and real money were removed as a foundation for our financial system. In its place the substance of the American citizenry: their real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them was, in effect, ‘pledged’ by the government and placed at risk as the collateral for US debt, credit and currency for commerce to function. This is well documented in the actions of Congress and the President at that time and in the Congressional debates that preceded the adoption of the reorganizational measures: Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, stated, “Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the debt 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.” (Which lawfully belongs to these private citizens.) The National Debt is defined as “mortgages on the wealth and income of the people of a country.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959.) Their wealth, their income. The reorganization is evidenced by: The Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, House Joint Resolution 192, June 5, 1933 (public law 73-10) And the series of Executive Orders that surrounded them: 6073- Reopening of Banks. Embargo on Gold Payments and Exports, and Limitations on Foreign Exchange Transactions. March 10, 1933 6111-Transactions in foreign exchange are permitted under Governmental Supervision. April 20, 1933 6102 – Forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates. April 5, 1933 On December 23, 1913, Congress had passed “An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford a means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes”. The Act is commonly known as the “Federal Reserve Act”. One of the purposes for enacting the Federal Reserve Act was: (3) to authorize “hypothecation” of obligations including “United States bonds or other securities which Federal reserve Banks are authorized to hold” under Section 14(a); 12 USC; ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 Sect 14(a) The term “hypothecation” as stated in Section 14(a) of the Act is defined: “1. Banking. Offer of stocks, bonds, or other assets owned by a party other than the borrower as collateral for a loan, without transferring title. If the borrower turns the property over to the lender who holds it for safekeeping, the action is referred to as a pledge. If the borrower retains possession, but gives the lender the right to sell the property in event of default, it is a true hypothecation. 2. Securities. The pledging of negotiable securities to collateralize a broker’s margin loan. The broker pledges the same securities to a bank as collateral for a broker’s loan, the process is referred to as re-hypothecation.” [Dictionary Of Banking Terms, Fitch, pg. 228 (1997)] As seen from the definitions, in hypothecation there is equitable risk to the actual owner. Section 16 of the current Federal Reserve Act, which is codified at 12 USC 411, declares that “Federal Reserve Notes” are “obligations of the United States”. So we see the “full faith and credit” of the United States, which is the substance of the American citizenry, their real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them, is thereby hypothecated and re-hypothecated by the United States to its obligations as well as to the Federal Reserve for the issuance and backing of Federal Reserve Notes, as legal tender, “for all taxes, customs, and other public dues”. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > Sec. 411. Sec. 411. – Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption Federal Reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. The commerce and credit of the nation continues on today under financial reorganization (Bankruptcy) as it has since 1933, still backed by the assets and wealth of the American citizenry, at risk for the government’s obligations and currency. Under the 14th amendment and numerous Supreme Court precedents, as well as in equity, Private property cannot be taken or pledged for public use without just compensation, or due process of law .

“NOTE!”

“The United States cannot pledge or risk the property and wealth of its private citizens, for any government purpose, without legally providing them remedy to recover what is due them on their risk. This principle is so well established in English common law and in the history of American jurisprudence. The 14th amendment provides: “no person shall be deprived of…property without due process of law”.  The Courts have long ruled to have one’s property legally held as collateral or surety for a debt, even when he still owns it and still has it, is to deprive him of it since it is at risk and could be lost for the debt at any time. The United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627], “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” “The right of subrogation is not founded on contract. It is a creature of equity; is enforced solely for the purpose of accomplishing the ends of substantial justice; and is independent of any contractual relations between the parties.” Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Dow, 120 U.S. 287, 301-302 (1887). The rights of a surety to recovery on his risk or loss when standing for the debts of another was reaffirmed again as late as 1962 in Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, when the Court said: …”sureties compelled to pay debts for their principal have been deemed entitled to reimbursement, even without a contractual promise “…And probably there are few doctrines better established……” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, defines “surety”: “One who undertakes to pay or to do any other act in event that his principal fails therein. Everyone who incurs a liability in person or estate for the benefit of another, without sharing in the consideration, stands in the position of a “surety.

Constitutionally, and in the laws of equity, the United States could not borrow or pledge the property and wealth of its private citizens, put at risk as collateral for its currency and credit, without legally providing them equitable remedy for recovery of what is due them. The United States government, of course, did not violate the law or the Constitution in this way in order to collateralize its financial reorganization, but did, in fact, provide such a legal remedy so that it has been able to continue on since 1933 to hypothecate the private wealth and assets of those classes of persons by whom it is owned, at risk backing the government’s obligations and currency, by their implied consent, through the government having provided such remedy, as defined and codified above, for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth at risk. The provisions for this are found in the same act of “Public Policy” HJR-192, public law 73-10 that suspended the gold standard, abrogated the right to demand payment in gold, and made Federal Reserve notes for the first time legal tender, “backed by the substance or “credit of the nation”. All US currency since that time is only credit against the real property, wealth and assets belonging to the private sovereign American people, taken and/or ‘pledged’ by THE UNITED STATES to its secondary creditors as security for its obligations. Consequently, those backing the nation’s credit and currency could not recover what was due them by anything drawn on Federal Reserve notes without expanding their risk and obligation to themselves. Any recovery payments backed by this currency would only increase the public debt its citizens were collateral for, which an equitable remedy was intended to reduce, and in equity would not satisfy anything. And there was, as still, no longer actual money of substance to pay anybody. There are other serious limitations on our present system. Since the institution of these events, for practical purposes of commercial exchange, there has been no actual money in circulation by which debt owed from one party to another can actually be repaid. Federal Reserve Notes, although made legal tender for all debts public and private in the reorganization, can only discharge a debt. Debt must be “paid” with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter, labor, or a commodity). For this reason HJR-192 (1933), which established the “public policy” of our current monetary system, repeatedly uses the technical term of “discharge” in conjunction with “payment” in laying out public policy for the new system. 

A debt currency system cannot pay debt. So from that time to the present, commerce in the corporate UNITED STATES and among sub-corporate subject entities have had only debt note instruments by which debt can be discharged and transferred in different forms. The unpaid debt, created and/or expanded by the plan now carries a public liability for collection in that when debt is discharged with debt instruments (Federal Reserve Notes included) in commerce, debt is inadvertently being expanded instead of being cancelled, thus increasing the public debt. A situation potentially fatal to any economy. Congress and government officials who orchestrated the public laws and regulations that made the financial reorganization anticipated the long term effect of a debt based financial system which many in government feared, and which we face today in servicing the interest on trillions upon trillions of dollars in US Corporate public debt and in this same act made provision not only for the recovery remedy to satisfy equity to its Sureties, but to simultaneously resolve this problem as well. Since it is, in fact, the real property, wealth and assets of that class of persons that is the substance backing all the other obligations, currency and credit of THE UNITED STATES and such currencies could not be used to reduce its obligations for equity interest recovery to its Principals and Sureties, HJR-192 further made the “notes of national banks “and “national banking associations” on a par with its other currency and legal tender obligations. Now TITLE 31 , SUBTITLE IV , CHAPTER 51 , SUBCHAPTER I , Sec. 5103. provides, Legal tender: United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. (emphasis added) But this official definition for ‘legal tender’ was first established in HJR-192 (1933) in the same act that made Federal Reserve Notes and notes of national banking associations legal tender. Public Policy HJR-192 JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD STANDARD AND ABROGATE THE GOLD CLAUSE, JUNE 5, 1933 H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Cong., 1st Session Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States. (b) As used in this resolution, the term “obligation” means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term “coin or currency” means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. “All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, for public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues,” [USC Title 12.221 Definitions – “The terms “national bank” and “national banking association”….shall be held to be synonymous and interchangeable.”] “notes of national banks” or “national banking associations” have continuously been maintained in the official definition of legal tender since June 5, 1933 to the present day, when the term had never been used to define “currency “or “legal tender” before that. Prior to 1933 the forms of currency in use that were legal tender were many and varied: -United States Gold Certificates – United States Notes – Treasury Notes – Interest bearing notes –Gold Coins of United States – Standard silver dollars – Subsidiary silver coins – minor coins -Commemorative coins – but the list did not include Federal Reserve notes or notes of national banks or national banking associations, despite the fact national bank notes were a common medium of exchange or “currency”, and had been almost since the founding of our banking system, and were backed by United States bonds or other securities on deposit for the bank with the US Treasury. Further, from the time of their inclusion in the definition they have been phased out until presently all provisions in the United States Code pertaining to incorporated federally chartered National Banking institutions issuing, redeeming, replacing and circulating notes have all been repealed: USC TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 – NATIONAL BANKS SUBCHAPTER V – OBTAINING AND ISSUING CIRCULATING NOTES Sec. 101 to 110. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602e5-11, f2-4A, g9, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2294 SUBCHAPTER VI – REDEMPTION AND REPLACEMENT OF CIRCULATING NOTES Sec. 121. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602f4B, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292 Sec. 121a. Redemption of notes unidentifiable as to bank of issue Sec. 122. Repealed. Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5b, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1068 Sec. 122a. Redeemed notes of unidentifiable issue; funds charged against Sec. 123 to 126. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602e12, 13, f4C, 6, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2293 Sec. 127. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-554, Sec. 8a, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 633 As stated in ‘Money and Banking”, 4th edition, by David H. Friedman, publ. by the American Bankers Association, page 78, “Today commercial banks no longer issue currency, ….” It is clear, federally incorporated banking institutions subject to the restrictions and repealed provisions of Title 12 are not those primarily referred to in the current definition of “legal tender”. The legal, statutory and professional definitions of “bank”, “banking”, and “banker” used in the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations are not those commonly understood for these terms, and have made the statutory definition of “Bank” accordingly: UCC 4-105 PART 1 “Bank” means a person engaged in the business of banking,” 12CFRSec. 229.2 Definitions (e) Bank means—”the term bank also includes any person engaged in the business of banking,” 12CFR Sec. 210.2 Definitions. (d)” Bank means any person engaged in the business of banking.” USC Title 12 Sec. 1813. –Definitions of Bank and Related Terms. – (1) Bank. – The term ”bank” – (A) “means any national bank, State bank, and District bank, and any Federal branch and insured branch;” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines a “Banker” as, “In general sense, person that engages in business of banking. In narrower meaning, a private person; who is engaged in the business of banking without being incorporated. Under some statutes, an individual banker, as distinguished from a “private banker”, is a person who, having complied with the statutory requirements, has received authority from the state to engage in the business of banking, while a private banker is a person engaged in banking without having any special privileges or authority from the state. ” “Banking”- Is partly and optionally defined as “The business of issuing notes for circulation……, negotiating bills.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines “Banking”. The business of banking, as defined by law and custom, consists in the issue of notes ……intended to circulate as money……..And defines a “Banker’s Note” as: “A commercial instrument resembling a bank note in every particular except that it is given by a private banker or unincorporated banking institution.” Federal Statute does not specifically define “national bank” and “national banking association”, in those sections where these uses are legislated on, to exclude a private banker or unincorporated banking institution. It does define these terms to the exclusion of such persons in the chapters and sections where the issue and circulation of notes by national banks has been repealed or forbidden. “In the absence of a statutory definition, courts give terms their ordinary meaning. “Bass, Terri L. v. Stolper Koritzinsky, 111 F.3d 1325,7thCir. Apps. (1996). As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, “We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” See, e.g., United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 -242 (1989); United States v. Goldenberg,168 U.S. 95, 102 -103 (1897); “The legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used. “Richards v. United States, 369 U.S.1 (1962). Therefore, as noted above, the legal definitions relating to ‘legal tender’ have been written by Congress and maintained as such to be both exclusive, where necessary, and inclusive, where appropriate, to provide in its statutory definitions of legal tender for the inclusion of all those, who by definition of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking, to issue notes against the obligation of the United States for recovery on their risk, whose private assets and property are being used to collateralize the obligations of the United States since 1933, as collectively and nationally constituting a legal class of persons being a “national bank” or “national banking association” with the right to issue such notes against The Obligation of THE UNITED STATES for equity interest recovery due and accrued to these Principals and Sureties of the United States backing the obligations of US currency and credit; as a means for the legal tender discharge of lawful debts in commerce as remedy due them in conjunction with US obligations to the discharge of that portion of the public debt, which is provided for in the present financial reorganization still in effect and ongoing since 1933. [12 USC 411, 18 USC 8, 12 USC; ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 Sect 14(a), 31 USC 5118, 3123. with rights protected under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Russell (13 Wall, 623, 627), Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132,136,137 (1962), The United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch (U.S.)73(1805), and in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court 79 U.S. 287 (1870), 172 U.S.48 ( 1898), and as confirmed at 307 U.S. 247(1939).] HJR- 192 further declared ……..”every provision….which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency…. is declared to be against Public Policy; and no such provision shall be made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred.” Making way for discharge and recovery on US Corporate public debt due the Principals and Sureties of THE UNITED STATES providing as “public policy” for the discharge of “every obligation”, “including every obligation OF and TO THE UNITED STATES”, “dollar for dollar”, allowing those backing the US financial reorganization to recover on it by discharging an obligation they owed TO THE UNITED STATES or its sub-corporate entities, against that same amount of obligation OF THE UNITED STATES owed to them; thus providing the remedy for the discharge and orderly recovery of equity interest on US Corporate public debt due the Sureties, Principals, and Holders of THE UNITED STATES, discharging that portion of the public debt without expansion of credit, debt or obligation on THE UNITED STATES or these its prime creditors it was intended to satisfy equitable remedy to, but gaining for each bearer of such note, discharge of obligation equivalent in value ‘dollar for dollar’ to any and all “lawful money of the United States”. Those who constitute an association nationwide of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against these obligations of the United States due them, whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government’s debt and currency, by legal definitions, a “national banking association”; such notes, issued against these obligations of the United States to that part of the public debt due its Principals and Sureties are required by law to be accepted as “legal tender” of payment for all debts public and private, and, as we have seen, are defined in law as “obligations of the United States”, on the same par and category with Federal Reserve notes and other currency and legal tender obligations. This is what is asserted in the tender presented to the bank for deposit and the government has said nothing to the contrary. Can we question that this is exactly what Congress has provided for in these statutes and codes on the public debt and obligations of the United States and that this is the remedy codified in statutory law and definition we have cited here? Under this remedy for discharge of the public debt and recovery to its Principals and Sureties, TWO debts that would have been discharged in Federal Reserve debt note instruments or checks drawn on the same, equally expanding the public debt by those transactions, are discharged against a SINGLE public debt of the Corporate UNITED STATES and its sub-corporate entities to its prime-creditor without the expansion and use of Federal Reserve debt note instruments as currency and credit, and so, without the expansion of debt and debt instruments in the monetary system and the expansion of the public debt, as burden upon the entire financial system and its Principals and Sureties, the recovery remedy was intended to relieve said burden. Apparently their use is for the discharge and non-cash accrual reduction of US Corporate public debt to the Principals, Prime Creditors and Holders of it as provided in law and the instruments will ultimately be settled by adjustment and set-off in discharge of a bearer’s obligation TO THE UNITED STATES against the obligation OF THE UNITED STATES for the amount of the instrument to the original creditor it was tendered to or whomever or whatever institution may be the final bearer and holder in due course of it, again, thus discharging that portion of the public debt without expansion of credit, debt or note on the prime-creditors of THE UNITED STATES it was intended to satisfy equitable remedy to, but gaining for each endorsed bearer of it discharge of obligation equivalent in value ‘dollar for dollar’ of currency, measurable in “lawful money of the United States”. Although this has been public policy as a remedy for the discharge of debt in conjunction with removal of gold, silver and real money as legal tender currency by the same act of public policy in 1933, it has been a difficult concept to communicate for others to accept and to know what to do with it, so it’s never gained common use and therefore it is little known and not generally accessed by the public. But it is still an obligation the United States has bound itself to and has provided for in statutory law and the United States still accepts these non-cash accrual exchanges today as a matter of law and equity. So is the experience of many who have used the remedy. That the “public policies” of House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 are still in effect is evidenced by the other provisions of “public policy” it established that we can see along with these discussed. No one would attempt to demand payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency in use or think to write such an obligation into a contract because the gold standard for currency is still suspended and the right to a ‘gold clause’ to require payment in gold is still abrogated. Both are also part of “public policy” established in HJR-192. The practical evidence and fact of the United States’ financial reorganization (bankruptcy) is still ongoing today, visible all around us to see and understand. When Treasury notes come due, they’re not paid. They are refinanced by new T-Bills and notes to back the currency and cover the debts, something that cannot be done with debt unless the debtor is protected from creditors in a bankruptcy reorganization that is regularly being restructured to keep it going. Every time the Federal debt ceiling is raised by Congress they are restructuring the bankruptcy reorganization of the government’s debt so commerce can continue on. The recovery remedy is maintained in law because it has to be to satisfy equity to its prime creditors. Regarding such instruments tendered to the Secretary, when public officials are put in a position to legally acknowledge or deny the authority or validity of the instruments, those in responsibility will not deny it or dishonor an instrument of discharge properly submitted for that purpose. The issue is what has the government said about it now? What is its policy in practice? And how does it finally respond to such claims it receives? It is a fact: Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt . TITLE 31 , SUBTITLE III , CHAPTER 31 , SUBCHAPTER II , Sec. 3123. Payment of obligations and interest on the public debt (a) The faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay, in legal tender, principal and interest on the obligations of the Government issued under this chapter. “(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on thepublic debt.” It is a fact: Title 31 Section 3130 further delineates in its definitions a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public as the “Net public debt” TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE III > CHAPTER 31 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. 3130. Sec. 3130. – Annual public debt report (e) Definitions. (2) Total public debt. – The term ”total public debt” means the total amount of the obligations subject to the public debt limit established in section 3101 of this title. (3) Net public debt. The term ”net public debt” means the portion of the total public debt which is held by the public. It is a fact: Section 3101 references guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury which are excepted and exempted from “the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government” Sec. 3101. – public debt limit (b) The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than $5,950,000,000,000, outstanding at one time, subject to changes periodically made in that amount as provided by law It is a fact: Every day the United States Treasury department receives dozens or hundreds of such instruments making claims of this type. Obviously some are valid and some are not. It is a fact: There are only 3 official government directives or alerts that address spurious, fraudulent, fictitious, or otherwise invalid, instruments sent to the US Treasury for payment, and only one that officially states what is to be official US government policy and treatment of them if they are received, this is ALERT 99-10: which is also published on the government website for the United States Treasury: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov under Frauds and Phonies, The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Enforcement & Compliance Division in ALERT 99-10 states: “Type: Suspicious Transactions TO: Chief Executive Officers of all National Banks; all State Banking Authorities; Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Conference of State Bank Supervisors; Deputy Comptrollers (Districts); Assistant Deputy Comptrollers; District Counsel and Examining Personnel. RE: Fictitious Sight Drafts payable through the US Treasury It has been brought to our attention that certain individuals have been making and executing worthless paper documents which are titled “Sight Draft” .These items state that they are payable through the U. S. Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20220. These instruments are being presented for payment at banks and other businesses throughout the United States. Any of these instruments that are presented to the U. S. Treasury for payment will be returned to the sender and copies will be provided to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.” Dishonored. This is in conformity with the Uniform Commercial Code that parties may rely on their presentment of obligations as settled unless given a Notice of Dishonor, whether directly applicable to Treasury Dept. officers or not. UCC3-503. NOTICE OF DISHONOR …(b) Notice of dishonor may be given by any person; may be given by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; and is sufficient if it reasonably identifies the instrument and indicates that the instrument has been dishonored or has not been paid or accepted. Return of an instrument given to a bank for collection is sufficient notice of dishonor. • c) Subject to Section 3-504(c), with respect to an instrument taken for collection notice of dishonor must be given…. within 30 days following the day on which the person receives notice of dishonor. With respect to any other instrument, notice of dishonor must be given within 30 days following the day on which dishonor occurs. These instruments are never returned from the Treasury dishonored. It is a fact: There is no basis or reason or plausible explanation for such unexplained silence with regard to these particular instruments. Every other branch of the Federal government including the Dept. of the Treasury has developed elaborate libraries of computer generated form letters of statements and replies dealing with almost every possible question or claim that could be made of any agency or department of the Federal government. The United States Treasury has an Office of Public Correspondence whose sole job it is to respond to communications from the general public. THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY THAT CAN NOT BE RESPONDED TO AS IT MAY REQUIRE. Many such categories of requests calling for response are far greater in number than claims in equity for recovery to a Prime-creditor over the United States and some categories are far fewer in number, and yet be the requests greater or smaller in number or in complexity of response required, all these of a commercial nature are regularly and timely responded to. There is virtually no written response by the Federal government to this issue of recovery to the prime-creditors and holders in equity over the United States. The factually observable position of the Secretary of the Treasury and his department in response to THIS type of claim has been ABSOLUTE SILENCE be they from bank, business or private person: Not denial, disavowal, dishonor, or repudiation of such claims OR their basis in law and fact if they are not true, which in every other case of correspondence to the Federal government or the Department of Treasury dealing with any question, request or claim: ANY SUCH FALSE CLAIM, MISCONCEPTION OR MISTAKEN UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS TIMELY DEALT WITH IN EVERY CASE BY SUCH FORM LETTERS. to the sender.” There is, therefore, no basis or reason or plausible explanation for such unexplained silence with regard to this particular class of instrument except that a remedy in equity for recovery to the prime -creditors over the United States IS true and factual and CANNOT BE DENIED orIt is the duty of the United States Treasury to the commerce of the nation and in the interests of the general public whom it serves to quickly and conclusively quash and repudiate any such false understandings or claims of remedy in equity on recovery of the public debt in the commercial realm and it is easily within their power to do so. This despite the fact the only official US government directive from the Department of the Treasury dealing with policy of the government toward fictitious or otherwise invalid instruments sent to the Treasury for collection states clearly “they will be returned DISHONORED in equity, and that such Bills of Acceptance in discharge of mutually offsetting obligations between the United States and its holders in equity as secured parties ARE, in fact, being kept, held, and without return or dishonor, accepted as obligations of the United States in the discharge and recovery of the public debt as they make claim on their face to the Secretary of the Treasury to be. How they are to be recovered on is up to the parties involved holding such obligations and is provided for in law and regulation and administrative procedure a holder or its banking institution may use. In Conclusion: When a Commercial Bank sends the instrument to the Secretary for discharge of its own obligations and a problem arises concerning the instrument, a commercial response of some kind is required. There is a legal liability of the government to a negotiable legal tender obligation upon the United States government sent to them for acceptance by a member Federal Reserve Bank after they received it and became responsible for it

The Treasury has an obligation as a department of government serving the public interest to the bank, which as a member of the Federal Reserve System, has a commercial obligation to an account holder and a 3rd party who tendered the item in payment, to tell them that its not any good or it’s not going to be honored, even if they wanted to keep it for prosecution or investigation. This is in effect what the directive says the government will do if its no good. What does statutory law, regulation, or case law tells us about what that obligation is? They do not dishonor it in any way by return of the item or the sending of any notice to that effect, or make request for additional information or time for examination of the instrument, or give a statement of explanation indicating the time frame for its review and settlement if it would be an inordinately lengthy time (longer than 60 days) to finish with it. The instruments are being kept, held, and without return or dishonor, are accepted as an obligation of the United States in the discharge and recovery of the public debt as it makes claim on its face to be. Put another way: If the bank had had to pay the item to honor its customer agreement as if it had been a check, what would or could the bank be trying to do with it to finally settle the account? The bank or the court needs to treat the Instrument tendered as an obligation of the United States to the bank or court not the accepting and tendering party .The tender of these instruments discharges the obligation of the debt for which they are delivered and the payee becomes the new holder in due course and collection agent on the instruments. In essence, any and all fines and penalties offered by a transforer to anyone as a held to use the Federal Reserve Note, the obligation in fact, is in fact a redeemable obligation of the United States.

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Blogroll

  • 3 Wise Men Essentials
  • Chinese Health and Fitness – Home Health and Fitness for All
  • Chinese Health and Fitness/Maritime Law Deception
  • Henry Makow illuminati/ new world order
  • Montgomery County on the Mary-Land Republic
  • Solutions 4 The Innocent lots of good information
  • Sovereign Warriors
  • Winston Shrout Fort Collins Lectures

Recent Posts

  • Non Negotiable Private Bond For Set Off (Birth Certificate Bond)
  • The IRS Title 15 Is Their Achilles Heel (Debt Validation) Part 3
  • The IRS Title 15 Is Their Achilles Heel (Debt Validation) Part 2
  • The IRS Title 15 Is Their Achilles Heel (Debt Validation) (part1)
  • Traffic – Ratification Of Commencement of Action
  • An E-Mail From ‘Frank Austin England III’
  • The Declaration Of Seperate And Equal Stations
  • STATUTE (FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT)
  • Legalese (Government Manipulation of Language)
  • The Additional Legal Rights Otherwise Dormant
  • Administrative Law
  • Buck Act – The Jurisdiction Of The Land
  • The Initinere (Document)
  • The In Itinere Cover Sheet and Caveat (part 2)
  • The IN ITINERE Notice And Caveat (In Itinere – Cover Page)
  • Doctrine (The Constitution is an Express Trust)
  • Allocution (Declaration of Absolute Rights and Refusal to Except Sentence)
  • Not Burning Books Like ‘Farenheit 451’ – Altering Them
  • Affidavit of Abatement (No Such Corporation)
  • Jury Summons Response Letter
  • The Affidavit Of Natural Identity And Caveat
  • There Is No “State”
  • The Emergency Powers Of Martial Law (Historical Outline)
  • Court (Relation-Back Doctrine – Defeats Summary Administrative Process) part 3
  • Court (Relation Back Doctrine – Defeats Summary Administrative Process) Part 2
  • Court (Relation Back Doctrine – Defeats Summary Administrative Process) Part 1
  • Refusing A Non-Substantive Offer (Nullify Commercial Law)
  • The Substantive Statute Or Regulation ?
  • Uniform Commercial Code (Application and Use of Commercial Law) part 3
  • Uniform Commercial Code (The Application of Commercial Law (part-2)
  • Uniform Commercial Code (The Application of Commercial Law) part 1
  • Ten Basic Foundations Of Commercial Law (Part 3)
  • Ten Basic Foundations Of Commercial Law (Part 2)
  • Ten Basic Foundations Of Commercial Law (Part 1)
  • Location of Debtor (District of Columbia)
  • Political Question Doctrine
  • Statutes (Never Argue The Second Amendment)
  • Treaty Cannot Infringe The Constitution
  • The Temples of Baal (Courts of Admiralty)
  • The Eternal Law Of Conquest
  • Trading With The Enemy Act (More On War Powers)
  • Declaration of Independence – Latter Day Declarant
  • Memorandum Asserting Rights
  • Uniform Bonding Code – part 3
  • Uniform Bonding Code Part – 2
  • Uniform Bonding Code – Part 1
  • Things Your Lawyer, Attorney, or Judge Won’t Tell You
  • The Law of Prize and Prize Courts
  • Oregon Department of Re-venue Letter (Pt 2)
  • Oregon Department Of Re-venue Letter (Part 1)

Archives

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

All Past Post

Blog at WordPress.com.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: