• 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: sovereign documents

The Police Powers Are Subject to Qualified Immunity

11 Saturday Feb 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agents immunity, Anderson v. Creighton, Baptiste v. J.C.Penney Co, Beier v. City of Lewiston, Brecht v. Abrahamson, Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, Ceballos v. Garcetti, Chein v. Shumsky, Chia v. Cambra, City of Canton v. Harris, Clark v. Murphy, Cummings v. City of Akron, Devereaux v. Abbey, Early v. Packer, federal agents immunity, Graham v. Connor, Gray v. Klauser, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Harris v. Carter, Hecht Co. v. Bowles, Henry v. County of Shasta, Hope v. Pelzer, Lee v. Gregory, Little v. Windermere Relocation Inc., Lockyer v. Andrade, Malley v. Briggs, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, Packer v. Hill, police immunity, Police subject to qualified immunity, Porter v. Warner Holding Co, Powell v. Galaza, Price v. Vincent, Riley v. Payne, Robinson v. Solano County, Sanders v. Lamarque, Saucier v. Katz, Shaw v. Terhune, sheriff officers immunity, sovereign documents, Stevens v. Rose, Taylor v. Maddox, Torres v. Prunty, U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, Van Lynn v. Farmon, Van Tran v. Lindsay, Weinberger v. Romera-Barcelo, Williams v. Taylor, Wilson v. Layne

(For Austin)

THE POLICE POWERS ARE SUBJECT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Clearly established. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

Davis v. Scherer, No. 03-3259 (6th Cir. 07/22/2005) (In a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the grant of summary judgment to defendant-police officers is reversed where their seizure of plaintiff’s person and entry into his home were unsupported by a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.);Cf. Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
 457 U.S. 800. Pp. 190-197 (1982); See also: Williams v. Taylor,
 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000); Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Cf. Existence or nonexistence; Mandatory v. Discretional; Most favorable; Qualified immunity;

Cummings v. City of Akron,  No. 03-3259 (6th Cir. 07/22/2005) (In a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the grant of summary judgment to defendant-police officers is reversed where their seizure of plaintiff’s person and entry into his home were unsupported by a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.);

Taylor v. Maddox, No. 02-55560 (9th Cir. 05/10/2004) (Principles of comity and federalism counsel against substituting our judgment for that of the state courts, a deference that is embodied in the requirements of the federal habeas statute, as amended by AEDPA. When it comes to state-court factual findings, AEDPA has two separate provisions. First, section 2254(d)(2) authorizes federal courts to grant habeas relief in cases where the state-court decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Or, to put it conversely, a federal court may not second-guess a state court’s fact-finding process unless, after review of the state-court record, it determines that the state court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable. Cf. Lockyer v. Andrade,  538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003) (“The ‘unreasonable application’ clause requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable.”); see also Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (same standard of unreasonableness applies under subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)). Second, section 2254(e)(1) provides that “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct,” and that this presumption of correctness may be rebutted only by “clear and convincing evidence.”);

Lee v. Gregory,No. 02-57132 (9th Cir. 04/07/2004) (Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). The qualified immunity inquiry involves two sequential questions. First: “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Second: “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step, is to ask whether the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.” Id.);

Ceballos v. Garcetti,No. 02-55418 (9th Cir. 03/22/2004) (For purposes of summary judgment, qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that plaintiff’s speech, alleging wrongdoing by a deputy sheriff, addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed his employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption.);

 Sanders v. Lamarque,No. 02-56893 (9th Cir. 02/03/2004) (Under § 2254(d)(1)’s “unreasonable application” clause, then, a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.’ Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v. Andrade, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1175 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000)).

Beier v. City of Lewiston,No. 02-35516 (9th Cir. 01/14/2004) (” ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614-15 (1999) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton,  483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). “This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer,  536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The “salient question” is whether the state of the law in June of 1997 gave the officers fair warning that their actions were unconstitutional. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 741; see also Devereaux v. Abbey,  263 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[W]hat is required is that government officials have ‘fair and clear warning’ that their conduct is unlawful.”) (citation omitted).);

Riley v. Payne,No. 03-35054 (9th Cir. 12/23/2003) (Riley’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). AEDPA’s constrained review permits a federal court to grant habeas relief affecting a state prisoner only when a state court’s ruling: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A state court’s decision is “contrary to” federal law if it: (1) “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law” set forth in Supreme Court case authority, or (2) applies controlling law to a set of facts that is “materially indistinguishable” from a Supreme Court decision but nevertheless reaches a different result. Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003). A state court’s decision is an “unreasonable application” of federal law only if it is “objectively unreasonable,” which “requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous.” Id. at 1174.);


 
Shaw v. Terhune, No. 02-16829 (9th Cir. 12/22/2003) (Shaw’s petition for habeas corpus is governed by the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under AEDPA, we may only grant Shaw’s petition if the state court’s rejection of his due process claim was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court;” or (2) an unreasonable interpretation of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);
Van Tran v. Lindsay,  212 F.3d 1143, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Lockyer v. Andrade,  538 U.S. 63 (2003) (“[W]e may not, of course, reverse a state court’s decision simply because it is inconsistent with a rule established by a Ninth Circuit case.”). The phrase “clearly established federal law” refers to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000);

Van Lynn v. Farmon, No. 03-15221 (9th Cir. 10/17/2003) (We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Sept. 8, 2003) (No. 03-372). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), we review the state court’s decision to determine whether the state court’s adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court case law or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Here, there is no contention that the state-court decision resulted in an unreasonable determination of the facts. Thus, we consider whether the state-court decision resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court case law. “Contrary to” and “unreasonable application of” have “distinct meanings” as used in § 2254(d)(1). Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067; see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000). A decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court case law “if it fails to apply the correct controlling authority, or if it applies the controlling authority to a case involving facts materially indistinguishable from those in a controlling case, but nonetheless reaches a different result.” Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067. A state-court decision is also “contrary to” Supreme Court case law if the state court ” ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in’ ” Supreme Court cases. Early v. Packer,  537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 405). In contrast, “[a] state court’s decision involves an unreasonable application of federal law if ‘the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle . . . but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.’ ” Clark, 331 F.3d at 1067 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413).

Powell v. Galaza, No. 01-15195 (9th Cir. 05/06/2003) (First, a state court decision is “contrary to our clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.” Williams v. Taylor,  supra, at 405-406; see also Bell v. Cone, supra, at 694. Lockyer v. Andrade,  ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1173 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000));

U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, No. 00-151 (U.S.S.C. 05/14/2001) (As an initial matter, the Cooperative is correct that, when district courts are properly acting as courts of equity, they have discretion unless a statute clearly provides otherwise. For “several hundred years,” courts of equity have enjoyed “sound discretion” to consider the “necessities of the public interest” when fashioning injunctive relief. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329-330 (1944). See also id., at 329 (“The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it”); Weinberger v. Romera-Barcelo,  456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982) (“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction”). Such discretion is displaced only by a “clear and valid legislative command.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co, 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946). See also Romero-Barcelo, supra, at 313 (“Of course, Congress may intervene and guide or control the exercise of the courts’ discretion, but we do not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles”).


Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386 (1989) (All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 392-399. [490 U.S. 386, 387]);


Harlow v. Fitzgerald ,457 U.S. 800. Pp. 190-197 (1982) (Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily [457 U.S. 800, 819] should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors.);

Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (05/24/1999) aff’d. Saucier v. Katz,  533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001) (Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of the search. “Clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. His very action need not previously have been held unlawful, but in the light of pre-existing law its unlawfulness must be apparent. E.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987);


Henry v. County of Shasta, No. 95-16704, D.C. No. CV-93-02038-GEB (9th Cir. 03/02/1998) (A municipal defendant may only be held liable under S 1983 if the unlawful actions of its employees or agents were taken pursuant to that defendant’s policies or customs, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), including a policy of being deliberately indifferent to the rights of its inhabitants, City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989).);


Baptiste v. J.C.Penney Co.,147 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'” (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); Cf. Smith v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, No. 00-6046 (D.C. No. 99-CV-615) (W.D. Okla. 2000); Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board,  No. 00-16649 (9th Cir. 02/04/2002)


Gray v. Klauser, No. 00-35732 (9th Cir. 02/27/2002) (Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus for a claim adjudicated in a adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The Supreme Court has held that the clauses “contrary to” and “unreasonable application of” have independent meaning. Penry v. Johnson , 121 S.Ct. 1910, 1918 (2001); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404 (2000); see Packer v. Hill, 291 F.3d 569, 1101 (9th Cir. 2002). The “contrary to” clause applies, inter alia, when a state “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth” in the Supreme Court’s cases; the “unreasonable application of” clause applies when a state identifies the correct legal standard but applies it unreasonably. Penry, 121 S.Ct. at 1918 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 404). Because the Idaho state courts did not apply the pertinent constitutional rules established by the Supreme Court, discussed below, they applied an incorrect legal standard. Thus, the “contrary to” clause governs in this case, and the only questions remaining are (1) whether there was constitutional error; and (2) “whether the error had a substantial or injurious effect on the verdict.” Packer, 277 F.3d at 1102 (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637(1993).

Harris v. Carter,  No. 02-3114 (6th Cir. 07/29/2003) (The parties do not dispute the reasonableness of the facts determined in the state court proceedings. Thus, to be entitled to relief under § 2254(d), this Court must find that the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals was either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedents. Price v. Vincent,123 S.Ct. 1848, 1852-53 (2003). A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor,

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413. The Supreme Court has cautioned that a “federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411.);


Robinson v. Solano County, No. 99-15225 (9th Cir. 02/04/2002) (A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider, then, this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right? . . . In the course of determining whether a constitutional right was violated on the premises alleged, a court might find it necessary to set forth principles which will become the basis for a holding that a right is clearly established. This is the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case, and it is one reason for our insisting upon turning to the existence or nonexistence of a constitutional right as the first inquiry. The law might be deprived of this explanation were a court simply to skip ahead to the question of whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case. Katz, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.);


Stevens v. Rose, No. 00-15840 (9th Cir. 08/02/2002) (This appeal relates solely to Hanson’s qualified immunity defense with respect to the alleged Fourth Amendment violation. Establishing qualified immunity requires that the official’s conduct be objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The Supreme Court recently encapsulated this objective approach into a two-step test. The threshold question that the court must answer is whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right[.]” Saucier v. Katz,  533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If this initial question is answered affirmatively, the court must address whether “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 202 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton,  483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987));

Chein v. Shumsky, No. 01-56320 (9th Cir. 03/14/2003) (We have recently interpreted Bronston to preclude a perjury conviction if the allegedly perjurious answer is in response to a question that is “excessively vague or fundamentally ambiguous.” United States v. Culliton , 300 F.3d 1139, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Chia v. Cambra , 281 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that Ninth Circuit case law may be persuasive authority for determining what Supreme Court precedent is clearly established). In contrast, “[i]f we determine that the questions were only arguably ambiguous or not ambiguous at all,” the perjury determination must be made by the jury. Culliton, 300 F.3d at 1141 (internal quotation marks omitted).);

Cf. ORCP 47(C); [Or Laws 1995, ch. 618, § 5]; Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 420,939 P2d 608 (1997); Turnbow v. K.E. Enterprises, Inc., 155 Or App 59, 65, 962 P2d 764 (1998); McCulloch v. Price Waterhouse LLP, 157 Or App 237, 252, 971 P2d 414 (1998), rev den 328 Or 365 (1999); Kraemer v. Harding, Et alii, 329 Or 47, 985 P2d 788 (1999); Vandermay v. Paul D. Clayton, CC 92-2104; CA A91235; SC S44717 (Or. 06/11/1999); Richardson v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 161 Or App 615, 984 P2d 917, rev den 329 Or 553 (1999); Glen Slate v. Saxon, Marquoit, Bertoni & Todd, 9609-06865; CA A99631 (Or. 03/08/2000); Nike v. Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co., C96-0209CV; CA A97847 (Or. 03/22/2000); Swenson v. Legacy Health System, 169 Or App 546, 9 P3d 145 (2000); Kluge v. Oregon State Bar, 172 Or App 452, 19 P3d 938 (2001); Glenn K. Jackson, Inc. v. Roe, No 00-15614 (9th Cir. 12/11/2001); Moore v. California Inst. of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab, No. 00-55958 (9th Cir. 01/04/2002); Little v. Windermere Relocation Inc.,  No. 99-35668 (9th Cir. 01/23/2002)

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...

Court (Certification – Intervention By Cert. Of The Statute By Supreme Court

01 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

28 USC section 2403, absence of law is remedy, Ca.R.C.P. Rule 29.5, California Codes 387, California Rules of Civil Procedure, certification of statute, challenge the validity of law, declaritory judgments, intervention, law certification, Oregon Chapter 28, Questions of law, Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Company, Rule 24, Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24, sovereign documents, Thorington v. Smith, Voon Hoffman v. City of Quincy

(For Austin)   

Intervention – Challenge the Validity of the
Law by Demanding Certification.

According to Legal Research, “Every state probably has somewhere in its codes the process to have state law certified as constitutional”. See references below for Federal, Florida, California and Oregon laws on the subject of Intervention and such challenges.

There is a mechanism in the law that allows you to make a constitutional challenge through the back door when involved in the courts. I don’t believe you can ever successfully argue in the administrative process, as it is a traverse into a (private law) trap by fraud in the inducement. The powers that be made a very big mistake when they allowed, even encouraged the belief that the constitution is alive and well. The attorney general of every state can be subpoenaed into a courtroom to testify to the constitutionality any act or omission you are charged with violating. Every codified law must also be certified as constitutional by the supreme court of the state before it can be implemented. (Implementing regulations displayed within [pairs of brackets] make it clear the said regulations have been omitted and thereby, the act or statute cannot be unilaterally imposed.) Employing this understanding defeats every act or statute presented for acceptance. Generally all cases will be dismissed (or abandoned) rather than have the fraud exposed. This is particularly true when addressing bonds being issued in the defendants name by the clerk of the court that go to extortion of the defendants credit for the purpose to monetize the said bonds.

THE REMEDY:

‘But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are:

(1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and

(2) that while it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S.416, 429] obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force.’
– Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L. ed. 361, 363.

I spent all day yesterday researching the above case. I have come to the conclusion that we are indeed under the jurisdiction of a military authority, administered by civil authority, and the courts run America. It goes all the way back to before the Revolution. International treaties, codified into law, are superior to domestic law, (as stated by the Supreme Court) starting at the time of the Revolution. (No transfer of American soil from the Crown) The colonies were British (Crown) corporations. Washington D.C. became the Mother Corp. and the colonies became her Inc’s. Peace was never declared after the civil war, and we are still functioning under the war powers. This explains why we don’t win in the courts. The national Constitution has been suspended. The states, as Inc’s, also had their Constitutions suspended. We lost our law, which is supposed to be certified as constitutional before it can be implemented. NO REMEDY. This explains the Rule of Necessity. You cannot claim to be a citizen of a State or the U.S. because neither exist as de jure governments, they are governments de facto.

However, since our de facto governments won’t tell us this, and we are still functioning under the belief that the constitutions are de jure, I still think we can challenge under the “absence of law is the remedy” theory. Just exactly what is this theory? As I said before, all law has to be certified as constitutional by the state supreme court before it can be implemented.. When charged with violating a law, one should subpoena the certification of the act by the state supreme court. One should also subpoena the Attorney General of the state to testify to the constitutionality of the act.

Because the law will not be certified as constitutional, and the state Attorney will not testify to the constitutionality of the act, nothing remains but for the court to dismiss your case. I’ve used this technique in a firearms violation case in which the defendant, if found guilty, would have been given 40 years in jail. Instead, on the day of his trial, he was called to the bench and told his case has been dismissed.

I believe that all judges, once they reach the appellate level are aware of the above facts. The more arrogant the judge, the more he knows about the government being de facto. The law schools are private, so the lawyers are educated to work for the de facto system, by making sure that the will of the state is imposed upon us. There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn’t have a lawyer to bring a case before the courts, and if this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. That is why you can’t hire an attorney. An attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.

As I said before, all law has to be certified as constitutional by the state supreme court before it can be implemented. What is the source of this proposition? I think the war powers condition is cumulative since the civil war. I don’t think WWII ever ended in the States. The judiciary act of 1948 was a wartime act. Peace did not come with Germany and Japan until after Korea was started which is still going on. UN was founded and entered into during WWII. The NC statutes read as if WWII war powers are still in effect. In a civil case, would this not also apply to subpoena the certification of constitutionality?

All your questions and statements are irrelevant. I can see that it is difficult for you to accept so simple a truth. If you know the Constitution for the United States and the Constitutions for all the several states have been suspended, you should know you have no constitutional protection in any court in any district in this country. If we are supposed to have constitutional protections and they ceased to exist, we can only use the fact they ceased to exist to defend ourselves. It doesn’t matter if the court is using admiralty, law merchant, equity, or administrative. The government has never come out and made it a statement of fact that we are a de facto nation, with de facto courts, with judges sitting under the rule of necessity, and that we have no remedy in the courts, have they? Three things are needed to be classified as a nation under international law:

1. de jure money
2. de jure law
3. a de jure army

We have none of these. We are a nation de facto, functioning under martial law with a de facto civil system enforced through police power. Is this too simple for you to understand? Your only hope for remedy is to bring this fact into the courtroom and have the court either confirm your claim or dismiss. They will not confirm the facts, for to do so would cause the de facto system to fall apart. Their only option is to dismiss…

Ladies and Gentlemen: ABSENCE OF LAW IS THE REMEDY.

How many times have we been told by a Judge that the Constitution does not exist in his courtroom? He was telling us something very important but we weren’t listening… You have to empty your mind and look at “no law = no remedy.” If there is no remedy there can be no charges of omission or violating a law crafted by a de facto legislature. It is well settled that there MUST be a remedy for every violation of law. YOU CAN’T find one! The reason is, because no remedy exists. BUT…..how often have you challenged the law you are accused of violating as being certified as constitutional by the supreme court of your state? I bet you have never done this. How many times have you subpoenaed the Attorney General of your state to testify to the constitutionality of the act you are charged with violating? NEVER?

ABSENCE OF REMEDY:

As a researcher for many years, it becomes apparent “absence of law is the remedy.” No law, no violation or crime. The case below says “without the remedy the contract may, indeed, in the sense of the law, be said not to exist.” I think this is important. In tort law, a contract can’t necessarily stipulate to a remedy other than jurisdiction and who will pay attorney fees.

Where is the law?

Fifty years ago this Court pointed out the essential relationship between rights and remedies.

“Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement. Without the remedy the contract may, indeed, in the sense of the law, be said not to exist, and its obligation to fall within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for their fulfillment wholly upon the will of the individual. The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion. The obligation of a contract ‘is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement.'”
Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 552.

RED CROSS LINE vs. ATLANTIC FRUIT COMPANY. No. 112. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 264 U.S. 109, 68 L. Ed. 582, 44 S. Ct. 274 February 18, 1924 Decided

—————————- REFERENCES —————————

28 USC> PART VI > CHAPTER 161 > § 2403. Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question

(a) In any action, suit or proceeding in a court of the United States to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The United States shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality.

(b) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State, and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The State shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

IV. PARTIES > Rule 24. Intervention

(a) Intervention of Right.
Upon timely application anyone shall be pemitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

(b) Permissive Intervention.
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action:
(1) when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or
(2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. When a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action. In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.

(c) Procedure.
A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion shall state the grounds therefore and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. The same procedure shall be followed when a statute of the United States gives a right to intervene. When the constitutionality of an act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question in any action in which the United States or an officer, agency, or employee thereof is not a party, the court shall notify the Attorney General of the United States as provided in Title 28, U.S.C.,§ 2403. When the constitutionality of any statute of a State affecting the public interest is drawn in question in any action in which that State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, the court shall notify the attorney general of the State as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. § 2403. A party challenging the constitutionality of legislation should call the attention of the court to its consequential duty, but failure to do so is not a waiver of any constitutional right otherwise timely asserted.

California Rules of Civil Procedure- Ca.R.C.P.

Rule 29.5. Questions of state law certified by federal appellate courts and other courts

(a) [Requirements for certified questions] The California Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a United States Court of Appeals, or the court of last resort of any state, territory, or commonwealth, provided that:

(1) the certifying court requests the answer

(2) the questions may be determinative of a cause pending in the certifying court, and

(3) the decisions of the California appellate courts provide no controlling precedent concerning the certified question.

(b) [Contents of certification request] Only a court specified in subdivision (a) may certify question. The request shall be by an order that sets forth:

(1) the caption of the case, including names and addresses of counsel and of parties appearing pro se and a designation of he party to be deemed the petitioner on the certified question if the request to answer is granted;
(2) the questions of law to be answered;
(3) a statement (by stipulation of the parties subject to approval by the certifying court, or by the court itself) of all facts relevant to the certified question, and showing fully the nature of the controversy and the circumstances in which the question arose;

(4) statements
(i) demonstrating that the question certified is contested and that there is no controlling precedent in the case law of the California appellate courts,

(ii) explaining how an authoritative answer to the certified question may be determinative of a cause pending in the certifying court; and
(iii) indicating that the answer provided by the California Supreme Court will be followed by the certifying court; and

(5) such additional information as the certifying court may deem relevant and useful.

(c) [Briefs and other materials] The certifying court shall furnish legible copies of all relevant briefs to the California Supreme Court with the request for an answer to the certified question. The California Supreme Court may request that the certifying court furnish additional material, such as exhibits or all or a portion of the record that, in the opinion of the court, may be useful in answering the certified question.

(d) [Request procedure] The judge or justice presiding at the certification hearing (if any) or the presiding judge or justice of the court or panel certifying the question shall sign the request for an answer to the certified question, and the clerk of the certifying court shall forward it under its official seal to the California Supreme Court.

(e) [Factors that may be considered] The California Supreme Court shall have discretion to accept or deny the request for an answer to the certified question of law. In exercising its discretion the court may consider:
(1) factors that it ordinarily considers in deciding whether to grant review of a decision of a California Court of Appeal or to issue an alternative writ or other order in an original matter;
(2) comity, and whether answering the question will facilitate the certifying court’s functioning or help terminate existing litigation;
(3) the extent to which an answer would turn on questions of fact; and
(4) any other factors the court may deem appropriate.

(f) [Clarification of question] At any time, the California Supreme Court may restate the certified question or may ask the certifying court to restate or clarify the certified question.

(g) [Order denying or accepting request] The California Supreme Court shall issue an order accepting or denying the request for an answer to the certified question. If the court accepts the request, it shall announce that determination in the manner that it announces the acceptance of cases for review, and thereafter:
(1) the California Rules of Court for briefing, argument, and conduct of appeals shall govern further proceedings on any certified question unless the court or the Judicial Council otherwise provides;
(2) fees and costs shall be the same as in appeals docketed before the California Supreme Court and in civil matters, shall be equally divided between or among the parties unless the certifying court in its request for an answer to the certified question provides for a different allocation, or the California Supreme Court provides otherwise; and
(3) the California Supreme Court may in its discretion assign a certified question such priority on its docket as considerations of fairness, exigency, and comity may require.

(h) [Notice to California Attorney General] If the certified question concerns the proper interpretation of a California statute, in litigation in which the State of California or an officer, agency, or employee of the state is not a party, the clerk of the California Supreme Court shall notify the California Attorney General and the California Supreme Court may permit him or her to file briefs on the issue.

(i) [Transmission of opinion] The clerk shall forward the California Supreme Court’s written opinion stating the law governing the certified question to the certifying court, under the seal of the Supreme Court, and also shall forward copies of the opinion to counsel of record.

(j) [Publication and precedential effect] The California Supreme Court’s answer to a certified question shall have the same authoritative and precedential force as any other decision of the court, and shall be published in the official Reports.

(k) [Procedural rules] The California Supreme Court or the Judicial Council may adopt procedures governing practice under this rule.

(Adopted, eff. Jan. 1, 1998.) [Amended December 27, 1946, effective March 19, 1948; December 29, 1948, effective October 20, 1949; January 21, 1963, effective July 1, 1963; February 28, 1966, effective July 1, 1966; March 2, 1987, effective August 1, 1987; April 30, 1991, effective December 1, 1991.]

California Codes
California Code of Civil Procedure
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 387-388

INTERVENTION 387.

(a) Upon timely application, any person, who has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, may intervene in the action or proceeding. An intervention takes place when a third person is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding between other persons, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or by uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or by demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and the defendant, and is made by complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which the intervention rests, filed by leave of the court and served upon the parties to the action or proceeding who have not appeared in the same manner as upon the commencement of an original action, and upon the attorneys of the parties who have appeared, or upon
the party if he has appeared without an attorney, in the manner provided for service of summons or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) Title 14 of Part2. A party served with a complaint in intervention may within 30 days after service move, demur, or otherwise plead to the complaint in the same manner as to an original complaint.

(b) If any provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene or if the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property to transaction which is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties, the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene.

388.

In an action brought by a party for relief of any nature other than solely for money damages where a pleading alleges facts or issues concerning alleged pollution or adverse environmental effects which could affect the public generally, the party filing the pleading shall furnish a copy to the Attorney General of the State of California. The copy shall be furnished by the party filing the pleading within 10 days after filing.

 

Oregon Certification of Questions of Law

ORS Chapter 28 – Oregon State Legislature

28.160 Short title. This chapter may be cited as the “Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.” CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW. 28.200 Supreme Court authorized …
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/028.html – Cached –Similar

Chapter 28 — Declaratory Judgments; Certification of Questions of Law 

2009 EDITION

DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS; QUESTIONS OF LAW

 

SPECIAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

28.010       Power of courts; form of declaration
28.020       Declarations as to writings and laws
28.030       Construction of contract before or after breach
28.040       Declaratory judgments on trusts or estates
28.050       Enumeration not exclusive
28.060       Discretion of court to refuse judgment
28.070       Appeal or review
28.080       Supplemental relief
28.090       Trial of issues of fact
28.100       Costs
28.110       Parties; service on Attorney General when constitutional question involved
28.120       Construction and administration
28.130       “Person” defined
28.140       Provisions severable
28.150       Uniformity of interpretation
28.160       Short title

CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW

28.200       Supreme Court authorized to answer questionsof    law certified by other courts
28.205       Procedure to invoke ORS 28.200 to 28.255
28.210       Certification order
28.215       Form of certification order; submission of record
28.220       Fees; apportionment between parties
28.225       Procedure in certification matters
28.230       Opinion on certified question
28.235       Certification to another state
28.240       Procedure for certification to another state
28.245       Severability
28.250       Construction
28.255       Short title

 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

28.010 Power of courts; form of declaration. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a judgment. [Amended by 2003 c.576 §302]

28.020 Declarations as to writings and laws. Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writing constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such instrument, constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.

28.030 Construction of contract before or after breach. A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach thereof.

28.040 Declaratory judgments on trusts or estates. Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, ward or insolvent, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto:

      (1) To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin or other; or

      (2) To direct the executors, administrators, trustees, guardians or conservators to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or

      (3) To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings. [Amended by 1961 c.344 §101]

28.050 Enumeration not exclusive. The enumeration in ORS 28.010 to 28.040 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in ORS 28.010, in any proceedings where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty. [Amended by 2003 c.576 §303]

28.060 Discretion of court to refuse judgment. The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment where such judgment, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. [Amended by 2003 c.576 §304]

28.070 Appeal or review. All orders and judgments under this chapter may be appealed from or reviewed as other orders and judgments. [Amended by 2003 c.576 §305]

28.080 Supplemental relief.

Further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application thereof shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith. [Amended by 2003 c.576 §306]

28.090 Trial of issues of fact. When a proceeding under this chapter involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other actions at law or suits in equity in the court in which the proceeding is pending. 

28.100 Costs. In any proceeding under this chapter the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just.

28.110 Parties; service on Attorney General when constitutional question involved. When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding. In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal charter, ordinance or franchise, the municipality affected shall be made a party, and shall be entitled to be heard, and if the constitution, statute, charter, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General of the state shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.

28.120 Construction and administration.This chapter is declared to be remedial. The purpose of this chapter is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed and administered. [Amended by 2005 c.22 §18]

28.130 “Person” defined.The word “person,” wherever used in this chapter, shall be construed to mean any person, partnership, joint stock company, unincorporated association or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever.

28.140 Provisions severable. The several sections and provisions of this chapter, except ORS 28.010 and 28.020, are hereby declared independent and severable, and the invalidity, if any, of any part or feature thereof shall not affect or render the remainder of the chapter invalid or inoperative.

28.150 Uniformity of interpretation. This chapter shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it, and to harmonize, as far as possible, with federal laws and regulations on the subject of declaratory judgments. [Amended by 2003 c.576 §307]

28.160 Short title.  This chapter may be cited as the “Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.”

CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW

28.200 Supreme Court authorized to answer questions of law certified by other courts.

The Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court, a panel of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Service or the highest appellate court or the intermediate appellate court of any other state, when requested by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceedings before it questions of law of “this state“ which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court and the intermediate appellate courts of this state. [1983 c.103 §1; 1995 c.197 §1]

 Note: 28.200 to 28.255 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 28 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

28.205 Procedure to invoke ORS 28.200 to 28.255.

ORS 28.200 to 28.255 may be invoked by an order of any of the courts referred to in ORS 28.200 upon the court’s own motion or upon the motion of any party to the cause. [1983 c.103 §2]

 Note: See note under 28.200.

28.210 Certification order.

A certification order shall set forth:

(1) The questions of law to be answered; and

(2) A statement of all facts relevant to the questions certified and showing fully the nature of the controversy in which the questions arose.[1983 c.103 §3]

Note: See note under 28.200.

28.215 Form of certification order; submission of record.

The certification order shall be prepared by the certifying court, signed by the judge presiding at the hearing, and forwarded to the Supreme Court by the clerk of the certifying court under its official seal. The Supreme Court may require the original or copies of all or of any portion of the record before the certifying court to be filed with the certification order, if, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the record or portion thereof may be necessary in answering the questions. [1983 c.103 §4]

Note: See note under 28.200.

28.220 Fees; apportionment between parties.  Fees and costs shall be the same as in civil appeals docketed before the Supreme Court and shall be equally divided between the parties unless otherwise ordered by the certifying court in its order of certification. [1983 c.103 §5]

 Note: See note under 28.200.

28.225 Procedure in certification matters.Proceedings in the Supreme Court shall be those provided in rules of appellate procedure and statutes governing briefs and arguments. [1983 c.103 §6]

 Note: See note under 28.200.

28.230 Opinion on certified question. The written opinion of the Supreme Court stating the law governing the questions certified shall be sent by the clerk under the seal of the Supreme Court to the certifying court and to the parties. [1983 c.103 §7]

Note: See note under 28.200.

28.235 Certification to another state. The Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals of “this state,” on their own motion or the motion of any party, may order certification of questions of law to the highest court of any state when it appears to the certifying court that there are involved in any proceeding before the court questions of law of the receiving state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and it appears to the certifying court that there are no controlling precedents in the decisions of the highest court or intermediate appellate courts of the receiving state. [1983 c.103 §8]

Note: See note under 28.200.

28.240 Procedure for certification to another state. The procedures for certification from “this state” to the receiving state shall be those provided in the laws of the receiving state. [1983 c.103 §9]

 Note: See note under 28.200.

28.245 Severability. If any provision of ORS 28.200 to 28.255 or the application thereof to any person, court, or circumstance is held invalid the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of ORS 28.200 to 28.255 which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of ORS 28.200 to 28.255 are severable. [1983 c.103 §10]

Note: See note under 28.200.

28.250 Construction. ORS 28.200 to 28.255 shall be so construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it. [1983 c.103 §11   Note:See note under 28.200.

28.255 Short title. ORS 28.200 to 28.255 may be cited as the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act. [1983 c.103 §12]

Note: See note under 28.200.

 

 

 

 

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...

Court (Letter Rogatory to Chief Justice- Reservation of Rights)

25 Wednesday Jan 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Federal Rule 12, Letter Rogatory, sovereign documents, sovereignty, UCC 1 -308, UCC 1-103.6, UCC 1-201.26, UCC 3-104.2, UCC 3-104.3

(For Austin)   
 
(Blog Master’s Note:  This is a Letter Rogatory, it either testifies to, or asks for testimony, from a foreign court.  With both state and federal being corporate, they are foreign to our de jure government.  An early example is Nelson v. United States, 1 Pet. 236, Nelson was asking for testimony from Cuba. Here is a recent case  42 F.3d 308 dealing with a Letter Rogatory)
 

****************************************************

Name_________________________
[ ] address with numbers in brackets
city, state with zip in brackets [ ]
Dated:  
                                     Certified mail #
To: Honorable (Judge)
address
city, state, zip

Re: Presentment in the nature of a“Letter Rogatory.”

This writing is submitted in the nature of a letter rogatory from my court circa 1937, to your court and relates to an apparent and ongoing disparagement of the supposedly unfettered right to remedy and thereby assertion of my private reservation of natural rights at this juncture in time, and as being demonstrably critical to my personal safety and economic well being and addresses the ultimate and individual survival of this native born American. I write this letter as a Man born upon the dry land of this nation and I firmly believe this act of my live birth as being wholly natural and not having arisen as a privilege granted by “this state” of the forum and permits me to speak to the subject in question, namely what I suspect and believe to be the procedural portal and remedy for myself in the flesh to access my inherent and thereby secured natural rights pursuant to the reliance upon the aforesaid reservation of rights without prejudice as provided at UCC 1-308. I may at some point in the future require your certification of any statute as being constitutionally valid and which may be relied on to infringe the reservation of my natural rights.

I ask that you read this letter and accompanying documents carefully and that you not dismiss out of hand, my understanding as related to the manner that many of the administrative entities and their respective operatives who are employed by “this state”, appear to cast a blind eye on my assertion to open, notoriously and unconditionally reserve my private and thereby natural rights, without prejudice as noted at Oregon Statutes – Chapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 – Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former [natural right] is to prevail (as against the summary infringement of rights employing fraud in the inducement by the “law merchant.”)

WHEREAS; “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Gates Spafford, 17 Mar. 1817, cited in Papers 14:221 (1) “Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these”

President Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837 (2) “I think we are in a position, after the experience of the last 20 years, to state two things: in the first place, that a corporation may well be too large to be the most efficient instrument of production and of distribution, and, in the second place, whether it has exceeded the point of greatest economic efficiency or not, it may be too large to be tolerated among the people who desire to be free.”

-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, testimony before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, 1911. (102) “Behind the visible government there is an invisible government upon the throne that owes the people no loyalty and recognizes no responsibility. To destroy this invisible government, to undo the ungodly union between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the task of a statesman.”

-Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, during his 1912 election campaign (104) “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . .corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

-U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864, from a letter to Col. William F. Elkins (3)Due to the above referenced circumstance causing the country to move to rapid deterioration, I have made a personal determination to traverse to my God given natural right and proceed out of the “shadow” of the fictional creations crafted by “this state” and will not animate such entities in a subservient nature.

WHEREAS, it would appear the majority of the operatives of “this state” be it out of ignorance, indifference or extreme prejudice completely refuse to acknowledge such assertion of the natural right as clearly acknowledged within the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Revised Statutes. Unfortunately, the problem seems to go to an insensitive attitude or perception among many government employees, agents and those exercising the administrative police powers at article I and article II administrative tribunals while relying wholly upon the Administrative Procedures Act for their authority and presume a waiver of my substantive Due Process rights. Said employees of the state of the forum see this circumstance as an “us” vs. “them” contest and perceiving the people as being the more or less ignorant masses who are presumed to be statutorily captured and thereby, the involuntary source of funding for the public employee’s regular paychecks, benefits and assorted perks.Said people dare not threaten the operative’s privileged well being by reserving the right to access their natural right, which could go to the economic detriment of “this state” and its privileged public [servants].

Another prime example lies in “Policing for Profit” to wit: “Policing for Profit” Report Documents the Nationwide Abuse of Civil Forfeiture

Each State & Feds Graded on Forfeiture Laws & Practice; Only Three States Earn Grades of B or Better. It’s called policing for profit and it’s happening all across America.

Police and prosecutors’ offices seize private property–often without ever charging the owners with a crime, much less convicting them of one–then keep or sell what they’ve taken and use the profits to fund their budgets.

And considering law enforcement officials in most states don’t report the value of what they collect or how that bounty is spent, the issue raises serious questions about both government transparency and accountability.

Under state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity.

Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime–or even charged–to permanently lose her cash, car, home or other property.

 According to the Institute for Justice–whose fight against eminent domain abuse raised that issue to national prominence—civil asset forfeiture is one of the worst abuses of property rights in our nation today. The Institute for Justice today released a first-of-its-kind national study on civil forfeiture abuse. The report–Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture (http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfitPDF) is the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil forfeiture laws of all 50 states and the federal government. The report finds, not surprisingly, that by giving law enforcement a direct financial incentive in pursuing forfeitures and stacking the legal deck against property owners, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit rather than seeking the neutral administration of justice. (For additional resources on this report, visit: http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfit. For a brief video on this topic, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytkAaoF2k&feature=player_embedded.)

Government at every level is in on the take and the problem is growing. For example, in 2008, for the first time in its history, the Department of Justice’s forfeiture fund topped $1 billion in assets taken from property owners and now available to law enforcement. State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively:

From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. Considering this measure excludes cars and other forfeited property as well as forfeiture estimates from many states for which data were unreliable or that did not make data available for those years, this already-large figure represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg.

Laws Stacked Against Property Owners

The report demonstrates that legal procedures make civil forfeiture relatively easy for most governments and difficult for many property owners to fight. The vast majority of states and the federal government use a standard of proof–what is needed to successfully prosecute a forfeiture action–lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required to prove an individual was guilty of the criminal activity that supposedly justified the taking of his property. Given that situation, it is not surprising that upwards of 80 percent of forfeitures at the federal level occur absent a prosecution. Likewise, many jurisdictions provide an “innocent owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea it was involved in a crime. But in most places, owners bear the burden of establishing their innocence.

“Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Scott Bullock, a co-author of the report. “With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.”

Grading Forfeiture Laws and How Government Evades Them

In Policing for Profit, IJ grades each state on its forfeiture laws and other measures of abuse. Only three states (Maine, North Dakota and Vermont) earned a grade of B or better. Maine earned the highest grade, an A-, largely because all forfeiture revenues go to the state’s general fund, not directly into law enforcement coffers. On the other end of the spectrum, states like Texas and Georgia both earned a D- because their laws make forfeiture easy and profitable for law enforcement–with 90 and 100 percent of proceeds awarded to the agencies that seized the property.

Federal forfeiture law makes the problem worse with so-called “equitable sharing.”

Under these arrangements, state and local officials can hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds–even when state law bans or limits the profit incentive. Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million.

“Our results show that law enforcement is acting in pursuit of profit: Agencies are using federal law as a loophole to circumvent more restrictive and less profitable state laws,” said Marian Williams, Ph.D., assistant professor of government and justice studies at Appalachian State University and a co-author of the report. “This finding is consistent with a growing body of scholarly research, news reports and even testimonials from law enforcement officers about civil asset forfeiture practices.”

Six states earned an F and 29 states receive a D for their laws alone. Lax federal laws earn the federal government a law grade of D-. Eight states receive a B or higher for their laws: Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Vermont. But extensive use of equitable sharing pulls down the final grades of five of those states: Indiana (C+), Maryland (C+), Missouri (C+), North Carolina (C+) and Ohio (C-). The lowest-graded states overall, combining both poor laws and aggressive use of equitable sharing, are Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Each received overall grades of D-.

Policing for Profit was co-authored by IJ’s Scott Bullock and criminal justice researchers Drs. Marian Williams and Jefferson Holcomb of Appalachian State University and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas at Dallas. The university professors examined equitable sharing data and found clear evidence that law enforcement is acting in pursuit of profit. When state laws make forfeiture harder and less profitable, state and local law enforcement engages in more equitable sharing to circumvent the state laws. New York, for example, has an average grade for its forfeiture laws as rated by IJ–but is one of the most aggressive states for equitable sharing, earning it a D.

Bullock said, “If you want reforms that will end policing for profit, you must recognize two realities. First, states should not incentivize forfeiture through laws that make it easy and profitable, as most do. But second, even when those laws are tightened, the research findings are clear: Police are using equitable sharing through the federal government as a loophole to pursue forfeitures that under state law wouldn’t be allowed or wouldn’t provide as much return. The only way, therefore, to end this growing and unaccountable use of government power is through real reforms that truly remove the profit motive and protect innocent citizens.”

The Institute for Justice recommends that, first, law enforcement should be required to convict people before taking their property. Law enforcement agencies could still prosecute criminals and forfeit their ill-gotten possessions–but the rights of innocent property owners would be protected. Second, police and prosecutors shouldn’t be paid on commission. To end the perverse profit incentive, forfeiture revenue must be placed in a neutral fund, like a state’s general fund. It should also be tracked and reported so law enforcement is held publicly accountable. Finally, equitable sharing must be abolished to ensure that when states act to limit forfeiture abuse, law enforcement cannot evade the new rules and continue pocketing forfeiture money.

“Police and prosecutors should not be profiting at the expense of private property rights, and the Institute for Justice will use every tool at our disposal to expose this injustice and bring it to an end,” said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor.

As a Belligerant Claiment proceeding in accordance with my Natural right and standing as a Man upon the dry land, I make the following Declaration for cause:

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING

It is well settled the Constitution is not a defense in “satisfaction and accord” commercial venture unless “dishonor” of negotiable instrument is in dispute or fraudulently represented. If no contract or related controversy exists, there cannot be an “action” to force acceptance of obligation if the Citizen remains In Propria Persona upon a license or summons.

In Propria Persona however, will cause to be added upon all presented instruments, signed by a transferror agent or not, will evidence the following; “With Reservation of all Rights, Remedies and applicable Treaties Without Prejudice UCC 1-308,” and will be written above my blue wet ink signature, and thereby, reverts the burden of proof and places the implied terms upon the agency or its agent and thereby accessing Article III rights as so reserved. Individual terms are non-negotiable with agent/police power and must be accepted. Whereas, Article III protection is afforded by the very statute intended to subject myself to the jurisdiction of commercial agency for said agency is non-assumpsit. The agency charter must follow Uniform Commercial Code to the letter.

Black’s Law 5th : Non-assumpsit. “The general issue in the action of assumpsit; as being a plea by which the defendant avers that “he did not [knowingly] undertake or promise as [agency] alleged.”

When this Man becomes aware of any potential controversy regarding agency practice, I will protect my In Propria Persona American Citizenship status by writing/signature as “required” upon all “unconscionable” units evidencing, Without Prejudice UCC 1-308, which will render the unit non-assumpsit and reserves Rights upon the said instrument. The non-assumpsit does not grant “satisfaction and accord” to the agency. Thereby no expectation or “promise” is presumed at UCC 3-104.3.

Regarding the Penumbra Doctrine as defined in Black’s Law 5th. “The implied powers of the federal government predicated on the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec.8 (18), permit one implied power to be engrafted on another implied power.” Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 367 (1875) 23 L.Ed. 449.

This is a “stare decisis” or bench statute and does not apply to Article III Judicial Power or myself as a “natural born American Citizen” of the respective land. Article I Legislative and Article II Executive are the implied powers which are engrafted at the “inferior” Fed/State of the forum court. A contract of corporate cause from Article I delict gives police power to agency via Article II Executive and puts the burden on the Citizen to prove (a negative) that he has not violated some form of agreement. The Penumbra Doctrine however, does not include Article III, which is not an “implied” power.

Article I, Sec. 8 Cl. (1), “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, and Impost and Excises.”

None of these constitute wages or Right to employment and thereby agency License. Neither is Congress authorized to delegate tax authority to any of the other “implied powers.” The Penumbra Doctrine allowed mere “implied powers” to be “engrafted.” Article II Executive to collect the tax with “implied” police power, but no delict to destroy diversity of Citizenship. Article I Legislative is the other “implied” power and together causes third party instruments to be merely “presumed” to obligate the state Citizen.

These instruments fail to fully disclose their misrepresentation, omission, concealment, secrecy, and are of collusion, fraud in the inducement and conspiracy. The flag of Article II Admiralty is proof of third party Department of Justice Executive, using Article I Legislative statute to dispense Law Merchant procedure to sell the for profit private copyright statute. Third party units are voidable and both inferior powers and are held to prove their jurisdiction to use the police power enabling clauses within their own system charter. See The Clearfield Doctrine.

An Article I witness must verify accuracy and validity of its commercial “officer of the court” summons to the proper “parties.” Article II Executive must witness to the validity of proper instruments the agency is “carrying into effect” and validate the unit’s application to the proper subject and class subject thereto. Article III Judicial will not be present, only commercial entities are subject to “procedural” due process i.e. diminished “justice.”

All accusers within a commercial forum have a sworn duty as “officers of the court” to protect both Articles II and III. All three Separation of Powers are required as witness and officials in a state Court.

A state Court using Federal Rules (FRCP) are of the Penumbra Doctrine and may be made totally “dead in Law” by a Citizen who reserves his Article III Rights to state Court pursuant to UCC 1-308.

The agent has been put on “Notice” (UCC 1-201.26 “Color of Law”) being immune from being held without victim, witness or warrant. The summary agent (statute merchant) must be ameniable to this type of plea from a sovereign American Citizen who must be heard under Article III “due process” and related mandated right of unlimited discovery prior to hearing, because even the agent had no jurisdiction to proceed and could be sued by the victim for false persecution, kidnapping and possible Robbery Ashore.

As there is no victim, nor “verified complaint,” based upon “probable cause” prior to having paid a fine been subjected to Levy or confined to hardship within Federal Rule 12 (b) of the commercial Tribunal.

The police powers have only the power of arrest granted them by their Masters charter. The FBI, IRS, ATF, license bureaus, municipal tax, and police power are all heads from the same dragon, and only differ contractually. If the contract they presume to exist or enforce is “dishonored” for my failure to specifically perform. The Bill Of Rights are “occupied” by elliptical words of art and Maritime Contract. A commercial action must be met with a commercial response from the agency who by their nature cannot and will not acknowledge the secured Article III due process Rights of the individual who signs their “one status fits all” instruments “unconditionally.”

Article II D.O.J. lends its “implied power” under the Penumbra Doctrine to execute procedures for collection, which violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Should the Citizen not possess knowledge of the transgression, so be it, for the Citizen is presumed to know the Law and may not use any other documents to excuse ignorance.

“Subject”/ignorant citizens are bound to follow procedural rules in civil actions, even if they do not speak the dialect or understand the law. When the Natural state Citizen remains In Propria Persona, Article III Judiciary requires “probable cause” to issue or Citizen may not be “held” prior to “indictment” of The People per the 5th Amendment. A state Citizen is only as free as his knowledge of the elliptical Citizenship devise within agency contract. A state Citizen is not required to follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for these Citizens are “without” the said jurisdiction. If voluntary assent is subscribed by non-disclosure or fraudulent representation/inducement, the contract is a nullity and “dead in Law” when the instrument is brought before the proper Tribunal as “unconscionable.”

Whereas, The Masted Federal flag is warning to all; Maritime Jurisdictional Civil Law will dispense forum “procedural “due process to any who enter by contract or “tacit” compliance.

The state only has the presumed power over the Citizen when Maritime jurisdiction has been empowered by “subject matter and in-persona jurisdiction” as provided at Rule 12 (b) which delict false citizenship and obligates the party as the [ignorant] “subject” by fraudulent design.

Federal Rule 12 Defenses and Objections-(b) “_the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: lack of jurisdiction over subject matter. (commercial “class”) lack of jurisdiction over the person (contracted artificial subject v. natural born) a motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading.

(Administrative level) (h) (3) “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”

WHEREAS; “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308 is by its nature much more than a mere “suggestion” or “request” when written above your signature. A reservation of Rights activates a dormant right that vitiates the license/summons etc. by placing a non-assumpsit “condition” upon the now non-negotiable unit at UCC 3-104.2. The “promise” of UCC 3-104.3 is void ab initio and cannot “make liable” the “promise” under penalty of perjury at UCC 3-104.3. No performance is required for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “lawful money of the United States” is not germane to “relief sought.”

The “proof of the matter stated” is contract or lack thereof and a statement of “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308, gives notice that I elect to remain silent” and thereby, will estoppel the agency and stay the matter at the administrative level. “Without Prejudice” is “notice” to agency that a “suggestion” has been made to deny jurisdiction per Rule 12 (b). “Color of law” statutes are very clear and usually devoid of any valid implementing regulation, and thereby, “the court shall dismiss the action.” The judge would violate his oath to act in a personal manner to harm anyone, and “made liable” and “obligated” to the Citizen for violation of said Citizens secured Rights. The court officers 12 (6) “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” is fatal. The officers/agent “service” of summons would also be flawed if a reservation of Rights were visible above the Citizens signature on license/summons etc., for no indictment, no “arrest” by surrogate is admissible.

The Supreme Court only “hears” what it may under guidelines set forth by the commercial agency bringing action. A knowledgeable state/American Citizen may not be actioned against by “persons” of Federal situs, unless they knowingly and with full knowledge regarding the contract via “unconditional” negotiable units activated by agency executor at “promise.”

The Supreme Court settles “subject matter” issues between corporate “public policy” and subjects.

The reservation of Rights upon the license/summons, or bill of sale estoppels the collection executor, for “no verification of negotiability exist”. None may be “made” for you as “single and one dependant.”

The Bill of Rights has already been decided as Law and therefore no reason to go to Court unless indicted for probable cause by the People for a “capital crime.” Civil actions are not the laws within the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights, for same may be amended at Congressional delict. A state Citizen of Article III may seek the “original jurisdiction”of the Supreme Court to certify the statute in question as constitutional.

Whereas; information, presentment, or any “mail box policy intimidation” stands as truth if not rebutted. All Legislated Statutes will be treated as a rebutable presumption and harmful to my in-personam Citizen. Matters that are not what the agency activity is involved with, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. “Without prejudice’ UCC 1-308, will stand as rebuttal, ‘answer’ and ‘discovery’ ‘prima facie’ on the Administrative record as notice to ‘abate.”

Agency gets into much difficulty via fraud should it attempt to raise a “dead in Law” issue, without assent.

“Remedy” is final within The Uniform Commercial Code. We the People have been given “limited liability”out of necessity due to the usurpation of Constitutional ‘lawful money.”

Government hath not the power to repeal The Bill of Rights, even at statute Civil Liberties. Government activity only creates the illusion of sovereignty by our birth in a corporate State hospital per certificate and unconditional contract upon an ignorant minor.

Jurisdiction will be challenged at every issue and will maintain the controversy at the administrative level. The two required jurisdictions of ‘personam’ and ‘subject matter’ will not be served in the same court, unless the court is Article III. There will be no plea to equity, as equity must only reap equity. A commercial Tribunal must be dealt with commercially, the court will be bound to subject matter only and this American Citizen will retain his ‘personam’. My personam is the ‘common Law’ at the Bill of Rights, and pleads no equity.

The rule still stands, when challenged by equity, you must answer with equity. Estopping the matter of equity is pursuant to reservation of all rights “Without prejudice” UCC1-308 and is the Remedy because the ‘representation’ in-personam reveals the ‘discovery’ that no Rights were thereby waived at the Bill of Rights. UCC1-103.6 is equalizer via equity and notice, now the code must be read in harmony with the common Law at the Or. Code.

This section of the Uniform Commercial Code is the only place the Constitution and equity may be joined without ‘contempt’ of the tribunal.

A court which presumes that I will appear [in the airspace above], cannot issue a criminal warrant for ‘failure to appear’ at corporate bar. ‘Without prejudice’, written above my ‘writing/L.S.’ at UCC 3.104.1, destroys the “unconditional” requirement at UCC 3-104.2 and ‘promise’ is forfeit at UCC 3-104.3. Reservation serves as a bar to all others at ‘Obligation of Contract’ that a ‘condition’ is prima facie and wanting upon the unit and it is utterly void at Law.

It is ‘proclivity of the adversary not to answer’, so I would not expect the agency to voluntarily offer any information upon the herein referenced understanding of the above unconditional right to remedy. Generally the agency can be expected to play ‘ignorant’ and revert to a predictable ‘mail box policy’, and I will answer everything with reservation at UCC 1-308 . The agency must offer their issues in writing under penalty of perjury, sign and mail them to me. Failure of the agency to answer timely on the part of agency is tacit ‘estoppel.’ As for phone calls they are ‘parol’ and courts will always grant a ‘parol’ opportunity to offer an explanation for ‘dishonoring’ agency presentment(s) by what must be a ‘creditable’ agency phone call.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct; and at all times asserting my reservation of all rights, remedies, and applicable treaties without prejudice UCC 1-308. I am the Authorized Representative and source of any and all Credit to be monetized as a result of this communication and transaction.

Sincerely,

  ________________________________________ SEAL

Below is the notice going to cause strictly adherence to my Article III “Due Process” in accordance to the Bill of Rights regarding any presumptive circumstance of Arrest, Warrant and Restraint and must be followed to the letter for cause and pursuant to the reservation of rights, remedies and applicable treaties without prejudice UCC 1- 308. All other rights are equally reserved and may at some point, require the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court to certify the constitutionality of any statute that may be relied upon by any operative of “this state” to summarily infringe such rights.

Arrest is presumed to be False under Article III Due Process 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1.  Arrest is presumed to be false; officer has the burden of proof

The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove if alleging false arrest, is either (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or imprisonment. Burlington v. Josephson, 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946).

“When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by the defendant, “the law presumes it to be unlawful.”  People v. McGrew, 20 Pac. 92 (1888); Knight v. Baker, 133 P. 544(1926).

“The burden is upon the defendant to show that the arrest was by authority of law.“ McAleer v. Good, 65 Atl. 934, 935 (1907);  Mackie v. Ambassador, 11 P.2d 6 (1932).

“Any arrest made without a warrant, if challenged by the defendant, is presumptively invalid…the burden is upon the state” to justify it as authorized by statute, and as not violative of constitutional provisions. State v. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695 (1969); Butler v. State, 212 So.2d 577 (Miss 1968)

“As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer … must keep within the law at his peril.”  Thiede v. Scandia, 217 Minn. 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944).

2.  Must show warrant upon request

“He must show it to the accused, if requested to do so.”  Smith v. State, 208 S.2d 747 (Miss., 1968).

“If demanded, he must produce the warrant and read it to the accused, that he may know by what authority and for what cause he is deprived of his liberty.”  State v. Shaw, 89 S.E. 322 (1916).

“An accused person, if he demands it, is entitled to have the warrant for his arrest shown to him at the time of arrest.” 42 L.R.A. 682, 51 L.R.A. 211, Crosswhite v. Barnes, 124 S.E. 242, 245 (1924).

“A special deputy is bound to show his warrant if requested to do so, and if he omit, the party against whom the warrant issues may resist an arrest, and the warrant under such circumstances is no protection against an action for an assault, battery and false imprisonment.”  Frost v. Thomas, 24 Wendell’s Rep. (N.Y.) 418, 419 (1840).

“It is doubtless the duty of an officer who executes a warrant of arrest to state the nature and substance of the process which gives him the authority he professes to exercise, and, if it is demanded, to exhibit his warrant, that the party arrested may have no excuse for resistance.“  Shovlon v. Com., 106 Pa. 369, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 41 (1884)

“It was the duty of an officer who attempts to make an arrest to exhibit the warrant if he has one.”  Jones v. State, 114 Ga. 79, 39 S.E. 861 (1901)

3.  Warrant must be valid

A constable justifying an imprisonment under a warrant must show that the warrant on its face is legal, and that the magistrate had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. 51 L.R.A. 197, Poulk v. Slocum, 3 Blackfords (Ind). 421. (Meaning, you should also demand a copy of the affidavit giving the judge probable cause to issue the warrant. All warrants must issue upon submission of an affidavit of probable cause.)

“A warrant is regarded as insufficient and thus void if, on its face, it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.”  Wharton’s Crim. Proc., 12th Ed., vol. 1, p. 152 (1974).

4.  No rubber-stamp “signature”

“The United States Supreme Court … stressed the need for ‘individualized review’ to avoid the issuance of ‘rubber stamp’ warrants.”  State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 151 N.W.2d 596 (1967).

5. False arrest is assault and battery

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery.  The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.”  State v. Robinson, 72 Atl.2d 262 (1950).

“An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person … where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessary to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm.”  State v. Gum, 69 S.E. 464 (1910).

“Every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest … and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.”  Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.E.2d 306 (1958).

6. No handcuffs (sorry, OSHA)

“But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.”51 L.R.A. 216.

“The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.”  Osborn v. Veitch 1 Foster & Fin Eng Rep 317.

7. Go immediately to a magistrate (no photographs, no fingerprinting)

“The one arresting has “a duty to immediately seek a magistrate,” and failure to do so “makes a case of false imprisonment.” Heath v. Boyd, 175 S.W.2d. 217 (1943); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871).

“To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than that of taking him before a magistrate is illegal.”  Kominsky v. Durand, 12 Atl.2d. 654 (1940).

“Any undue delay is unlawful and wrongful, and renders the officer himself and all persons aiding and abetting therein wrongdoers from the beginning.”  Ulvestad v. Dolphin, 278 Pac. 684 (1929).

“The taking of the plaintiff’s picture before conviction was an illegal act.” Hawkins v. Kuhne, 137 NY Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912).

“The power to arrest does not confer upon the arresting officer the power to detain a prisoner for other purposes.”  Geldon v. Finnegan, 252 N.W. 372 (1934).

“Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment…[and] involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination.”  People v. Helvern, 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926)

Summary

For a warrant to issue: the warrant must be signed with a wet blue ink signature by a sitting judge who must have taken a constitutional oath of office on file and proof of a bond to indemnify the party to be taken into custody;must specifically name the crime committed;

must contain an affidavit executed (under oath) by the accuser, stating FIRST HAND facts constituting a crime;

must name the party to be arrested, or describe him or her sufficiently to establish identity;

must offer the warrant and the affidavit for inspection upon request;

No handcuffs;

must immediately take the arrested party before a magistrate when demanded, and hold the party for no other purpose (no photographs, no fingerprinting);

You are responsible for everything that happens to the party even if you relinquish custody to an assign;

Unlawful arrest is assault, battery & trespass;

There is no immunity in a false arrest case;

Good faith is not a defense to sustain false arrest.

Lastly . . . If the warrant states as cause to issue, a mere civil/statutory infraction or “offense” not rising to the level of a capital crime, then the arrest is in violation of Article III “Due Process.”. . You do not by accommodation, accept the offer of arrest for any statutory infraction or omission unless the statute defines a capital crime and thereby probable cause exists to issue a warrant based upon said probable cause by the damaged party or his agent acting in his personal capacity.

NOTICE: The arresting officer that is in possession of this information and has been duly presented with said material, has both a civil and legal duty to become informed with the material incorporated herein before an arrest is determined to have cause to be performed.

With Reservation of All Rights, Remedies, Applicable Treaties and particularly noting, ORSChapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 favoring the Natural Right to prevail in regard to a conflicting statute and is a right that can be reserved pursuant to UCC 1-308, under the Due Process Clause pursuant to Article III.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct; and at all times asserting my reservation of all rights, remedies and applicable treaties without prejudice UCC 1-308.

By my hand, this seventhday of September, 2010,

__________________________________________SEAL

(name)
c/o (address as above)
(city and state) republic
near [ zip code]

[State] Republic )

                       )  ss.               JURAT

( your ) County   )

On the ___ day of ________, 200__, (your name)___________________ personally appeared before me and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed hereto and acknowledged to me that he executed the same under asseveration, and accepts the facts thereof.  Subscribed and affirmed before me this day.  Witness my hand and seal this 7th day of September 2010.

                                                                                                                                             
Notary Signature

My Commission expires on the ____ day of ____________, 20____.

(Blog Master’s Note:  The Seal, of coarse, is the right thumb, pressed against the paper with red ink on it.  Austin enjoyed complete immunity from the courts in Oregon.  A judge was overheard saying “I never want to see that man in my courtroom”.  He filed these papers before hand.)

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 Open Letter To Agents Of The Crown

22 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

13th Amendment, Agents of the Crown, BAR attorneys, Crown Temple, Esquites, European owner ship of Federal Reserve, Open Letter to Agents, sovereign documents

(for Austin)

THE OPEN LETTER TO AGENTS OF THE CROWN

We the People are finally being awakened. We tracked down the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution – you know, the one you started the War of 1812 over so you could burn the original and all of the copies – Said amendment states, all of you Esquires are not permitted to have a title of nobility AND at the same time, hold public office in America. Up until now, you have been getting away with both.

 We learned that the BAR originates in the Crown Temple in London, England. Therefore, your oath to the BAR means you are not Americans, but elective agents for a foreign power. You have possess no citizenship, you are stateless persons. You claim to do business under a license to practice law. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a license to practice law. We searched in the statutes, codes, rules and regulations for every state and also their respective secretaries of state and supreme courts. No authorization for a “license to issue, for the purpose to practice law” exists anywhere. That means every one of you has “come ashore” and is operating as a “Privateer” for profit, within the midst of the American people.. JOHN HENRY DOE, ESQUIRE is a fiction that exists only on paper.

 What you do have, is simply a BAR card that authorizes you to “sail the sea of public debt” using the statutes, codes, rules and regulations to plunder and pillage the economic well being of the American people. We can’t help but notice, that all of the “black flag” law you use, is in fact, under copyright, so the People are foreclosed to use this private law, without employing you. How well are the people doing when attempting to use these laws? It isn’t easy, since you have us hanging upside down looking in the mirror trying to read the newspaper, but we determined that statutes, codes, rules and regulations are not in fact law, but the abrogation of the “Law.” Abrogate means “to abolish by authoritative action: ANNUL”. Applying the force of deadly violence, you have annulled and perverted the Law of the Land and replaced it with color of law. Color of law is a false flag, a black flag, a pirate flag. You esquires are a mere collection of actors. No license in fact and of course, no substantive law to support your fictitious claims.

 We have counted the number of statutes, codes, rules and regulations that you have created, with the intelligence endowed by your Creator and which you use against us, the American people. There are many more than 60 million statutes, codes, rules and regulations, certainly more than all of you BAR attorneys put together can keep track of absent today’s software, quarterly updates, and teams of legal researchers – and, voila! You have billing hours too!

 You “craft” statutes, codes, rules and regulations at the behest of your corrupt and chosen Masters, the ancient hate-driven cult within a hate-driven racist sect that are the tiresome take-over-the-world self appointed elite and the underlying blueprint for criminality. The beasts of the field possess more natural honor than you. You herd the People you have defrauded into the system of the Matrix like so many cattle, to be processed, robbed of their freedom, families and property, experimented upon with drug sorcery, and all too often terminated!

 You do this because the BAR Association is a hate-driven money worshipping cult. Your masters reward you with obscene hourly rates for the building of your personal empires. You are so far gone from the sight of God, that you presume to possess the authority to write rules to justify plundering and pillaging your fellow beings. You have much death, dying, and destruction on your hands.

 And your “noble cause” is what? Why, is not the perpetual U.S. bankruptcy your noble cause, your reason for destroying millions of lives minute by minute. The U.S. bankruptcy is George W. Bush’s noble cause, whereby the president presumes the authority to enact and enforce new “emergency bankruptcy laws” (statutes) that create debtor’s prisons for the People, who since 1933, have had no money of account, to pay a debt with, the United States, an insolvent corporate body, is itself bankrupt as a matter of agenda, and has presumed to “take” from us, our productive energy, as a surety to issue the necessary credit to float the public debt.

In fact all so-called governing bodies in the U.S. are bankrupt subsidiary corporations existing in the nature of federal-state-county and municipal entities, based on the premise of an ongoing series of “Federal Projects” funded on Human Capital. The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is an insolvent corporation and does not exist in fact. All law firms are in fact bankrupt. There has been no money since 1933! We the people have no law because we have been denied access to honest money to secure property interests to ourselves.

 Whether or not you BAR attorneys swore a secret oath to administer the U.S. bankruptcy, the said bankruptcy is an integral part of each and every letter you send, every form you submit, every court pleading you file, every plea bargain and negotiate. It is a fact of your every professional thought, besides billable hours. “Law” has nothing to do with what your do.

At this point you attorneys have made your true purpose patently obvious. “Attorning” is defined as: “. . . to take all of the property of the People and convert said property to the control of the Chosen Masters. Well, your masters’ day is on the verge of being over. It may seem, the said Masters are consolidating their control of all the Earth, therefore assuring your lucrative positions as their agents for profit and mayhem; and always profit; but we continue to expose these Elite in this forum and many others.

 You are being destroyed by leaks from within. From the 13 old European families of banking perversion to the Everytown, USA municipal traffic tribunal judge (who would not be caught dead retiring with less than $30 million of the People’s money) and all the Satanist racketeering extortionist blackmailing pedophile warmongering purveyors of human flesh in between, the self appointed elite are at their end.

 Some of you attorneys may be hearing the jungle drums and growing uneasy, but most of you are 100% in your ego at all times and proud of being arrogant. Your arrogance may interfere with your understanding of this message, but check it out, because now it is your turn to “understand” something. The jig is up. The truth herein is ugly, but we believe Americans are very angry about the truth to date and that they are ready to hear more. Many will even act on it according to their conscience.

 Just when we thought your deeds could not possibly get more hideous, we discovered that you create commercial paper for each inmate in every prison and put a price on him personally. You hypothecate that price many times. Correctional Corporation of America (Nashville, Tennessee) creates the bonds, and Lehman Brothers underwrites those bonds for being bought and sold on the world financial markets. The Chosen Masters cut you in on the deals and you all take profits from this. We are enraged to know that U.S. corporations are being funded by our brothers and sisters who were busted for statutory crimes that damage no one, a prime example is for not having a current driver license. You BAR attorneys created crimes out of nothing and wrote the rules for this heinous and sickening theft of the People’s derivative productive energy, all for administering the U.S. bankruptcy and your own unjust enrichment. We the People, the ones in whom the power is truly vested, are putting an end to your trafficking in human flesh and spirit.

 We used to have common law courts in this country, courts that addressed substance, property in fact. In common law, unless a living being has been injured or property loss has occurred there has been no crime. We also found out that you BAR attorneys raised the level of the Sea on paper so that it “covers” the land, thereby fraudulently subjecting us to admiralty/maritime law, to the Law of the Sea, to literal piracy. A cop pulling us over on a re-venue stop, is an act of piracy. It is a kidnapping. That’s a pirate flag he’s flying, so cops reading this take heed, for the Chosen Masters put you where the rubber meets the road. Get this through your heads now: codes do not apply to the People, only to the corporations i.e. fictitious “PERSONS” for which they were written, and that means you, and it means you have been coerced to become nothing more than corporate free agents as were the “privateers” of old, the Pirate. Some of you became cops in order to be respected. But we have been giving you not respect but fear, and after enough abuse, people overcome their fears, becoming dangerous to everyone around them . . . is that what we want? We have a God-given right to defend ourselves and our property and to presume to regulate away the right to use deadly force were necessary is a fraud perpetrated by the fearful elite.

The Chosen Masters have decreed that there are too many of us, so you BAR attorneys make it “legal” on paper for vile toadies of the Chosen Masters to poison us and the entire Earth through the use of prescription drugs, our food, the air, our water, and the land, and when we sicken, we are forced accept dangerous drugs, forced upon us, and when we die, our former employers receive death benefits$$$$$$ paid through secret, illegal life insurance policies on us, unjustly enriching a variety of corporations so that the Chosen Masters may take profits. (Note: Each Death Certificate is issued on banknote security paper and thereby, becomes a “certificated security”, in the nature of a “Bearer Bond.” Your Social Security Number is the identifying account number of the “Constructive Trust Account” that was held in your name, with the U.S. Treasury. This Trust Account issued, because your were intentionally defrauded by the Congress when the Senate declared in: Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 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.” (Emphasis added) It is well settled in law, that upon the commission of a fraud, a “Trust Account” will execute in the name of the defrauded party.” The Senate needed these accounts to float the public debt and once the account holder dies, ignorant of his or her account, that account defaults to the fed. The police powers are used to keep these account holder in line and ignorant, while they’re being treated as a common economic wage slave.

You lawyers will answer to the People in the lawful courts we establish and you must answer to your families, friends, neighbors and all whom you sold out. Just about everyone – except Freemasons of course

 You BAR attorneys are the original back-door men, the ones in the back room, failing to adjust the accounts. You never pay your bills. Once you take a case you are the holder of the account for the case. This means, under Public Law 73-10 wherein, all crimes are commercial crimes, and under Public Policy, you must adjust the account to offset the liability for closure and settlement. You always fail to make the ledger entry – there is NO money and the People are exempt from levy – so you attorneys never pay your bills, you defer the tax in our names and transfer the charges against us, putting us in debtors prison under the misnomer of tax cheats and tax protesters instead.

You get paid whether you “win” your case or not, and the judicial system enforces the payment of your fees. This is conclusive proof of the criminality inherent in the U.S. judicial system. What else is a criminal but someone in possession of a valuable commodity – productive human energy – that was acquired without exchanging something of value to acquire or pay for that productive energy?

Well, it is painfully obvious to the People that these courts are not our courts and can grant no relief or remedy in our true names; we are forever barred from remedy in these colorable courts i.e administrative tribunals. We are going to do away with them and you. Don’t look now, but persons in positions of authority are going to seize the reins. Even now we are turning the tide for a permanent return to a constitutional republic. The People will no longer tolerate the lies, the corruption and the death that you litigate and legislate as your daily bread.

You BAR attorneys are all drunkards, drunk on debt, chasing Federal Reserve Notes which are mere notes of debt (death). You have made it illegal for the People to remove themselves from debt! You put every man, woman and child under the probate statutes, transferring our colorable wealth into our constructive trust, so you could access these private accounts to create life-destroying industries such as taxation and the JUST-US system. You attorneys are destroying the entire world, and you cannot make it clearer that you are anti-Life. Through trickery and the deceitful use of language, you would reduce our lives to nothing more than a perpetual surety for perpetual commercial transactions. We who now must pursue such life-diminishing goals as “getting out of debt” or “making the rent” or “paying the bills”, we demand that the BAR stand down and stand aside, now, and make way for the true Law.

For starters, acknowledge openly, the People are in fact the Creditors and the system is the debtor and thereby, the people are as a matter of remedy and necessity, pre-paid and exempt from levy and due equal dollar for dollar payment for all of the business done in the name and account number of each American’s constructive trust account.

In common law there is only two laws: do not harm another living being, and honor all of your contracts. But then there is really only one Law: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Speaking of “personal debt”, we learned from our research that the People, the living men and women of this land and all the lands, are the source of all credit for the issue of all fiat (pretend) money; i.e., “credit”; i.e., “commercial credit”. So-called credit does not exist until We create it. We living Beings of Light are the source of all the energy that flows through us and is expressed as “credit”. Thus, the People can never be debtors, and you attorneys have slandered our names in your collection letters. We will make claims against you for the slander of title and based on your deceit, so EXPERIAN, TRANS UNION, EQUIFAX, take note. Your BAR attorneys will not be able to save you. EXPERIAN, TRANS UNION and EQUIFAX are bankrupt corporations. Yes, People? in this the Bizarre world the credit reporting agencies are insolvent.

You are parasites. You possess no value, you create no value. You bring nothing to the table. All of the invisible so-called contracts i.e adhesion contracts, by which you believe you have us in a chokehold are null and void for lack of consideration, lack of full disclosure, for threats, duress and coercion in the formation of the presumptive contracts, and for acts unconscionable!

We the People demand forgiveness of all pretended debt. We demand the restoration of money of substance, backed by substance i.e. gold and silver. We demand our money back for all the illegal income tax collected as against our right to our own labor, that you have converted (stolen and given to a foreign corporation; i.e., the Federal Reserve’s collection agency INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE – also a bankrupt corporation). We demand the return of all the value you defrauded from us o fund your cash cow, the Social Security Ponzi scheme. Inasmuch as the court collected funds, are collected by corporate clerks and thereby, are for cause, illegal and cannot be added to municipal budget. Wherefore, the People’s fine payments go directly into the judge’s retirement fund. We demand that you make reparations to us for having defrauded and enslaved us.

We demand the immediate stand-down of INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Further, once INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has returned to us every penny plus interest, we demand the permanent abolishment of INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Then we shall sue our corporate employers for theft (Form W-4 and wage levies).

We learned that the origin and intent re the chain of political power of our form of government, begins with the individual American, then moves to the county, then the state and finally on to the U.S. Congress. (The political power flows DOWN to government from the source of all political, POWER, the people. Within our Republic, where all of our natural rights remain intact, our highest elected official is the county sheriff. We will restore lawful government first at home, in our counties. Generals and Provost Marshals, duty calls like never before, and we demand you do your duty and take into custody, those county sheriffs who knowingly cooperate and are complicit with these foreign usurpers!

 We will open the prison doors and send home everyone imprisoned for “Malum Prohibitum” convitions and every other innocent victim of your unlawful codes. They will go home with all of their property restored to them plus reparations and public apologies. A goodly portion of those reparations will come from your pocket, Mr. BAR Attorney. We will return back to the prisons all of the real criminals routinely set loose into our communities by the pedophilic treasonous “authorities”, and many, many of you BAR attorneys will join them for your crimes.

Judges merit a special note. Municipal traffic courts, bankruptcy courts, probate courts i.e. courts of prize, federal courts, makes no difference, you are the most venal and rapacious type of creature imaginable. We have awakened to the real state of affairs: that we live in the Bizarre world. Thus it should come as no surprise that the man in the black dress, supposedly learned in the “law”, but forsakes that law for the code of the statute merchant, is in reality an extortionist, a career criminal, the most unlawful creature on the face of the Earth. The judge’s “bench” i.e. (“commercial bank”) is a moveable feast, feeding on the creative credit energy of the American people, his black robes are highly appropriate for a bird of carrion.

You are all in breach of the Covenant, in breach of the Trust, in breach of the Contract. In your souls and in commerce, you are in fact, dishonorable. Your rights are forfeit and your property is forfeit – trust or no trust.

We the People who are our Creator’s Beings of Light are taking responsibility and taking over. We are creating a world without parasites. Even as you read this we are … phasing you out. You cannot turn back this tide.

Members of the BAR, here are your choices: Come into the Light, or go into the Light. You very dark ones face un-creation or the Hell planet. You will not be missed.

Offered on behalf of the American People:

Note: BAR Attorneys crafted law in 1980 that purports the attorney to represent both sides in a case! It is however, a felony for an attorney to accept remuneration from any party the attorney does not openly represent. So, should you experience a judge attempting to assign you a court appointed attorney in any case, simply claim conflict of interest, citing the attorney, being an officer of the court and at the same time. Presuming to represent your Constructive Trust. (In today’s Statute Merchant Tribunals, you personally aren’t and can’t be re-presented by an attorney. As the beneficiary of your trust, you are coerced by the BAR and the judge, to accept the prosecutors offer of an attorney to represent your constructive trust. This misleading scheme comes within the provisions of the Statute of Frauds!

(Blog Master’s Note: I put this short piece up to give myself a break while I was out getting the garden ready for the spring.   In a few days I will post ‘Letter  Rogatory’ another of Austin’s documents that don’t need a lot of formatting.  It is a form to be followed to address the Courts to encourage them to leave you alone, and set the perimeter up, as to what you will accept. )

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...

Birth Certificate Bond

19 Thursday Jan 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 85 Comments

Tags

Birth Certificate, Birth Certificate remedy, EIN number, PN Date, Solutions in Commerce, sovereign documents, Winston Shrout

(For Austin)

(Blog Master’s Note: I’m glad I took the time to spend a night and day researching into the Birth Certificate Bond.  There are many examples, some pro and con.  I discovered other things in the process, like Cornell University hides information.  For instance don’t go there and try to look up Code of Federal Regulations Title 31, Section 103.11 and beyond under Section 103.  What you will find is only Section 103.  It’s important because one of Austin’s Documents, and his e-mails, are directed at 103.11 Meaning of Terms.  In fact he highlighted a portion of 103.11, concerning the Birth Certificate and here it is:


(u)
Monetary instruments.
(1) Monetary instruments include:
(i) Currency;
(ii) Traveler’s checks in any form;
(iii) All negotiable instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier’s checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) that are either in bearer form, endorsed without restriction, made out to a fictitious payee (for the purposes of §103.23), or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;

(iv) Incomplete instruments (including personal checks, business checks, official bank checks, cashier’s checks, third-party checks, promissory notes (as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code), and money orders) signed but with the payee’s name omitted; and
(v) Securities or stock in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.
(2) Monetary instruments do not include warehouse receipts or bills of lading.
(v) Originator. The sender of the first payment order in a funds transfer.
(w) Originator’s bank. The receiving bank to which the payment order of the originator is issued if the originator is not a bank or foreign bank, or the originator if the originator is a bank or foreign bank.
(x) Payment date. The day on which the amount of the transmittal order is payable to the recipient by the recipient’s financial institution. The payment date may be determined by instruction of the sender, but cannot be earlier than the day the order is received by the recipient’s financial institution and, unless otherwise prescribed by instruction, is the date the order is received by the recipient’s financial institution.
(y) Payment order. An instruction of a sender to a receiving bank, transmitted orally, electronically, or in writing, to pay, or to cause another bank or foreign bank to pay, a fixed or determinable amount of money to a beneficiary if:
(1) The instruction does not state a condition to payment to the beneficiary other than time of payment;
(2) The receiving bank is to be reimbursed by debiting an account of, or otherwise receiving payment from, the sender; and
(3) The instruction is transmitted by the sender directly to the receiving bank or to an agent, funds transfer system, or communication system for transmittal to the receiving bank
 

(I was going nuts trying to find this on Cornell but instead I found it here:  31 CFR 103.11 .  Pay attention to (x) payment date, it will come up again on Austin’s forms as PD date.   Why would Cornell pretend that Section 103. 11 didn’t exist?)

Austins message: Here are  files under Title 31 which the bank is held to specifically perform . . . study these definitions and use them where applicable . . . don’t go diving into these bastards make threats . . . it allows them to bring in their lawyers and then you’ll never clean it up. Educate yourself first . . . threats are seen as a weakness . . . I never threatened an asshole who had it coming . . . I just busted his ass in the middle of his rant.

Lots on the Birth Certificate . . . the transition of the Death Certificate gives access to the trading of the Birth Certificate with Dunn and Bradstreet (a British entity that goes back centuries) . . . they want to keep you mothers commercial energy and “Bond” trading on the market and without a timely demand for probate of the Treasury Account, they will claim the account as abandon property, subject to salvage . . . this is the info you need to know and understand when you speak with these assholes. Put the burden on them, tell them you will need them to provide you with all of their purported authorities in writing indicating how they believe you are to specifically perform under Title 31 and the Uniform Commercial Code and signed by an officer of the bank.

********************************************************************

NON-NEGOTIABLE UNLIMITED PRIVATE BOND FOR SET-OFF

Issued by: «ManFullName», Principal
c/o temporary mailing location:  
U. S. P. O.Postmaster
«ManStreetAddress»
«ManCityState»
non domestic without the UnitedStates 

Beneficiary:Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Trustee d/b/a REGISTERED MAIL
Secretary of the Treasury      RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Department of the Treasury  REGISTERED NO. «BCBondRegMailNo»
c/o 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20220  

NON-NEGOTIABLE UNLIMITED PRIVATE BOND FOR SET-OFF

Inaccordance with H.J.R. 192, 05 June 1933, Chapter 48, 48 Stat. 112 In the matter of: Certificate of Live Birth No.«BCNumber», Accepted for Value andExempt from Levy For deposit to the Department of the Treasury. For further credit to: «StrawmanAlt2», «SocSec» 

The undersigned «ManFullName» (“Principal”), a living Christian man in rerum natura, herewith accepts for value the enclosed bond, Certificate of Live Birth No. «BCNumber» and all endorsements front and back in accord with Public Law found at Chapter 48, 48 Stat. 112, Public Policy found at House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, and the Uniform Commercial Code, the Principal being the sole authorized acceptor of the said bond, contributor of value thereto, and contributing beneficiary thereof. 

BOND ORDER 

 Please deposit this bond to an account bearing the Registered Mail No. «BCBondRegMailNo» for future identification purposes, to be used for setoff of any and all bills, taxes, liabilities and claims (i) against «ManFirstName» «ManMiddleName» «ManLastName» as listed on Certificate of Live Birth, No. «BCNumber» a/k/a «StrawmanAlt1», (ii) against the Principal’s debtor: «StrawmanFullName» a/k/a «StrawmanAlt1» a/k/a «StrawmanAlt2» a/k/a any and all similar alphanumeric derivatives («SocSec»; File No. «UCCFileNoPresentState»; «DateofUCCPresentState», annexed hereto), or (iii) against any of the Principal’s various debtors or beneficiaries, the said claims to be identified by the Principal’s acceptance for value and endorsement noted thereon..

Please transfer all assets from the Principal’s previous such accounts bearing the Registered Mail Numbers RR ___________ US (Date) and RR ___________ US (________) to the said account No. «BCBondRegMailNo». Please (i) adjust any and all such bills, taxes, claims and liabilities to a zero (-0-) ending balance or ending balance favorable to the Principal; (ii) charge, settle and close any such account, and (iii) return all interest to the Principal via «StrawmanFullName»  («SocSec») in care of the above location.

Respondent shall have thirty (30) days from the date of verified receipt of this Bond to perform or dishonor this Bond by returning it with all attachments to the Principal at the above-noted location by non domestic post.  Failure to so return shall constitute Respondent’s acceptance of and performance on all terms and provisions herein.

This Bond shall be posted as an asset to the benefit of the United States Department of the Treasury and shall expire upon expiration of the Principal. 


We, the undersigned witnesses, do hereby solemnly attest to the authenticity of the foregoing signatures and seals on this the ______________ day of _____________________ in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and ____________.

 

____________________________________________________

Signature Print       Location

 

________________________________________________________

Signature Print       Location

 
 

 Accepted for value by drawee

  ________________________   «PNDate»

 «ManFullNameSignature»   Date

Exemption ID. No. «EIN»

 Deposit to the U.S. Treasury and credit to the Account of and benefit of

«StrawmanFullName» ID No. «SocSec»

This is an issue of currency for cause.  Deposit to the U.S. Treasury and credit to the Account of and benefit of«StrawmanFullName» ID No. «SocSec»

********************************************************************

Here are some other links that I found, one from the U.S. Treasury that says this is a  fraud.  But here is another  one, notice the difference; both have witnesses, where the fraud doesn’t.  The EIN # (Exemption Number) is your social security number with out the dashes beteween the numbers.  Now you see the the PN date, which is the current date plus 30 days.  The ‘seal’ is your thumb print using red ink.  This is the form that Austin used years ago, and it worked.   Here is another interesting  link, Judicial DECEPTION Now it is time to go to Winston Shrout, “Solutions in Commerce”  beginning at Video 3 and going into Video 4, he will discuss both Accepted for Value and Accepting for Value  the Birth Certificate. Here is the link. ) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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...

Birth Certificate . . . Tracking Its Movement

15 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

acceptance for value, birth certificate fraud, equitable estoppel, sovereign documents, UCC 1-103, UCC 1-201, UCC and birth certificates, UCC1-203, UCC3-302

(For Austin)

(Blog Master’s Note: While going through Austin’s Documents I ran into two more on Birth Certificates.  This one defines the fraud involved in selling bonds on it.  By the end of this week, or sooner, I will give remedy for using the Birth Certificate as a Bond.)

TRACKING THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE SCHEME

HOW THE UNENLIGHTENED ARE PICKED CLEAN

When a child is born within the corporate United States, a Record of Live Birth form (a commercial Bill of Lading), or similar, is issued by the hospital. The father and mother sign this hospital form (a receipt for goods) as the parents (manufacturer) and title holders (owners) of the goods (child). The transfer of the property Rights (the child’s Rights) to the State is accepted by the signature of their government agent, a State licensed Physician. The parents have unknowingly pledged their child’s future and labors to the government and signed a presumed contract. This converts the legal status of their child to that of chattel property in permanently indentured servitude (See Preface, Part I). The State becomes the de facto holder of the Rights to the child (collateral).

Next, the hospital sends the Record of Live Birth to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, sometimes called the department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in some States. Each State is required to supply the Federal government with birth, death, and health statistics. The State agency that receives the Record of Live Birth (title) keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate (BC). The BC is a commercial instrument (document) evidencing that the State is holding the title (ownership) to the child. Holding the title is not the same as having possession of the property, so the State is the “holder” of the instrument but not the “holder in due course”. This is all based on the presumed acceptance of the contract (Record of Live Birth) between the manufacturer (parents) and the purchaser (State). The parents are not aware of this assumed contract because it was never revealed to them nor was full disclosure made in good faith, so they don’t object to what they don’t know. The current holder of your commercial birth document (receipt) is able to capitalize on it because of your failure to instruct the holder to do otherwise, due to your silence and lack of legal action.

cer·tif·i·cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin certificatum, from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3 : a document evidencing ownership or debt. (Merriam Webster Dictionary 1998).

 This Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce through their agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, who is responsible to collect vital statistics from all the States. The word “registered”, in commercial law, does not mean that your name was merely noted in a registry or book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, it means that the child’s persona named on it has become a surety or guarantor as collateral for a commercial loan.

 registered. Security, bond. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996).

 Security. 1a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. 1b: “surety“. 2: Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership.

Bond. 1a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract) …with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person …to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety. 1b: One who acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need.

Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract. (Duhaime’s Law Dictionary).

1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking. 2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally interchangeable. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996).

Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract. (Duhaime’s Law Dictionary).

It’s not difficult to see that a Birth Certificate is a document evidencing debt the moment it’s issued. This is how it works: Once each State has registered, by commercial bulk transfer, the Birth Certificates with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of the Treasury then issues Treasury Securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the BC’s as sureties or guarantors for these purported Securities. This means that the bankrupt corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their Securities the lifetime labor of all Americans as collateral for payment. Isn’t it nice to know that when you were born, within days you became the collateral for corporate U.S. debt-loans through the assumed contract your parents thought was nothing more than a Record of Live Birth? But wait… the chain of events gets even more interesting.

Who purchases these Treasury Securities? Nearly all are purchased by commercial institutions and brokerage firms on behalf of their individual clients. These purchases are called commercial book entry transactions whereby the individual purchaser never receives a paper stock certificate. Follow very closely and see if you can notice the monopoly and identity of the World Power Brokers unfolding here. Key words are underlined:

  1. The commercial book entry system is operated exclusively by the privately owned Federal Reserve System (formerly the Federal Reserve Bank) as fiscal agents of the U.S. Treasury Department

2. All these securities are recorded in the commercial book entry system as “book entry issues” held for the account of the depository institution.

3. The exclusive depository institution is the Depository Trust Company (DTC), a privately owned trust company (bank), who maintains records identifying the individual “beneficial owners” of securities that the DTC holds (holder) in its account in the commercial book entry system.

4. The Depository Trust Company is an operating unit of (owned by) the Federal Reserve System.

5. The Depository Trust Company transfers all the securities to their own private holding company Cede & Company.

6. Cede & Company is the holder of nearly $20 trillion ($ 20,000,000,000,000) of stocks and bonds.

7. The Federal Reserve System uses the Treasury Securities it holds as collateral to print and issue Federal Reserve Notes, which are further debt obligations.

a contract can only be valid if it follows all the Rules and Process of law that created it. One of the main elements or rules of contract law states that “all parties must understand the scope, nature, terms, and t that fails to be entered into by mutual “good faith”, with full disclosure of the terms and conditions to both parties, and consent by all parties, is void ab initio (from the beginning). Whenever the elements of “good faith” disclosure and/or “consent” are missing, any contract can automatically be ruled null and void if the deceived or defrauded party enforces the Rules of Law. Once again, silence is default. If you say nothing, you have defaulted.

UCC 1-203 Obligation of good faith.–Every contract or duty within this code imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

Were you aware of the implied and “presumed” contract between you and the Real Party of Interest, the owners of the Federal Reserve System? In all law and truth, it doesn’t exist, does it?

UCC 1-201 Definitions— (31) “Presumption” or “presumed” means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence.

Were all terms and conditions disclosed to you at birth or any time since then? Of course not. Legally, once you rebut the presumption by affidavit for failure to disclose the terms and conditions or obtain mutual consent, the contract automatically becomes null and void. Such a contract as this, which has unlawfully bound the average American to it, is considered fraud or misrepresentation. For example:

UCC 1-103 Supplementary general principles of law applicable.–Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

As you can now see, the major flaw in all artificial governments and their “laws” is the absence of a genuine and legal agreement between the parties due to a failure to fully disclose, have a meeting of the minds, and lack mutual “good faith”. In their presumption that you have agreed to a bona fide contract with the government, you were never informed of the full terms and conditions of the purported contract.

The reason this situation could exist in the first place is due to the fact that the American People have fooled themselves, lied to themselves, and failed to communicate among themselves. They have put aside their Holy Bibles and replaced the True Law of God with the laws of men. The world of man’s laws and governments was brought about by the very people who are now servants to the “system”. Since Lincoln’s War, Christian Americans have lived in fear of speaking out against wrongs that they see taking place.

According to the universal principles and foundations of contract law (See Background, Part I), in the absence of a genuine agreement, no contract exists. What does exist is nothing more than a presumption of contract based on the deceived party (you) having foolishly trusted in the government. Although fraud is unlawful, it is not illegal in artificial State rulership systems. Keep in mind, once again, that all governments are structurally fraudulent due to the origins of their artificial conception. Based on this premise of evidence, it’s an obvious fact that fraud must be “legal” as governments are able to judge themselves as legal in the first place. In other words, the existence of a government is a legality of fraud ab initio.

Holder in Due Course In Commercial Law, the ultimate owner of any “Document of Title” is known as the “Holder in Due Course” (HDC). He is the only one who possesses a valid claim to “title” whereby the goods or property are deliverable to him. By comparison, a technical “Holder” may legally possess a “Negotiable Instrument”, but he lacks the ultimate claim of “title” held by the HDC and is nothing more than a receiver and collector of payments. The HDC receives the delivery of the property; the Holder merely receives payment for the property.

UCC 1-201 DEFINITIONS— (20) “Holder,” with respect to a negotiable instrument, means the person in possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or, in the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in possession. “Holder,” with respect to a document of title, means the person in possession if the goods are deliverable to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.

UCC 3-302 HOLDER IN DUE COURSE — Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if: (1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).

As stated earlier, your Birth Certificate is simply a warehouse receipt. Birth Certificates are bundled together and transferred or purchased in “bulk sales” under one or more of the provisions found in UCC 6-104 through 108. However, possession of your Birth Certificate was not taken by the government in “good faith” and the legal Holder (government) cannot “enforce the instrument free from all claims and personal defenses.” This means that whoever, or whatever artificial entity, is now acting as the purported “owner” of your Birth Certificate can, in legal reality, only be only a technical “Holder” of the Negotiable Instrument and can never be the actual “Holder in due Course”. Only you can be the HDC.

owner of all your earthly affairs and everything else concerning ownership of your legal life. When you really think about itThe HDC is the most powerful position in any exchange of property or goods in commercial law. The allodial key to understanding this lies in whether you are or are not the HDC of your Document of Title of birth, the Negotiable Instrument to your legal existence. Once you see that you are the legal HDC to your own Title of Rights, your whole worldly life will change dramatically. You are then, once again, a sovereign with respect to anything of which you are the Holder in Due Course. This will make you the HDC of “yourself”, both the real biological person and the artificial persona. It will place you as the ultimate , this is the “legal” means by which your physical being and your Spiritual being can join together in true Freedom and Liberty.

The “secret” to becoming the HDC is known as “Acceptance for Value.” Your Birth Certificate (Document of Title) is currently held by “unknown parties” who can never be the HDC of it. Only you, and you alone, can become the HDC. When your offer of “purchase” is made, title passes upon acceptance of the offer. The offer (your UCC-1) is accepted by the previous Holder (the government) when they record it in the State records for a fee payment (value). The “acceptance for value” is made by the government in accordance with two Rules of law: One, the fee paid for recording the instrument; Two, since it is recorded without objection, it is also accepted by their own conduct, both implied and direct.

All that remains to do at this point is to give or show affidavit evidence of the exchange (a copy of your recorded UCC-1 Financing Statement with the State acceptance seal and certification). “Acceptance” and “offer” are the two mandatory elements to any legal contract in commercial law. “Acceptance” or “Acceptance for Value”, for the purpose of commercial law, is “acquiescence”. Look carefully at these definitions written by Canadian lawyer Lloyd Duhaime from Duhaime’s Law Dictionary:

Acceptance. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which starts with an offer from one person but which does not become a contract until the other party signifies an unequivocal willingness to accept the terms of that offer. The moment of acceptance is the moment from which a contract is said to exist, and not before. Acceptance need not always be direct and can be implied by conduct.

Acquiescence. Action or inaction which binds a person legally even though it was not intended as such. For example, action which is not intended as a direct acceptance of a contract will nevertheless stand as such as it implies recognition of the terms of the contract. If I display a basket of fruit in a marketplace and you come by, inspect an apple and then bite into it, you have acquiesced to the contract of sale of that apple.

Offer. An explicit proposal to contract which, if accepted, completes the contract and binds both the person that made the offer and the person accepting the offer to the terms of the contract.

In this modern world, man’s laws dictate that there are only two classes of people in any legal proceeding. You are either a Creditor or a Debtor. When your “legal sovereignty” is established, you become the sovereign Creditor of your life and affairs. Every adverse party then becomes your Debtor. However, if you do not establish your legal sovereignty, you do not “own” yourself (your own title) as the HDC; you have no legal capacity; you have no “standing in law” to assert your Rights; and you will remain a permanent Debtor as you are now. As Debtor, you will always lose in every dispute or claim by the current “system” for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”.

Reclaiming the legal ownership of your persona (straw man) acts as an “equitable estoppel” to any and all who come against you in commerce and law.

Equitable estoppel. An estoppel that prevents a person from adopting a new position that contradicts a previous position maintained by words, silence, or actions when allowing the new position to be adopted would unfairly harm another person who has relied on the previous position to his or her loss. (called also estoppel in pais). Source- Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996.

If you do not reclaim your legal Rights of title and ownership to your persona, which makes you the Creditor and absolute sovereign ruler of your “straw man”, you will not be sovereign and you will lose every claim made against you. This is the reason why, if you ever think of hiring an ABA attorney to represent you in any legal proceeding against the “system”, you must demand up front that he make you the Holder in Due Course of the action. Since he legally can’t do this, then you will lose if he “appears” for or “represents” you. The best any Bar(fly) attorney can do is make a deal with the system Creditor, which is a negotiated settlement of the money being claimed as damages. You must be the HDC to be able to ensure victory in all dealings with the government and the “system”.

We conclude Part V with some Maxims for you to absorb:

Quod initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere— Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus– False in one thing, false in everything.

Quae malasunt inchoata in principio vex peragantur exitu– Things bad in the commencement seldom end well.

Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescere– What is not good in the beginning cannot be rendered good by time. 

THE BODY DOES NOT ADMIT OF VALUATION

The human body does not admit of valuation{Corpus humanum non recipit æstimationem};

The body of a freeman does not admit of valuation (The Body Cannot be Liened or Levied, the Body is the Temple of the Soul, and Ultimately God’s Property.){Liberum corpus nullam recipit æstimationem};

Under the name of merchandise men are not included{Mercis appellatione homines non contineri; Dig. 50. 16. 207};

A sacred thing does not admit of valuation{Res sacra non recipit æstimationem; Dig. 1. 8. 9. 5}; ….

 

 

 

 

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...

Federal Reserve Act Remedy TITLE 12

12 Thursday Jan 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 23 Comments

Tags

Federal Reserve Act, Federal Reserve Remedies, Juliard v. Greenman, Milan v. United States, Norman v. B &O Railroad, sovereign documents, Title 12 Section 411, US v. Rickman

(For Austin, but authored by David Meril)

TITLE 12

> CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII> § 411

§ 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.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Federal Reserve Act Remedy

I’m David Merril and I’d like to speak for a moment about the Federal Reserve Act written in 1913 and the remedy found therein, and how to apply it today.

It’s important to understand why a remedy had to be written into the Federal Reserve Act. To look at that, we look at the description in the title: [63rd Congress, Sess. 2; Ch. 4-6, P. 251]

“An Act. To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks; to furnish an elastic currency; to afford means of rediscounting commercial [debt] paper…”

The important part for us to focus on is “to furnish an elastic currency”. To understand the authority behind remedy in the United States of America, we should look back to 1789, the Judiciary Act, and read:

“…saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.”

This saving to suitors clause of 1789 also allows for the exclusive original cognizance by Congress and by the United States Government of all seizures on land. i.e. “reprisal”

Therefore, Congress was required to write the remedy from elastic currency into Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act:

“They [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank.”

However, reading Section 16 carefully, the remedy from central banking reveals that Federal Reserve Notes are for reserve banks. If you have Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet, in other words, you are considered a reserve bank. [Or holder in due course]

To restate remedy, one could quit being a reserve bank by redeeming lawful money with their Federal Reserve Notes.

Corporate powers are defined in the Federal Reserve Act.

[63rd Congress, Sess. 2; Ch. 4-6, P. 254]

“Upon filing of such certificate with the comptroller of the currency as aforesaid, the said Federal Reserve bank shall become a body corporate, and as such, and in the name designated in each organization certificate, shall have power-

First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

Second. To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is soon dissolved by and Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.

Third. To make contracts.

Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.”

So, do the math. From 1913 to 1933 was twenty years. All these reserve banks — people with Federal Reserve Notes in their pockets, in their wallets, in their pillows, under their mattresses, whatever, in their bank accounts — they wanted to get their Federal Reserve Notes redeemed in 1933 for gold or gold certificates like United States notes (lawful money), in elastic currency.

Because the nature of Federal Reserve Notes is elastic currency, the Federal Reserve banks had been producing far more notes than they had gold and gold certificates redeemable in gold to return.

[Sandusky Masonic Bulletin – March 1933; Mason Museum Colorado Springs, Colorado]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, formerly Governor of New York, quickly came to the bankers’ rescue. He declared the Bankers Holiday.

To make sense of “legal tender” versus “lawful money” one has to understand that the Constitution of the United States of America speaks about money in two distinct places:

[US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10]

“No state shall … make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”

And the other power is to Congress:

[US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 5]

“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”

Considering these two clauses in the context intended by the Founding Fathers, the United States of America does not have fiat currency, and it didn’t have fiat currency between 1789 and 1861. That’s when there was an extraordinary occasion, according to President Lincoln. [Congressional Globe, July 4, 1861]

Here’s where I’m going to have to warn you that I’m skipping a lot of history about emergency in America. But, on March 28, 1861, the emergency began, and it’s still in place today.

 Parts of the emergency were ended in the late 70s, 1970s, but in the stipulations at the end of this Act from Congress, we find that the Trading With the Enemy Act, Title 12, Sections 95A and so forth about the Bankers Holiday, remain in full force and effect; meaning that, under this same emergency, a Bankers Holiday can be called at any time by the Secretary or the President.

[Public Law 94-412; 90 Stat. 1225; Sept. 14, 1976]

This is a critical point to remember if you are considering applying remedy today because they’ve kept the ability to make a Bankers Holiday. They’ve kept the ability to keep a Bankers Holiday in case all you reserve bankers with Federal Reserve Notes — private credit — in your pockets decide to redeem lawful money at the same time. That’s a bank run. Bankers Holidays are for bank runs.

If you’re following this evidence, the remedy is still in place. Logically, you should be wondering what happened after 1933. In 1934, the wording was changed to accommodate the gold seizure of FDR.

Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was codified into Title 12, Section 411, and its been there ever since. It was changed in 1933 to read:

“They [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.”

Now, since then, many a patriot has marched into a Federal Reserve Bank with Federal Reserve Notes demanding gold, gold or silver coin, some sort of substance, some sort of lawful money according to that patriot’s rendition of what the Constitution reads.

And because of such patriots, it’s become impossible to even get into the lobby of the Federal Reserve bank under such a demand. I think it’s important to explain clearly that due to the saving to suitors clause of 1789, Congress can not take away remedy. Congress had to leave remedy in place.

So, we have to examine inelastic currency, United States notes:

“The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation-

(1) May not be more than $300,000,000; and

(2) May not be held or used for a reserve.”

[31 USC 5115]

What this means is the amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation is fixed. The amount of United States notes in circulation cannot be expanded upon through fractional lending. This is the difference between elastic currency and inelastic currency.

For some insight into what the courts think of redeeming lawful money, let’s listen to the ninth circuit court [Milan v. United States , 524 F.2d 629]:

Although golden eagles, double eagles, and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, holder of $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note, was not entitled to do so in precious metal. Federal Reserve Act, § 16, 12 USCA § 411; Coinage Act of 1965, § 102, 31 USCA § 392.

Would you listen that! The justices of the ninth circuit admit that this gentleman was entitled to redeem his notes.

“(a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;”

It’s wise for the justices of the ninth circuit not to stand between people and their remedy by law. Sadly, by the verbiage, we can deduce that this gentleman did not know about the emergency since 1861 and did not know about the gold seizure in 1933, at least he wasn’t acknowledging it in law, whereas the ninth circuit justices do know about the history of America.

For example, here’s an informed opinion from the attorney general of the State of Michigan:

It is my opinion, therefore, that the US Const., art. 1, Sec. 10 does not require the State of Michigan to pay its debts or receive payment for debts exclusively in either gold or silver coin. It is further my opinion that the State may not require payment of private debts exclusively in either gold or silver coin since Congress alone possesses and exercises that authority. [Opinion 5934, July 15, 1981]

Therefore, one should pay attention only to how Congress defines lawful money.

US v. Rickman,  638 F.2d 182:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

In a similar case,  US v. Ware, 308 F.2d 400:

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Attorneys in black robes are trained to give opinions that make it sound as though they have the authority to define lawful money. I just told you the definition by Congress and it’s from this case, this very case.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of the Art. 1, s. 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. US v. Ware, 308 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”

You see, Gary Rickman endorsed his paychecks, and by doing so he bonded his substance behind the fractional lending or the elastic currency, and therefore the elastic currency is as good as lawful money. It’s bonded.

Now, back to the citation.

Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance and currency.  Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad , 294 US 240; 55 S.Ct. 407; 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

That’s what Gary Rickman did.

This explains the frustration of so many patriots going into the bank with Federal Reserve Notes demanding lawful money for them. They walk in with the admission they’d already endorsed private credit because they’re walking in with admitted Federal Reserve Notes. It’s not lawful money. It’s not United States notes in the form of lawful money.

They’re coming in with Federal Reserve Notes, private credit, demanding Federal Reserve Notes lawful money, but they already accrued the tax liability. They’ve already endorsed private credit.

[Milan v. USA, 524 F.2d 629]

Because the limitation of the exemption on the income tax for coinage is only $1,000, I’m only going to touch upon that lightly.

Coins do not say that they are Federal Reserve tokens. They say that they are coins equivalent to US dollars too. This recent asset report from the Federal Reserve to Congress reveals the situation about gold since the late 1970s.

Financial ministers around the world, in amending the Bretton Woods agreements, accepted France and America’s decision to go from the fixed exchange rate of gold — US dollar domestic to US dollar foreign — to a floating exchange rate, Special Drawing Rights [SDR].

[Statistical Supplement to the Federal Reserve Bulletin, May 2008]SDR’s are often called “paper gold,” and here we see that the gold in the United States, United Nations, IMF trust fund is still earmarked at $42.22 per ounce.This should peak the interest of anybody who has bought and sold gold because spot today is nearly $1,000 per ounce.

Wouldn’t that be nice to find one window where you could buy gold at $42 and sell it at another window at about $1,000. That would crash the windows. That would crash the difference between the US dollar and the Federal Reserve Note.

However, I intend to conclude this point about coins. The same coins, four quarters for instance, divide equally into US Dollars as they divide into Federal Reserve Notes. There’s a discrepancy in the physical metaphysics of the value of the coin.

Congress has stretched the metaphysics of the Federal Reserve Notes and United States notes to the point where if you were to tender United States notes they could be accepted at the same face value as Federal Reserve Notes, about a 20 to 1 discrepancy.

Since 1933 when remedy was fresh on people’s minds and they threatened a bank run by threatening to redeem lawful money instead of the Federal Reserve Notes, so very few people have been redeeming lawful money in the form of United States notes that on January 21, 1971 the Treasury decided to quit putting more United States notes into circulation simply because nobody was demanding lawful money instead of private credit from the Fed, Federal Reserve Notes.

[Department of the Treasury, Online FAQ]

Consider if you endorse private credit from the Fed with your paycheck by signing the back without any restrictive or non-endorsement verbiage, you’ve just accepted private credit from the Fed instead of lawful money.

[Typical Federal Tax Lien]

If you’d like to own a piece of property, you have to purchase it. You have to buy it. You have to pay for it in lawful money. You can’t pay for it in private credit without having an obligation or a residual first lien upon that property by whoever you got the private credit from.

In finding remedy, it’s critical to understand the distinction between discharging a debt and buying something. If you buy something you own it in allodium. That means you used lawful money to purchase it. If you discharge debt, there’s still an obligation that resides in that item.

There is a distinction between a “debt discharged” and a debt “paid”. When discharged, the debt still exists though divested of it’s charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to it’s disability incident to the discharge.[Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 784]

Many well intentioned patriots fall into the mental trap of thinking the Notice of Federal Tax lien is part of curing out the lien. It’s not part of perfecting the lien at all. It’s notice to third parties that the lien is already cured. The lien is already cured because the Treasury had first lien.

And don’t be fooled by a comic book designed so 10 year olds can understand fractional reserve lending. The Fed takes you and your substance bonding this increase in the elastic currency as serious as a heart attack.

The law simply states the remedy is simple.

“They [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in gold on demand…” [Federal Reserve Act, § 16]

Okay. So that’s all there is to it. I found a fellow on the internet doing it with this verbiage above his signature on the reverse side [of the check]. And this works rather well with tellers. They don’t quite understand it so they quickly give you your funds, lawful money. United States notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE

However, many people have found this direct approach works much better.

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411
John Doe d/b/a JOHN DOE

This intrepid suitor filed a libel of review in admiralty in the United States district courts using lawful money. He kept track of the bills. See, there’s the bank notary authorizing both the bills and his true name.

Congress keeping wartime provisions through the Trading with the Enemy Act for a Bankers Holiday sometime in the future may not be proof enough to convince you. Reading from Juliard v. Greenman (Legal Tender Cases), 110 US 421, the backbone case of the Legal Tender Cases following the war between the States:

…providing that notes of the United States issued during a War of the Rebellion, under acts of congress declaring them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, shall be reissued and kept in circulation.

The important point to get is that Congress has never enacted any legislation to take United States notes out of circulation.

At the beginning I showed you Title 31 United States Code 5115 defining United States notes to be inelastic. Interestingly, in 1982 Congress made another revision to that same section.

In the section the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United State notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

Remember that the Constitution grants the power to remove United States notes from circulation only to the Congress, not to the Treasury. Let’s pretend, though, for a moment that the Treasury does have the authority. Listen to this wording, carefully:

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. [Treasury Dept. Online FAQ]

The Treasury has not removed United States notes from circulation. Rather, for all intents and purposes, Federal Reserve Notes function adequately as inelastic currency, United States notes, when their not endorsed.

It’s interesting to note, that as hundred, maybe even thousands of Americans started redeeming lawful money from their paychecks, Congress escalated the frivolous filing penalty from $500 to $5,000. A Frivolous Positions memorandum was issued to all IRS agents. The memorandum itemized quite a few various frivolous positions for which the taxpayer could be penalized this new $5,000 fine.

Items 11 and 12 come close to the redeeming lawful money issue:

(11) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver.
(12) In a transaction using gold and silver coin, the value of the coins is excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is the face value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of determining taxable…

But neither one of these are redeeming lawful money pursuant to Title 12, Section 411. At the end of the memorandum, summarized, it says:

Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous in a published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty.

Well, as I’ve shown, Title 12 Section 411 is the existing law. And the ninth circuit court opinion supports that Federal Reserve Notes may be redeemed at any time in lawful money.

In debating with a tax attorney in an Internet chat room, the tax attorney pointed out to me that the employee agrees to handle Federal Reserves Notes and private credit from the Fed when filling out the W-4 or the 1099 form. By providing that information that’s the agreement.

Okay. I agree. Our hypothetical employee is a federal reserve bank handling private credit as intended by the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. That’s what remedy is provided for. That’s who the remedy is provided for.

Now, our hypothetical employee is on his way home from work, and he drops in his boss’s bank to cash his $500 paycheck. He still has the option to redeem lawful money and get out private reserve banking.

I produced a video along these lines about a year ago and was chatting on a website called Restore the Republic by Aaron Russo, started before he died of course. He’s the producer of a movie called America: Freedom to Fascism.

Today, a member made a comment there that I thought was worth sharing:

We must stop the Federal Reserve before our nation is completely destroyed! The US Code states that all Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed at any Federal Reserve Bank for lawful money. This is a fact! I propose to all the members of RTR to start today. Talk to everyone they know and get a copy of the section of the US Code that details the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in lawful money.

It goes on and you can pause if you’d like to read this entire comment. My point being, in conclusion, it’s not a legal determination that’s up to the Treasury, the Treasurer, the Secretary of the Treasury, the bank teller or the bank notary. This is a decision to demand lawful money that’s up to you, by remedy. You’re the one who makes the choice.

A woman in a small Maine bank had the bank manager demand that she strike through the restricted endorsement (is what it was called up there).

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE

She was a single mom. She had to. Her demand was clear and witnessed by the notary at the bank. The following week she hand wrote a simpler demand for lawful money, and it worked fine.

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411
John Doe d/b/a JOHN DOE

I heard that the next week, she had trouble again. The banks are a little bit confused about how to do the accounting on this non-endorsement, this redemption of lawful money. The bank attorneys become very concerned when they realize that they cannot fractionally lend on the funds that have been withdrawn or deposited.

In this case, one fellow had a rubber paycheck from his employer who didn’t have funds to cover it, and he deposited it. Well, they had to return the instrument to this fellow, and when they did they had torn the non-endorsement verbiage off the check, hiding the fact that they had counterfeited money off of his funds because they fractionally lent upon it without a bond.

He had not assured them that his substance and everything he owned was on first lien by the Treasury as a bond behind the extra inelastic currency.

An employee paid periodically, dropping by his boss’s bank where he does not have an account, is the simplest scenario to understand redemption of lawful money. If you can understand that scenario and your right to demand lawful money, in that it’s nobody else’s legal determination, then you can add it to signature cards and withdrawal slips, and so forth, in more complicated scenarios.

The posting member on the Restore the Republic site was speaking specifically about ordering up a certified copy of Title 12 Section 411 by calling 7195206200 and asking for reception #207015932 filed February 5, 2007.

Like-minded suitors redeeming lawful money were meeting in Colorado Springs. I was at a meeting and a fellow came from Denver. He’d been redeeming lawful money on his signature card with his bank. He’d altered the signature card for the authorizing signature to redeem lawful money on every transaction.

They called him, under false pretenses, saying his wife had trouble with her account. So, he went into the bank and then found out that they were telling him, “We’re closing down your accounts unless you change it back.” So, he changed it back because he needed the accounts.

What we did is we got him a certified copy of this from the County Clerk and Recorder in Colorado Springs, and then he took it up to Denver, showed it to them and they allowed him to redeem lawful money on his account by signature card again. They allowed him to change it back.

This suitor is a state employee in California. He retroactively got refunds from the state for two years by simply declaring, in effect, “If I had known in good faith I could have been redeeming lawful money, I would have been doing so for these past two years.”

Now, we have the possibility of redeeming withholdings. That is to say, if an employee is having withholdings sent to the IRS during the year, he could get a full refund by redeeming lawful money simply by proving that he had been redeeming lawful money all year long. Which is to say, if he showed that refund check to his boss, his boss might discontinue withholding because the IRS had been unlawfully using the interest on all those funds during that year before he got his refund.

This is where it’s wise to wonder, if America is shifted over to “paper gold” or Special Drawing Rights, then isn’t it patriotic to continue paying the income tax, continue subjecting yourself to be the chattel bonding the money supply?

The comment you’re reading is found in the State Department bulletin late 1975 from Undersecretary of the Treasury Katz, and what he’s talking about is a preamble to the secret Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord between France and America, piggy-backed on the amendments of Bretton Woods agreements in 1976.

This is when we went over to Special Drawing Rights, a basket of currencies, a fictional basket of currencies between five exemplary nations, originally between 23 nations I believe, but it’s long since been between five exemplary nations where the conditioning to endorse private credit as the only option is prevalent.

The CIA offers accurate and current information about macroeconomics all around the world. This is probably no surprise to see China at the top, nearly $400 billion dollars in the black.

Then it might not surprise you if among the 200 or so nations listed, United States is in the bottom, nearly $800 billion dollars in the red.

There’s of course a lot of factors to consider about import and export, account deficits, etc., but remember that America started the SDR’s back in 1975.

Looking at China’s information, in the middle of the paragraph:

… After keeping its currency tightly linked to the US dollar for years, China in July 2005 revalued its currency by 2.1% against the US dollar and moved to an exchange rate system that references a basket of currencies. [CIA World Factbook, Online]

That’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR).

Regardless of what you might think of Ron Paul, the American people have stated what they think of the Federal Reserve by simply endorsing private credit thereof. I think Ron Paul should be commended, however, for putting legislation before the Congress on at least two occasions to abolish the Fed with virtually no constituency.

These, of course, flopped the moment he quit talking about them. They didn’t make it ’til the next morning because there is no constituency. America loves the Fed because America endorses the Fed. That’s their vote. They vote by signature on the back side of every paycheck.

The good side of that is they do it by conditioning. Conditioning can be defeated because conditioning is a state of mind. And I hope I don’t say that hastily because conditioning can also be the most powerful thing to defeat. Our belief sets are one of our most protected assets.

An outstanding example of conditioning is how few Americans will believe what they can see what they can see right there on camera, watching the Treasury Secret Service driver’s left hand. In observing the simple physics, the momentum, the direction of the bullet as it hits JFK’s head, it may be hard to believe but one construction is the American people killed JFK by supporting private credit and endorsing private credit from the Fed.

JFK, by executive order, was standing up against the Fed.

Before the Convention of States in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt admits that it’s voluntary to help out. He’s pleading to the people to enter their paychecks into these new forms, private credit of the Fed, to save the Fed past the 20 year charter expiration.

Recognize Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress. [Address Before the Governor’s Conference at the White House, March 6, 1933; The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1928-1932]

In summary, I’d like to paint a picture of the box that you would use to paint the prosecution into a corner with on this redeeming lawful money issue. Simply put, if someone tells you that you don’t have the right to redeem lawful money, you use Title 12 Section 411 [United States Code] and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act. That’s your remedy. That’s the law that says so, and it’s current law.

If they tell you you’re doing it incorrectly, then you simply say, “Well then the burden on you is to show me how it’s done correctly.”

Another box to consider is that, if they were to argue, “Well, you started redeeming lawful money in the first month of 2004.”

Well then you’d simply say, “Okay, then you admit that I do have the right to redeem lawful money and things changed when I started doing so.”

But, while you’re establishing the record in a court of equity to begin with, try this, “If I had in good faith known that I could have been redeeming lawful money all along, I would have done so since my first paycheck ever.”

Proverbs 11:1. A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Federal Reserve Act

Section 13. Powers of Federal Reserve Banks

1. Receipt of Deposits and Collections

Any Federal reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, or other depository institutions, and from the United States, deposits of current funds in lawful Money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks, and drafts, payable upon presentation, or other items, and also, for collection, maturing notes and bills; or, solely for purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive from other Federal reserve banks deposits of current funds in lawful Money, national-bank notes, or checks upon other Federal reserve banks, and checks and drafts, payable upon presentation within its district, or other items, and maturing notes and bills payable within its district; or, solely for the purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive from any nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution deposits of current funds in lawful Money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, checks and drafts payable upon presentation or other items, or maturing notes and bills: Provided, Such nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution maintains with the Federal reserve bank of its district a balance in such amount as the Board determines taking into account items in transit, services provided by the Federal Reserve Bank, and other factors as the Board may deem appropriate; Provided further, That nothing in this or any other section of this Act shall be construed as prohibiting a member or nonmember bank or other depository institution from making reasonable charges, to be determined and regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, but in no case to exceed 10 cents per $100 or fraction thereof, based on the total of checks and drafts presented at any one time, for collection or payment of checks and drafts and remission therefor by exchange or otherwise; but no such charges shall be made against the Federal reserve banks.

[12 USC 342. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; June 21, 1917 (40 Stat. 234); and March 31, 1980 (94 Stat. 139). With respect to the receipt by Reserve Banks of checks and drafts on deposit, see also section 16.]

2. Discount of Commercial, Agricultural, and Industrial Paper

Upon the indorsement of any of its member banks, which shall be deemed a waiver of demand, notice and protest by such bank as to its own indorsement exclusively, any Federal reserve bank may discount notes, drafts, and bills of exchange arising out of actual commercial transactions; that is, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange issued or drawn for agricultural, industrial, or commercial purposes, or the proceeds of which have been used, or are to be used, for such purposes, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to have the right to determine or define the character of the paper thus eligible for discount, within the meaning of this Act. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to prohibit such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange, secured by staple agricultural products, or other goods, wares, or merchandise from being eligible for such discount, and the notes, drafts, and bills of exchange of factors issued as such making advances exclusively to producers of staple agricultural products in their raw state shall be eligible for such discount; but such definition shall not include notes, drafts, or bills covering merely investments or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading in stocks, bonds, or other investment securities, except bonds and notes of the government of the United States. Notes, drafts, and bills admitted to discount under the terms of this paragraph must have a maturity at the time of discount of not more than 90 days, exclusive of grace.

[12 USC 343. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1478). As used in this paragraph the phrase “bonds and notes of Government of the United States” includes Treasury bills or certificates of indebtedness. (See act of June 17, 1929, amending section 5 of Second Liberty Bond Act of Sept. 24, 1917). As to eligibility for discount under this paragraph of notes representing loans to finance building construction, see this act, section 24).]

3. Discounts for Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations

A. In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may authorize any Federal reserve bank, during such periods as the said board may determine, at rates established in accordance with the provisions of section 14, subdivision (d), of this Act, to discount for any participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange when such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange are indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank: Provided, That before discounting any such note, draft, or bill of exchange, the Federal reserve bank shall obtain evidence that such participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions. All such discounts for any participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility shall be subject to such limitations, restrictions, and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe.

B.  

i. As soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Board shall establish, by regulation, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the policies and procedures governing emergency lending under this paragraph. Such policies and procedures shall be designed to ensure that any emergency lending program or facility is for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company, and that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses and that any such program is terminated in a timely and orderly fashion. The policies and procedures established by the Board shall require that a Federal reserve bank assign, consistent with sound risk management practices and to ensure protection for the taxpayer, a lendable value to all collateral for a loan executed by a Federal reserve bank under this paragraph in determining whether the loan is secured satisfactorily for purposes of this paragraph.

ii. The Board shall establish procedures to prohibit borrowing from programs and facilities by borrowers that are insolvent. Such procedures may include a certification from the chief executive officer (or other authorized officer) of the borrower, at the time the borrower initially borrows under the program or facility (with a duty by the borrower to update the certification if the information in the certification materially changes), that the borrower is not insolvent. A borrower shall be considered insolvent for purposes of this subparagraph, if the borrower is in bankruptcy, resolution under title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding.

iii. A program or facility that is structured to remove assets from the balance sheet of a single and specific company, or that is established for the purpose of assisting a single and specific company avoid bankruptcy, resolution under title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or any other Federal or State insolvency proceeding, shall not be considered a program or facility with broad-based eligibility.

iv. The Board may not establish any program or facility under this paragraph without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

C. The Board shall provide to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives—

i. not later than 7 days after the Board authorizes any loan or other financial assistance under this paragraph, a report that includes—

I. the justification for the exercise of authority to provide such assistance;

II. the identity of the recipients of such assistance;

III. the date and amount of the assistance, and form in which the assistance was provided; and

IV. the material terms of the assistance, including—

§ aa. duration;

§ bb. collateral pledged and the value thereof;

§ cc. all interest, fees, and other revenue or items of value to be received in exchange for the assistance;

§ dd. any requirements imposed on the recipient with respect to employee compensation, distribution of dividends, or any other corporate decision in exchange for the assistance; and

§ ee. the expected costs to the taxpayers of such assistance; and

ii. once every 30 days, with respect to any outstanding loan or other financial assistance under this paragraph, written updates on—

I. the value of collateral;

II. the amount of interest, fees, and other revenue or items of value received in exchange for the assistance; and

III. the expected or final cost to the taxpayers of such assistance.

D. The information required to be submitted to Congress under subparagraph (C) related to—

i. the identity of the participants in an emergency lending program or facility commenced under this paragraph;

ii. the amounts borrowed by each participant in any such program or facility;

iii. identifying details concerning the assets or collateral held by, under, or in connection with such a program or facility, shall be kept confidential, upon the written request of the Chairman of the Board, in which case such information shall be made available only to the Chairpersons or Ranking Members of the Committees described in subparagraph (C).

E. If an entity to which a Federal reserve bank has provided a loan under this paragraph becomes a covered financial company, as defined in section 201 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, at any time while such loan is outstanding, and the Federal reserve bank incurs a realized net loss on the loan, then the Federal reserve bank shall have a claim equal to the amount of the net realized loss against the covered entity, with the same priority as an obligation to the Secretary of the Treasury under section 210(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

[12 USC 343. As added by act of July 21, 1932 (47 Stat. 715); and amended by acts of Aug. 23, 1935 (49 Stat. 714); Dec. 19, 1991 (105 Stat. 2386); and July 21, 2010 (124 Stat. 2113). As enacted by Public Law 111-203 (124. Stat. 2115), “any reference in any provision of Federal law to the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act [FRA] (12 USC 343) shall be deemed to be a reference to section 13(3) of the FRA.”]

4. Discount or Purchase of Sight Drafts

Upon the indorsement of any of its member banks, which shall be deemed a waiver of demand, notice, and protest by such bank as to its own indorsement exclusively, and subject to regulations and limitations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any Federal reserve bank may discount or purchase bills of exchange payable at sight or on demand which grow out of the domestic shipment or the exportation of nonperishable, readily marketable agricultural and other staples and are secured by bills of lading or other shipping documents conveying or securing title to such staples: Provided, That all such bills of exchange shall be forwarded promptly for collection, and demand for payment shall be made with reasonable promptness after the arrival of such staples at their destination: Provided further, that no such bill shall in any event be held by or for the account of a Federal reserve bank for a period in excess of ninety days. In discounting such bills Federal reserve banks may compute the interest to be deducted on the basis of the estimated life of each bill and adjust the discount after payment of such bills to conform to the actual life thereof.

[12 USC 344. As added by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1479); and amended by act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 975).]

5. Limitation on Discount of Paper of One Borrower

The aggregate of notes, drafts, and bills upon which any person, copartnership, association, or corporation is liable as maker, acceptor, indorser, drawer, or guarantor, rediscounted for any member bank, shall at no time exceed the amount for which such person, copartnership, association, or corporation may lawfully become liable to a national banking association under the terms of section 5200 of the Revised Statutes, as amended: Provided, however, That nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to change the character or class of paper now eligible for rediscount by Federal reserve banks.

[12 USC 345. As reenacted without change by act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat. 958); and amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of April 12, 1930 (46 Stat. 162).]

6. Discount of Acceptances

Any Federal reserve bank may discount acceptances of the kinds hereinafter described, which have a maturity at the time of discount of not more than 90 days’ sight, exclusive of days of grace, and which are indorsed by at least one member bank: Provided, That such acceptances if drawn for an agricultural purpose and secured at the time of acceptance by warehouse receipts or other such documents conveying or securing title covering readily marketable staples may be discounted with a maturity at the time of discount of not more than six months’ sight exclusive of days of grace.

[12 USC 346. As amended by act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat. 958); by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1479).]

7. Banker’s Acceptances

1. Any member bank and any Federal or State branch or agency of a foreign bank subject to reserve requirements under section 7 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as “institutions”), may accept drafts or bills of exchange drawn upon it having not more than six months’ sight to run, exclusive of days of grace–

1. which grow out of transactions involving the importation or exportation of goods;

2. which grow out of transactions involving the domestic shipment of goods; or

3. which are secured at the time of acceptance by a warehouse receipt or other such document conveying or securing title covering readily marketable staples.

2. Except as provided in subparagraph (C), no institution shall accept such bills, or be obligated for a participation share in such bills, in an amount equal at any time in the aggregate to more than 150 per centum of its paid up and unimpaired capital stock and surplus or, in the case of a United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, its dollar equivalent as determined by the Board under subparagraph (H).

3. The Board, under such conditions as it may prescribe, may authorize, by regulation or order, any institution to accept such bills, or be obligated for a participation share in such bills, in an amount not exceeding at any time in the aggregate 200 per centum of its paid up and unimpaired capital stock and surplus or, in the case of a United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, its dollar equivalent as determined by the Board under subparagraph (H).

4. Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), with respect to any institution, the aggregate acceptances, including obligations for a participation share in such acceptances, growing out of domestic transactions shall not exceed 50 per centum of the aggregate of all acceptances, including obligations for a participation share in such acceptances, authorized for such institution under this paragraph.

5. No institution shall accept bills, or be obligated for a participation share in such bills, whether in a foreign or domestic transaction, for any one person, partnership, corporation, association or other entity in an amount equal at any time in the aggregate to more than 10 per centum of its paid up and unimpaired capital stock and surplus, or, in the case of a United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, its dollar equivalent as determined by the Board under subparagraph (H), unless the institution is secured either by attached documents or by some other actual security growing out of the same transaction as the acceptance.

6. With respect to an institution which issues an acceptance, the limitations contained in this paragraph shall not apply to that portion of an acceptance which is issued by such institution and which is covered by a participation agreement sold to another institution.

7. In order to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, the Board may define any of the terms used in this paragraph, and, with respect to institutions which do not have capital or capital stock, the Board shall define an equivalent measure to which the limitations contained in this paragraph shall apply.

8. Any limitation or restriction in this paragraph based on paid-up and unimpaired capital stock and surplus of an institution shall be deemed to refer, with respect to a United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, to the dollar equivalent of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of the foreign bank, as determined by the Board, and if the foreign bank has more than one United States branch or agency, the business transacted by all such branches and agencies shall be aggregated in determining compliance with the limitation or restriction.

[Formerly 12 USC 372, as amended by act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat. 958); by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by acts of June 21, 1917 (40 Stat. 235) and Oct. 8, 1982 (96 Stat. 1239). Omitted from the U.S. Code.]

8. Advances to Member Banks on Promissory Notes

Any Federal reserve bank may make advances for periods not exceeding fifteen days to its member banks on their promissory notes secured by the deposit or pledge of bonds, notes, certificates of indebtedness, or Treasury bills of the United States, or by the deposit or pledge of debentures or other such obligations of Federal intermediate credit banks which are eligible for purchase by Federal reserve banks under section 13a of this Act, or by the deposit or pledge of bonds issued under the pro visions of subsection (c) of section 4 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933, as amended; and any Federal reserve bank may make advances for periods not exceeding ninety days to its member banks on their promissory notes secured by such notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers’ acceptances as are eligible for rediscount or for purchase by Federal reserve banks under the provisions of this Act, or secured by such obligations as are eligible for purchase under section 14(b) of this Act. All such advances shall be made at rates to be established by such Federal reserve banks, such rates to be subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. If any member bank to which any such advance has been made shall, during the life or continuance of such advance, and despite an official warning of the reserve bank of the district or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to the contrary, increase its outstanding loans secured by collateral in the form of stocks, bonds, debentures, or other such obligations, or loans made to members of any organized stock exchange, investment house, or dealer in securities, upon any obligation, note, or bill, secured or unsecured, for the purpose of purchasing and/or carrying stocks, bonds, or other investment securities (except obligations of the United States) such advance shall be deemed immediately due and payable, and such member bank shall be ineligible as a borrower at the reserve bank of the district under the provisions of this paragraph for such period as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall determine: Provided, That no temporary carrying or clearance loans made solely for the purpose of facilitating the purchase or delivery of securities offered for public subscription shall be included in the loans referred to in this paragraph.

[12 USC 347. As added by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 753), which completely revised this section; and amended by acts of May 19, 1932 (47 Stat. 160); May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 46); June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 180); Jan. 31, 1934 (48 Stat. 348); April 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 646); Oct. 4, 1961 (75 Stat. 773); and Sept. 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 856).]

9. Aggregate Liabilities of National Banks Repealed by

10. Regulation by Board of Governors of Discounts, Purchases and Sales

The discount and rediscount and the purchase and sale by any Federal reserve bank of any bills receivable and of domestic and foreign bills of exchange, and of acceptances authorized by this Act, shall be subject to such restrictions, limitations, and regulations as may be imposed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

[Omitted from U.S. Code. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 753), which completely revised this section.]

11. National Banks as Insurance Agents or Real Estate Loan Brokers

That in addition to the powers now vested by law in national banking associations organized under the laws of the United States any such association located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census, may, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency, act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company authorized by the authorities of the State in which said bank is located to do business in said State, by soliciting and selling insurance and collecting premiums on policies issued by such company; and may receive for services so rendered such fees or commissions as may be agreed upon between the said association and the insurance company for which it may act as agent; and may also act as the broker or agent for others in making or procuring loans on real estate located within one hundred miles of the place in which said bank may be located, receiving for such services a reasonable fee or commission: Provided, however, That no such bank shall in any case guarantee either the principal or interest of any such loans or assume or guarantee the payment of any premium on insurance policies issued through its agency by its principal: And provided further, That the bank shall not guarantee the truth of any statement made by an assured in filing his application for insurance.

[Omitted from U.S. Code. As added by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 753), which completely revised this section.]

12. Bank Acceptances to Create Dollar Exchange

Any member bank may accept drafts or bills of exchange drawn upon it having not more than three months’ sight to run, exclusive of days of grace, drawn under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System by banks or bankers in foreign countries or dependencies or insular possessions of the United States for the purpose of furnishing dollar exchange as required by the usages of trade in the respective countries, dependencies, or insular possessions. Such drafts or bills may be acquired by Federal reserve banks in such amounts and subject to such regulations, restrictions, and limitations as may be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Provided, however, That no member bank shall accept such drafts or bills of exchange referred to

1 this paragraph for any one bank to an amount exceeding in the aggregate ten per centum of the paid-up and unimpaired capital and surplus of the accepting bank unless the draft or bill of exchange is accompanied by documents conveying or securing title or by some other adequate security: Provided further, That no member bank shall accept such drafts or bills in an amount exceeding at any time the aggregate of one-half of its paid-up and unimpaired capital and surplus.

 [Formerly 12 USC 373, as added by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 754), which completely revised this section. Not codified to the Federal Reserve Act. Omitted from the U.S. Code.]

 13. Advances to Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations on Obligations of United States

 Subject to such limitations, restrictions and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, any Federal reserve bank may make advances to any individual, partnership or corporation on the promissory notes of such individual, partnership or corporation secured by direct obligations of the United States or by any obligation which is a direct obligation of, or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, any agency of the United States. Such advances shall be made for periods not exceeding 90 days and shall bear interest at rates fixed from time to time by the Federal reserve bank, subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

 [12 USC 347c. As added by act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 7) and amended by act of Sept. 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 856).]

 14. Receipt of Deposits from, Discount Paper Endorsed by, and Advances to Foreign Banks

 Subject to such restrictions, limitations, and regulations as may be imposed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, each Federal Reserve bank may receive deposits from, discount paper endorsed by, and make advances to any branch or agency of a foreign bank in the same manner and to the same extent that it may exercise such powers with respect to a member bank if such branch or agency is maintaining reserves with such Reserve bank pursuant to section 7 of the International Banking Act of 1978. In exercising any such powers with respect to any such branch or agency, each Federal Reserve bank shall give due regard to account balances being maintained by such branch or agency with such Reserve bank and the proportion of the assets of such branch or agency being held as reserves under section 7 of the International Banking Act of 1978. For the purposes of this paragraph, the terms “branch”, “agency”, and “foreign bank” shall have the same meanings assigned to them in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978.

 [12 USC 347d. As added by act of Sept. 17, 1978 (92 Stat. 621).]

 1So in original. Probably should read “referred to in this paragraph.”

 

 

 

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...

Birth Certificates and Remedies

10 Tuesday Jan 2012

Posted by eowyndbh in Uncategorized

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

affidavit of abatement, bank notes, birth certificate chattel property, birth certificates, caveat attsting to natural identity, name in all capital letters, remedies for all captial names, sovereign documents

Structure of the Birth Certificate

 Did the State Pledge Your Body To A Bank?

By David Deschesne

Right: Some birth and marriage certificates are now “warehouse receipts,” printed on banknote paper, which may mark you and yours as ‘chattel’ property of the banks that our government borrows from every day.

 A certificate is a “paper establishing an ownership claim.” – Barron’s Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called “warehouse receipts.” The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions,

(Blog Master’s Note: Please continue reading this at the website from the link under the author’s name.  At the bottom is a pdf file.  On the website “American Bank Note Company” is used.  On my personal Birth Certificate, down in the bottom right hand corner is ” Midwest Bank Note Company” and it is on Bond paper. My name on my certified copy is not in all capital letters.   I have provided to 2 Examples of setting the record  in court that your name is not in all capital letters. )
 
(For Austin) 

THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF LIVE BIRTH IS BY BANKING DEFINITION TERMED “A CERTIFICATED SECURITY”

 FROM THE BANK OFFICERS HANDBOOK OF COMMERCIAL BANKING LAW WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

¶ 22.07[6][a] SECURITY TRANSACTIONS 22-72

[a] Certified Securities. Certificated securities are stocks, bonds, and the like. The 1977 version of Article 8 of the UCC defines them as interests “represented by instruments” that are issued in “bearer or registered form”; that are of the type commonly traded on securities exchanges or markets or recognized as a medium for investment; that are one of a class or series; and that provide evidence of a share, a participation, or another interest in an issuer’s property enterprise, or obligation. UCC § 8-102(1).

The definition of certificated security is sufficiently broad so that it may sweep under its coverage instruments that, on first impression, might not be thought of as securities. The definition does not require that the interest in question actually be traded upon a securities exchange or other market. It is enough, as the comments indicate, that the interests are ” ’of a type’ commonly traded in those markets.” UCC § 8-102. When the interest is classified as a security, it is governed by Article 8, rather than by Article 9, on questions of enforceability and perfection of security interests. The rules in Articles 8 and 9 for perfecting security interests in instruments and securities are generally comparable, as they both require possession, but there are some differences.

As a general rule, a security interest in a certificated security is perfected in the same way as under the prior version of the UCC. The secured party must take possession, or, when the security is in the hand of the bailee, must give notice to the bailee. UCC §§ 8-313(1)(a), 8-313(1)(c), 8-313(1)(e), 8-313(1)(h), 8-321(1). It is possible for a security interest to be temporarily perfected, as was the case under the former version of the UCC for a period of twenty-one days without possession by a secured party. See UCC §§ 8-321(2), 8-313(4). Compare also, UCC § 9-304. When the certificated security is transferred outright to the secured party, no written security agreement signed by the debtor is needed to make the security interest enforceable. UCC §§ 8-321(3)(b). A written security agreement signed by the debtor and describing the collateral is required when the security is in the possession of the bank or broker holding the security in an account for the debtor (who is the banker’s or broker’s customer), or when the security is held by some other third person. UCC §§ 8-313(h)(i), 8-313(h)(ii). Compare UCC § 8-313(1)(e), which does not require a written security agreement when a security is held by a third person other than a bank or a broker who acknowledges that he or she is holding for the secured party.

Article 8 makes a significant change in requiring that the secured party or the secured party’s agent possess the certificated security, not only to perfect a security interest (in cases where the temporary perfection rules don’t apply) but also for the security interest to attach and to be enforceable. UCC § 8-321(1). Under the previous version of Article 8, although the security interest would not be perfected until the secured party took possession, the secured party would have in the security an unperfected security interest, which could be enforced against the debtor as long as a sufficient written security agreement existed and there were no third parties with superior rights to the collateral. UCC §§ 9-201, 9-203.

NOTE: I strongly suspect when the Nation State of your birth, issued a Notice of Birth Registration, it was acting as a subsidiary corporation and agent for the parent Federal Corporation, United States Inc., offering a share of “certificated” stock in the United States Inc., premised on your acceptance of that offer and participate as an American Citizen. The debtor United States at all times, is the obligor on the face value of said stock under public policy’s prime directive “dollar for dollar” as a negotiable security. The 9th Circuit Court in the below case, held: “a share or similar equity interest issued by a corporation . . . is a security.” When you’re holding a copy of your registered birth certification, it bears your name on the certificate, clearly noting that you are the duly registered party of that “Certificated Security.” You are a stock holder and creditor in the U.S. Inc. and thereby, pre-paid and exempt from levy. (How is it reasonable to believe the debtor has the right or power to tax the Creditor) The fly in the ointment is the assigned public vessel, a legislatively constructive debtor vessel that holds all material property interest of the stock holder.

In Re Norman C. Turley 172 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1999).

 

(Example #1)

AFFIDAVIT OF ABATEMENT

Nul tiel corporation

NOTICE OF ASSERTION IN ABATEMENT IS GIVEN THAT NO SUCH CORPORATION EXISTS;(Your Name Normal)  a Sovereign Man of Standing denies there is no such Corporation bearing the name “YOUR NAME ALL CAPS” nor is such presumed corporation assignable

to said Sovereign Manby legislative fiat

Whereas,

(Your Name Normal) declares; Nul tiel corporation.No such corporation exists, bearing the name (YOUR NAME,IN ALL CAPS, Last Name first)The form of a plea denying the existence of an alleged corporation. Under the common law practice, a plea of “nul tiel corporation” was a simple negation or a denial of capacity in which the plaintiff sued, and was not an averment of an affirmative fact {New York Bond & Mortgage Co. v. McWilliams, 253 Ill.App. 404}. A plea that plaintiff corporation is not a corporation either de jure or de facto, and consequently not entitled to sue, is not a plea of ultra vires, which assumes an incorporation either de jure or de facto and a misuse of or departure from a franchise, but is a plea of “nul tiel corporation.” {Rialto Co. v. Miner, 166 S.W. 629, 632, 183 Mo.App. 119}. That a Special Plea of Nul Tiel Corporation is necessary to question the Corporate Capacity of the plaintiff, see: 10 Cyc. 1355; Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am.Dec. 81 (1857). Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Wetzel, 228 Ill. 253, 81 N.E. 864 (1907) (which held that a Plea denying that the plaintiff is a corporation is a Plea in Bar, but a Plea denying that the defendant is a corporation is a Plea in Abatement.); Koffler/Reppy, Common Law Pleading, 423 n. 67 (West, 1969).

BACKGROUND

Whereas, there are two (2) classes of citizens under American law never repealed.  Federal citizens were not even contemplated when Article III was being drafted.  Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 is definitive and dispositive on this important point.  Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia.  Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885) (the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of Congress).

The standing of State Citizens to invoke any Title 42 [Municipal] remedies, in part because these remedies originate in the 1866 Civil Rights Act — a federal municipal statute.   State Citizens are not subject to federal municipal law. (Emphasis added)At all times, “this state” acting in the name of the State of ______ having legislative jurisdiction gives cause for (Your name normal )to reserve His right to move to a common law cause of action for the appropriation of His birth name to be bastardized for commercial purposes and may be pleaded by alleging (1) “this state’s” misuse of (Your name normal) identity;  (2) the manipulation of (Your name normal) proper name to “this state’s” exclusive advantage, both commercially and otherwise;  (3) lack of consent to craft a likeness of my birth name for commercial and other purposes and to the extreme prejudice of (Your name normal) to wit:(YOUR NAME ALL CAPS);  and (4) the resulting and ongoing injury, both commercial and otherwise. Also, consideration is likewise reserved to move for a RICO investigation regarding the issue of bastardizing the birth name on STATE OF _________ commercial instruments as a for profit enterprise and thereby, a taxable event.“this state’s” decision to use a name upon commercial instruments other than my birth name, whether such decision rests on religious, marital, commercial or other personal considerations, does not imply intent to set aside my birth name, or identity associated with that name. 

Unlike a registered trademark, My proper name cannot be deemed abandoned by Me throughout this possessor’s life, despite any failure to use it, and continue to use it, privately and or commercially Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 639, 34 Cal.Appl.4th 790 I (Your name spelled normal), declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February ______, 2010

With reservation of all rights, remedies and Treaties UCC 1-308

I am:____________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of _______  )
                               ) SS
County of ______ )

On theday of the second month of the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the year two thousand and ten, Personally appeared before Me the above noted (Your name spelled normal) and acknowledged to be the Man given of such proper Christian name, and thereby, making the aforesaid AFFIDAVIT FOR IDENTITY AND OTHER PURPOSES AND FOR CAUSE!

Before Me:Notary for the State of __________

My commission expires: Notary Seal

(Blog Master’s Note: Please see Two Classes of Citizens  )
(Example #2)

AFFIDAVIT AND CAVEAT ATTESTING TO THE NATURAL

 IDENTITY IN FACT OF Name:

Notice and Caveat:

I, _______________________ am who I say I am and specifically object to, and thereby take exception to any and all presumptive process that alleges otherwise. Any process, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL that alleges my natural person to identify with any form or alteration of my given name _____________________ for the express purpose to acquire or gain personal jurisdiction by artifice and/or constructive fraud, is summarily challenged forthwith and thereby notes the burden of proof lies with the party or parties seeking to compel subrogation or traverse to any and all jurisdictions by Wendell Baldwin Bird and by their nature, such civil or criminal process under copyright law are limited to the procedural due process of actual controversies of fictitious parties. Absent full and complete disclosure of the explicit purpose to acquire personal jurisdiction of the Master/authorized representative i.e. Wendell Baldwin Bird in lieu of the named or fictitious/represented party in fact, fraud will be presumed and dealt with accordingly.

See Memorandum in Support of:

 THE DISCERNMENT OF NAMES/Names and PERSONS, natural and otherwise.

Nam: Nothing should be rashly changed {Nil temere novandum; Jenk. Cent. Cas. 163}; Names of things ought to be understood according to common usage, not according to the opinions of individuals {Non ex opinionibus singulorum, sed ex communi usi, nomina exaudiri debent}; Records are vestiges of antiquity and truth {Recorda sunt vestigia vetustatis et veritatis}; Cf. ORS 40.135(r) (Rule 311) (A person is the same person if the name is identical.); State v. Garrett, 281 Or 281, 574 P2d 639 But is not necessarily, representative of the natural person (1978) (Literal identity of names is necessary to trigger presumption of identity of persons so as to present prima facie case, and mere similarity of names, without additional corroborating evidence, will not support finding of identity of persons.); Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker 147 U.S. 47, 58, 37 L. ed. 72, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 217 (1893) (Defendant was impleaded by the name of A. W. Becker. Initials are no legal part of a name, the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential. Wilson v. Shannon, 6 Ark. 196; Norris v. Graves, 4 Strob. 32; Seely v. Boon, 1 N. J. Law, 138; Chappell v. Proctor, Harp. 49; Kinnersley v. Knott, 7 C. B. 980; Turner v. Fitt, 3 C. B. 701; Oakley v. Pegler, (Neb .) 46 N. W. Rep. 920; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20, (Gil. 7;) Kenyon v. Semon, (Minn.) 45 N. W. Rep. 10; Beggs v. Wellman, 82 Ala. 391, 2 South. Rep. 877; Nash v. Collier, 5 Dowl. & L. 341; Fewlass v. Abbott, 28 Mich. 270.);

MAXIMUMS OF LAW ON PERSONS

Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum. The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of another; and that expressed makes that which is implied to cease. Coke, Litt. 210. Cf. Affirmatio unius exclusio est alterius; Alteration; Designation; Enumeratio unius est exclusio alterius; Expressio unius personæ est exclusio alterius; Expressum facit cessare tacitum; Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; Misnomer; Patent ambiguity; Spoliation; Variance; Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d, 321, 325 (The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.);Expressio unius personæ est exclusio alterius.The mention of one person is the exclusion of another. 

SED VIDE:

Ex multitudine signorum, colligitur identitas vera.From a great number of signs or marks, true identity is gathered or made up.Identitas vera colligitur ex multitudine signorum.  True identity is collected from a multitude of signs. Præsentia corporis tollit errorem nominis, et veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis. The presence of the body cures the error in the name; the truth of the name cures an error in the description. Bacon’s Max. Reg. 25.

VERIFICATION

State of           )
                        ) ss.
County of        )

I, _________________, by statutory definition, being a Natural Person and duly sworn, do hereby verify that the factual statements set forth above are true and accurate, based upon my knowledge, information and belief and legal citation.

By:

___________________________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on May 16, 2005, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the state of Oregon, personally appeared the within named:, known to me to be the identical individual described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same freely and voluntarily.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year last above written.

 

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...
← Older posts

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

Create a free website or 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.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: