A Special Report on the National
Emergency in the United States of America
From Data On The Web and Archives,
and the work of Dr. Eugene Schroder, et al, 1979 to present.
I have placed it on the web in this edition, that the data may not be lost.
United States Congressional Record March 17, 1993 Vol. #33, page H-1303
Speaker-
Representative James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.
Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest
reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise."
United States Congressional Record May 4, 1992, page H 2891, Congressman
and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs (101st through 103rd Congresses),
Representative Henry Gonzalez (Texas) speaking on
"NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES" (See Record Entry):
"We are bankrupted. We are insolvent on every
level of our national life, whether it is corporate, whether it is just
plain you and I out there with the life of debt that we have all piled
up, private debt, credit cards and what not, or whether it is the
government. We are insolvent. How long will it take before that nasty mega-truth is conveyed?"
The remarks by Representative Gonzalez at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:H04MY2-37: are utterly damning.
United States Congressional Record January 19, 1976, page 240,
Representative Marjorie S. Holt (Maryland):
"Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a
letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting members
of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of "A Declaration of Interdependence" on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document,
lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my
strong opposition to this declaration.
It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international
organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by
international authorities. It proposes that we enter a "New World Order" that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is an obscenity that defiles our Declaration of Independence,
signed 200 years ago in Philadelphia. We fought a great Revolution for
independence and individual liberty, but now it is proposed that we
participate in a world socialist order.
Are we a proud and free people, or are we a carcass to be picked by the
jackals of the world, who want to destroy us? When one cuts through the
high-flown rhetoric of this "Declaration of Interdependence," one finds
key phrases that tell the story.
For example, it states that 'The economy of all nations is a seamless
web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its
processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the
necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.' How do you like the idea of "international authorities" controlling our production and our monetary system, Mr. Speaker?
How could any American dedicated to our national independence and freedom tolerate such an idea?
. . . America should never subject her fate to decisions by such an
assembly, unless we long for national suicide. Instead, let us have
independence and freedom . . . If we surrender our independence to a
"new world order" . . . we will be betraying our historic ideals of
freedom and self-government. Freedom and self-government are not outdated. The fathers of our Republic fought a revolution for those ideals, which are as valid today as they ever were. Let us not betray freedom by embracing slave masters; let us not betray self-government with world government; let us celebrate Jefferson and Madison, not Marx and Lenin."
A word from the Editor:
We must give a special thanks to all the men and women who have spent
years of their lives bringing this information to the public; and we
must not forget those who are not always in the foreground but without
whose undying support and endurance this effort would not be possible.
These men and women are true Patriots; they not only need your support
but deserve it. Let us remember that the word Patriot as defined by
Webster's Dictionary as "fellow countryman; a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country."
Not everyone can afford to give the long hours of those on the front
lines; many others fear their government. But there have been many who
have mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and
their sacred Honor, who have given their ALL! Study the Declaration of Independence!!
It is an outrage that the actions of our own government leaders cause many to not trust them! - "By Their Fruits Shall They Be Known."
What have We the People allowed to happen? Who is running America?
Are We, the People, going to continue to be slaves? How much is Our
freedom worth? Where are WE going to Draw the Bottom Line? It is Our Choice!
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." - Benjamin Franklin
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands
which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776.
To be able to call oneself "American" has long been a source of pride
for those fortunate enough to live in this great land. The word
"America" has always been synonymous with strength in the defense of our
highest ideals of liberty, justice and opportunity, not only for
ourselves, but also for those throughout the world less fortunate than
we.
America's greatest strength has always been her people, individuals
laying their differences aside to work in partnership to achieve common
goals. In our greatest moments, it has been our willingness to join
together and work as long and as hard as it takes to get the job done,
regardless of the cost. That has been the lifeblood of our great land.
From America's inception, we have been a nation of innovators unfettered
by hidebound convention, a safe harbor for captains unafraid to boldly
chart a new course through untried waters. This courage to dare greatly
to achieve great things has made our nation strong and proud, a leader
of men and of nations from the very first days of her birth. And since
the days of her birth, millions of men and women whose hearts yearn for
freedom and the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and
their families have journeyed, often enduring terrible hardship, to our
shores to add their skills and their dreams to the great storehouse of
hope known as America.
The Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, the Pioneers - the brave men and
women who have fought and endured to the end in wars both civil and
international - this history of heroism and dedication in defense of
ideals both personal and national has long been a treasured legacy of
bravery and determination against all odds which we have handed down
like family heirlooms from generation to generation.
For we are like family, we Americans, often quarreling among ourselves
but banding together in times of adversity to support one another and
fight side by side against a common foe threatening our way of life.
This bold and brash, brave young land has long given its best and
brightest to lead our country to its lofty position in the world as a
bastion of freedom and a beacon of hope for all the peoples of the
Earth.
For many, the dreams they had for America were dreams they never lived
to see fulfilled, but it mattered not to them, for their vision for this
nation was meant to last longer and to loom larger than a mere mortal
life span. Our
national vision of integrity and responsibility, of concern for one's
fellow man, the flame inside that demands of us that we shall not rest
until there is peace and justice for all - these are the fundamental
stones which form the
strong foundation of our national purpose and identity.
And on this foundation rests, not only the hopes of those blessed to
live in this great land, but the hopes of millions throughout the word
who believe in, and strive for, a better life for themselves and their
children. For hundreds of years, the knowledge that America was there -
proud, generous, steadfast, courageous - willing and able to enter the
fray wherever human rights were threatened or denied, has given many who
may never see her shores the will to endure despite the pain, to
continue trying against sometimes insurmountable odds.
Yet without vigilance and constant tender care, even the strongest
foundation shows the effects of stress and erosion. Even the most
imposing edifice can eventually crumble and fall. So it is with nations,
and with a nation's
spirit.
We have seen in this second half of the twentieth century great advances
in technology which have impacted every aspect of modern life.
Ironically, though we are living in the "age of communication",
it often seems as if we have less time now to talk or listen. For most,
modern conveniences haven't gotten them off the treadmill; they have
only made the treadmill go faster.
Quietly, yet rapidly, the small town values of community and common
purpose are vanishing. Instead of strength in numbers, we as a nation
are increasingly being split into smaller and smaller competing
factions, with the cry of "every man for himself" ringing through the land. It seems that the phrase, "divide and conquer" has taken the
place of, "One nation under God indivisible, with truth and justice for all."
Americans are retreating behind the locked doors of their individual
homes, afraid to enjoy the sunset for fear of the darkness it brings.
When and where did it all begin to crumble? How and why has America,
which once was a nation whose strength united was so much more than the
sum of its total parts, begin to break apart into bitterly opposing
special interest groups? What will this frightening pattern of
disintegration mean to the future of America and of those who live
within her shores? Let it be remembered, and remembered well, the words
of the Holy Bible: "a house divided against itself cannot stand." And let us not flinch from facing the truth that we have become a nation desperately divided.
With the long legacy of pride, determination, and strength in unity, how
has it now come to this, that we are fighting ourselves? Finally, and
most vitally important of all, what can we do to turn the tide before
the values and opportunities which others before us fought and died to
preserve are washed away in the flood to come?
What you are about to see is the result of years of painstaking and
meticulous research on the part of dedicated Americans gravely concerned
for this nation's future. Please listen closely and give your undivided
attention to this presentation, for our future as individuals and free
citizens of this mighty land depends upon it.
We are not here to showcase personalities. The writers and researchers
could be any one of you today. We are, first and last, concerned
Americans much like yourselves, taking our stand in defense of the
nation we love. Much effort has been expended, and great hardships
endured, by the many other organizations and individuals to bring this
information to the public forum.
There is a wealth of information about many of the problems we face as a
nation today, written from a variety of viewpoints. But as with a
deadly illness, there is usually a point of origin, from which the
threat first was given life. So it is with the threat we as Americans
face today - an illness which could prove fatal if we do not act quickly
and in concert to cure the body politic before it dies from the disease
within.
Almost all the problems we are facing today can be traced back to a
single point of origin, in a time of national trouble and despair. It
was at this point, when our nation struggled for its survival, that the
Constitution of the United States of America was effectively canceled.
We as a Nation are in a State of Constitutional and Social Emergency!
The Rules have been changed, and We, the People have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth!
To further explore how this was accomplished we suggest you also study this:
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT AND HIS FRAUDULENT SYSTEM
[Editorial
Note: The website for this link no longer exists. The link has been
removed]
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S.
since the days of Andrew Jackson." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House
"When you are awake the dream is gone...
When you are Enlightened the 'world of illusion' is gone...
...and the TRUTH will set you FREE."
Introduction to Dr. Schroder's Work
Dr. Eugene Schroder has found the key to why our Constitutionally
guaranteed rights are violated daily. It's the insidious use of
"emergency powers" meant to be used only in time of invasion of
rebellion.
Dr. Schroder proves with the government's own documents that the
Constitution has been effectively set aside since 1933. Eleven
presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have used emergency powers for
the last 67 years to regulate our daily lives without the inconvenience
of Congressional approval. The definition of "emergencies" has been
stretched to include economic problems, social imbalances, and perceived
threats to the US by any foreign country's actions, even those on other
continents.
Senate Report 93-549,
written in 1973, says "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been
in a state of declared national emergency...Under the powers delegated
by these statutes, the president may: seize property;...seize
commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize
and control all transportation and communication;...restrict travel;
and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American
citizens."
The president can act through Executive Order, Presidential
Proclamation, or through his many agencies, which include most of the
alphabet agencies.
The framers of the Constitution
asserted that Americans have certain inalienable, God-given rights. But
under emergency rule, all these rights are declared null and void. The
government charges us for these rights by requiring licenses and
excessive paperwork, with strings attached, as long as restrictive and
ill-defined requirements are met.
Dr. Schroder's landmark research is documented in three books:
Constitution: Fact or Fiction; War and Emergency Powers Special Report;
and War, Central Planning and Corporations - The Corporate State. These
may be obtained from Buffalo Creek Press
I would also suggest a complete and thorough study of "Our Enemy, the State" by Albert J. Nock, "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat, "Trial by Jury" by Lysander Spooner, "The Declaration of Independence" and of course, "The Constitution For The United States"
The Data
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 united States, as a
restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the
carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are
witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if
unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution
to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."
What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House
passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one." Again, we see
the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no
Constitution.
The CAUSE and EFFECT of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report.
In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549
(93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973), (Exhibit 2), 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 (Exhibit 2):
"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 (Exhibit 2) 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 (Exhibit 3), 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, in Exhibit 3, 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 (Exhibit 2), 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 (Exhibit 4), 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 (Exhibit 5), 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 (Exhibit 6). He
called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at
noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for
relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other
purposes.
In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 6), it states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the united States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and
that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies
of
uniform national application."
What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the
enabling portion of the Act as "imperatively necessary speedily"? The
rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no
law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of
self-defense. The law says, "Thou shalt not kill". But also know that,
if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have
the absolute right of self-defense. You have the right to kill to
protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.
Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in
fact, allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So
it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of
the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is
something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be
against the Constitution of the United States, or it would not require
that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.
In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 6), 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 (Exhibit 8), 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 (Exhibit 8), 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 (Exhibit
8), "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 earmarkings
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. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we
can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly
within the united States has been removed from the amended version of
Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and
replaced with "by any person within the united States or anyplace
subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions,
whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim
of the (President of the United States) through the authority given to
him by the Trading with the enemy Act.(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, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase
excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended
version and replaced with "by any person within the united States or
anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.
The people of the united States were now subject to the power of the
Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the
purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business
transactions, We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were
treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.
It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and
March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other
national emergency declared by the President..". So we now see that the
war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of
"national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States.
When either of these two
situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 8)
"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 (Exhibit 2), 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.
If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now
covers trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American Cases and
Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 11),
remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum,
we read:
"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse."
This is the case of The Rapid (1814).
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."
In other words, they have no personal rights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813).
In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 12), we read the words:
"By the general law of prize, property engaged in
an illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of
no consequence whether it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the
illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it
all the penal consequences of enemy ownership."
Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:
"The law of prize is part of the law of nations.
In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the
character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the
use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent
and of the property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen
or an ally may be engaged in a
hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in
whose cause he embarks."
Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 12):
"The produce of the soil of the hostile territory,
as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile power,
as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as
legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner".
From the case (Exhibit 13) of The William Bagaley (1866):
"In general, during war, contracts with, or powers
of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed after outbreak of war
are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the
war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships
with an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy, with
certain exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in
the united States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the
war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts
are suspended."
From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 14), in which we find An Act to
Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other
Purposes, we read:
"The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is
defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This trade
covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made
unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the
Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This authorization of
trading under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the
rule of international law forbidding trade between the citizens of
belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore
exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill."
It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted
without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under
the prize law, all intercourse is illegal.
That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 12, wasn't it? So once we
were declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only
way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to
obtain permission from our government by means of a license. We are
certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to
work, and a 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 U. 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 (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in
Gold" written in 1933:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in
the State; individual so-called, "ownership" is only by virtue of
government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in
accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who
has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme
Court decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:
"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation...."
That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis is ours),
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise,
however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war
or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property
may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or
appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent
of the owner...."
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.
Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a
close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural
address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of
the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose
of having those powers conferred to him.
On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written
a
letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for
recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time.
The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 15) which
they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:
"Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board
Of New
York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of
currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a
national emergency...."
In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we
must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed,
authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had
already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central
bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for
the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the
huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a
note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring
that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had
deposited.
Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve
and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933,
were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed
drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time
when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families
fed, the bankers began to say,
"People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this
contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and
this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency."
How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 15):
"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this
emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the
President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday,
March 4, and Monday, March 6..."
In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the
banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What
was to happen during that period of time?
Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution (Exhibit 15), 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 Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917 says:
"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the united States)."
This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government
from taking control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't
it?
However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17):
"by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can
see the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion
of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and
"any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the
Act. Further, we can now see that the usage of 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 17:
"Whereas, public interests require that the Congress of the united
States should be convened in extra session at twelve o'clock, noon, on
the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such communication as may be
made by the Executive."
On the next day, March 6 ,1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation
2039, which has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of
Exhibit 8. In Exhibit 32, we find the following:
"Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted
withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the
purpose of hoarding . . ."
Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the
question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on
deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says,
in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being
withdrawn by me in an "unwarranted" manner. Remember, the people of the
united States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I had gold
at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my gold
as I needed for my family and myself a "warranted" action. But the
decision was not left up to We, the People.
It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being
withdrawn for the "purpose of hoarding". The significance of this phrase
becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the term
"hoarding" is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The
term, "hoarding", was not to be found in the original version of Section
5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by
President Roosevelt to help support his contention that
the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his
assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War
Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.
Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next
page, Exhibit 9. In reading from Exhibit 9, 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
earmarkings of gold or silver
coin or bullion or currency . . ."
exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).
If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:
"by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933,
President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on
March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th,
Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039 on
Exhibits 32 and 33, and now, on Exhibit 33 (a), let's see what Roosevelt
is talking about in Proclamation 2040:
"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, 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 thereunder are hereby
continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the
President."
We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and
Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as
another proclamation is made by "the President". Note that the term "the
President" is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term
which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present,
and beyond.
So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we
are now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and
closing the
national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that
the
Proclamations bringing about these actions will to continue "in full
force and
effect" until such time as the President, and only the President,
changes the
situation.
It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on
March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene its extra
session. Yet references are made to such things as the amended Section 5
(b), which had not yet even been confirmed by Congress. President
Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of Congress 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 (Exhibit 34):
"That those speculators and insiders were right
was plain enough later on. This first contract of the 'moneychangers
with the New Deal netted those who removed their money from the country a
profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was debased."
Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore! The
gold was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door
attempting to have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed.
What happened then? The laws were changed to prevent us from asking
again, and the military was brought in to protect the Federal Reserve.
We, the People, were declared to be the same as public enemy and placed
under military authority.
Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):
"Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the
Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the
(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 (Exhibit 36):
"During this banking holiday it was at first
believed that some form of scrip or emergency currency would be
necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would be
essential when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of
currency to meet all possible demands of depositors. Consideration was
given by government officials and various local agencies to the
advisability of issuing clearing house certificates or some similar form
of
local emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the
Treasury issued a regulation authorizing clearing houses to issue demand
certificates against sound assets of the banking institutions, but this
authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities,
the printing of these certificates was actually begun, but after the
passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it
became evident that they would not be needed, because the Act made
possible the issue of the necessary amount of emergency currency in the
form of Federal Reserve banknotes which could be based on any sound
assets owned by banks."
Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9,
1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From
Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):
"Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United
States, (a) of any direct obligations of the united States or (b) of
any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers' acceptances acquired
under the provisions of this Act, any Federal reserve bank making such
deposit in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall
be entitled to receive from the Comptroller of the currency circulating
notes in blank, duly registered and countersigned."
What is this saying? It says (emphasis is ours):
"Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the united States ..."
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 (Exhibit 38) , we find
evidence that our congressmen didn't even have individual copies of the
bill to read, on which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was
passed around for approximately 40 minutes.
Congressman McFadden made the comment,
"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the
House has had no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The
first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it
was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a
dictatorship over finance in the united States. It is complete control
over the banking system in the united States ... It is difficult under
the circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill,
as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in
1917."
Congressman McFadden later says,
"I would like to ask the chairman of the committee
if this is a plan to change the holding of the security back of the
Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the united States rather than
the Federal Reserve agent."
Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank
held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes
which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman
McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to change who's going
to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.
Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again from the Congressional Record:
"This provision is for the issuance of Federal
Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the security
back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank
acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has
referred."
We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn't it? We were
penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes
and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.
Congressman McFadden then questioned,
"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?
Mr. Steagall replied,
"Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."
Does that sound familiar?
Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):
"From my observations of the bill as it was read
to the House, it would appear that the amount of bank notes that might
be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend
entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to
time for exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"
Who is the collateral? We are - we are chattel, aren't we? We have no
rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became
chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and
obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank
notes.
Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit
40):
"The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation."
It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the
Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our
obligations, our homes, our jobs - we were now slaves for the system.
From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41)
"When required to do so by the Secretary of the
Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the Treasurer
of the United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or both,
for the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the
Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the provisions
of this paragraph."
The Treasury was taken over by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Holding companies, the Depository Trust Co. and the CEDE Co., hold the assets. We are the collateral - we ourselves and our property.
To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933
the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial
transactions became the same as the enemy.
The President of the united States, through licenses or any other form,
was given the power to regulate and control the actions of enemies. He
made We, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution.
And we know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations
issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the
Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad, sweeping
approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?
On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside Chat" (Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:
"The Secretary of the Treasury will issue licenses
to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve system, whether
national bank or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank
cities, to open Monday morning."
It was by this action that the 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."
They have no personal rights at law. Therefore, we should
expect that we would see in the statutes a time when the contract
between the Federal Reserve and We, the People, in which the Federal
Reserve had to give us our gold on demand, was made null and void.
Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):
"That (a) 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 (Exhibit 45):
"This conference of fifty farm leaders met on
March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were
presented to me at the White House on March 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 (Exhibit 46):
"That the present acute economic emergency being
in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the
prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity has
largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial
products, has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has
seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the national
credit structure, it is hereby declared that these conditions in the
basic industry of agriculture have affected transactions in agricultural
commodities with a national public interest, have burdened and
obstructed the normal currents of commerce in such commodities and
rendered imperative the immediate enactment of Title 1 of this Act."
Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support
the national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all the land?
Remember Contracts Payable in Gold? President Roosevelt needed the
support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of
acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland. The
mortgage on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit. So
President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land
and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn't he? So he
impressed agriculture into the public interest.
The farming industry was nationalized.
Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 47):
"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Congress..."
Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):
"But in defining the meaning of the term 'enemies'
property,' we will be led into error if we refer to Fleta or Lord Coke
for their definition of the word, 'enemy'. It is a technical phrase
peculiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles of public policy
as distinguished from the common law."
Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the
Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of
Government "public policy".
All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their
side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side
of the government, statutes, laws and 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.
From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48) (emphasis is ours):
"Under this procedure we retain Government by law -
special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may
know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted,
and the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their rights
and their duties."
If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they
have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if
you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with
a crime, but with an offense.
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):
"My recollection is that almost every executive
order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always
includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act
is so broad, it would justify almost anything."
Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,
"Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to
sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor
of the litigant. But I don't think it has reached the point, presently,
that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits."
Senator Church then made the comment:
"What you're saying, then, is that if Congress
doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers,
that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest."
No persona standi in judicio - no personal standing in the courts.
Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):
"The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in
the fact that it created a permanent agency designed to eradicate an
emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture."
These agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control
every aspect of our lives, were ostensibly created as temporary agencies
meant to last only as long as the national emergency. They have become,
in fact, permanent agencies, as has the state of national emergency
itself. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "We will never go back to the old order." That quote takes on a different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.
In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:
"If the President can create crimes by fiat and
without congressional approval, our system is not much different from
that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence."
We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,
"Enormous Scope of Powers...A "Time Bomb".
Remember, this is Congress' own document, from the year 1973.
Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type
of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of
1933 (Exhibit 52):
"Title III -- Financing - And Exercising Power
Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money
And To Regulate the Value Thereof."
From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:
"Whenever the President finds upon investigation
that the foreign commerce of the united States is adversely affected ...
and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international
agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of various
governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion... To direct
the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into agreements with the several
Federal Reserve banks..."
Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the
authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it
be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and
quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?
Under Section 1 of the same Act (Exhibit 53) we find the following:
"To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause
to be issued in such amount or amounts as he may from time to time
order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled "An Act to
authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption of
funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the united States,
approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and
amendatory thereof"
What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of
President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln
was elected and inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the
first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress.
He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an
absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not even a Congress in
session for six weeks.
When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered
the following statement into the Congressional record: "The actions,
rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby
approved and confirmed..." This is the exact language of March 9,1933
and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b), today.
We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary
powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have
learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated,
the national emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the
Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit 54):
"This title shall cease to be in effect whenever
the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency
in relation to agriculture has been ended."
Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation
issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through
presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had
already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no
position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress (Exhibit 55):
"Furthermore, it would be largely futile task
unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having delegated
this authority to the President -- in ways that permit him to determine
how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping
emergency declarations alive -- we now find ourselves in a position
where we cannot reclaim the power without the President's 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 60 years.
Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on
might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of
experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself.
But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People,
asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or
the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency?
Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that
it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report,
how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this
situation would have continued, and with it, the abolishment of the
Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?
In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from Senator Church:
"These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased."
Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement (Exhibit 57):
"Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the
plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every
kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than
their original intention ... Machiavelli, in his "Discourses of Livy,"
acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if
the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He
cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good
men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time,
he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people."
Now, a quote from an exclusive reply (Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973,
by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies
undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination
of the standing national emergency:
"As a consequence, a "national emergency" is now a
practical necessity in order to carry out what has the regular and
normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as
delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations,
and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a
state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition."
From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (Exhibit 59):
"A tax, in the general understanding and in the
strict Constitutional sense, is an 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 (Exhibit 60):
"The regulation of farmer's activities under the
statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion
through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a
farmer's consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better.
At best it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to
federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states."
Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are
adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under
the belligerent capacity of government over enemies. They are not valid
contracts.
Again from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 61):
"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.
From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled
Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find
(Exhibit 62):
"The existence of war and the restoration of peace
are to be determined by the political department of the government, and
such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and
deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a
question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to exist."
The courts will tell you that is a political question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law.
The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the
common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have
no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under
the law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled
Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find (Exhibit 63):
"When the sovereign authority shall choose to
bring it into operation, the judicial department must give effect to its
will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation
can exist in the court."
Now remember, WE THE PEOPLE are SOVEREIGN, under the Constitution for the united States."
From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):
"Just how effective a limitation on crisis action
this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the
court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency
activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that
the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon
again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with
a serious national emergency."
So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from
that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency
Administration", a continuation of Exhibit 64:
"Organizationally, in dealing with the depression,
it was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency functions to
newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."
Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies are now sitting out
there with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.
Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to
the question of "booty". The following definition of the term, "prize"
is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):
"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are
called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists in
this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."
This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a fact which will become quite clear shortly.
Let us now remember that "Congress shall have the power to make rules on
all captures on the land and the water." To reiterate, captures on the
land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.
Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide
and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress
shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations
of money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we
can see that an army is not a permanent standing body, because, in times
of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. So the
United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we had
instead the individual state militias, 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" (Exhibit 66),
comes the following quote:
"4. Should the President desire to utilize the
services of the Federal courts of the *united States* in promoting this
purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their
jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the military
establishment, they must secure from Congress the necessary action to
confer such jurisdiction upon said courts."
This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property
within the continental united States on the land (booty), it must obtain
statutory authority.
In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find the following words:
"5. The laws and usages of war make a distinction
between enemies' property captured on the sea and property captured on
land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the united States over property
captured at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in
the absence of Congressional action."
There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared,
Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on
the land by positive Congressional action. To continue with (Exhibit
66):
"The right of confiscation is a sovereign right.
In times of peace, the exercise of this right is limited and controlled
by the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government. In
times of war, when the right is exercised against enemies' property as a
war measure, such right becomes a belligerent right, and as such is not
subject to the restrictions imposed by domestic institutions, but is
regulated and controlled by the laws and usages of war."
So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in
its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by
the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or
(b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent
capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.
In Section 1 7 of the Act of October 6, 1 91 7, the Trading With the Enemy Act (Exhibit 67):
"That the district courts of the United States are
hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice
and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such
process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the
provisions of this Act."
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United
States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property
within the continental united States. And at the time of the original,
unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World
war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was
appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy.
We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.
In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common
law. This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was
not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal
from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused
transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D.
Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 (Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).
But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be
the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy
Act. What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were
now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. It
was no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the
Constitution for the United States with us upon entering a courtroom,
for that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under
wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most
American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates
Admiralty jurisdiction.
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 (Exhibit 68) states:
"Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue
of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and
statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the
continued existence of the national emergencies..."
Later, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit 69), we find the following:
under the authority vested in me as President of
the United States by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as
amended (12 U. S. C. 95a)
Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an oft-cited support for
Presidential authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be
found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of Mr. Katzenbach in
Senate Report 93-549:
"My recollection is that almost every executive
order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always
includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act
is so broad, it would justify almost anything."
The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every
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 (Exhibit 70), we
find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the
national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they
would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to
heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the
national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of
extraordinary Presidential power, won't it?
But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the
national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let
go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last
section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the following words:
"(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply
to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred
thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (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" (Exhibit 72). And in that document, we find these words:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the
British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of
America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts
expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses,
but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates
and duties payable in these colonies established a board of
commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the
jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the
said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body
of a county."
We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which
existed in 1774, but with one crucial difference. In 1774, Americans
were protesting against a colonial power which sought to bind and
control its colony by wartime powers in a time of peace. In 1994, it is
our own government (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 reestablished.
For our part, however, we firmly believe that, "by their fruits ye shall know them", and on that authority we rest our case.
CONCLUSION
As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to
exist in a governmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under
such a state of emergency, our Constitution has been set aside,
ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency is cancelled.
But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public's good
that our government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered by the
Constitution's restraining force. The governmental edicts and actions
over the past six decades have led us to the desperate state in which we
find ourselves today. Besieged on every side, corroding from within,
frightened and in despair, we as a nation are being torn asunder.
There IS a national emergency today - one of life and death
proportions - but it is NOT the emergency used by our government to
continue its abuse of power. It IS this very abuse, this unbridled rape
of the American spirit, that is the crux of the emergency we are in
today, the cause of all the loss of hope, drug and alcohol addiction,
irresponsibility in morality and ethics, lack of respect for life, and
violence. But this true emergency cannot be cured by setting aside the
Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to the laws of
God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in whom we
placed our trust to protect the national interest.
We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal words,
"a government of the people, by the people, for the people".
One has only to walk down the highways and byways of this great land to
know all too well that this is not a government of the people or for
the people. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions taken over
the past decades have resulted in an unparalleled decline of American
economic and political power, and a weakening of American values and
spirit.
This is NOT a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the best answer.
No, this is a situation in which we firmly believe that the pen will be
mightier than the sword.
That a state of emergency exists cannot be disputed. That the emergency
is one which should concern every American alive cannot be denied. That
we must stand together, laying aside our individual differences, to
fight the common foe, is of vital importance, for the time to act is
now.
But this is not a battle of swords, but of knowledge, for only when the
deception is exposed to the light of day can the healing process begin.
Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth we bring to
you today. Let it be known and understood that it is our intention to
make this information available to every concerned Sovereign American
who desires to know the true State of the Union. This is an undertaking
of immense proportions, but we have dedicated ourselves to bringing this
information to the light of day, and with the help of "We, the People",
we will be successful in our efforts.
Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves
American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that title.
We the People have not only a right, but a responsibility to each
other, to those who have gone before us and and to those who will
follow, to learn what our government is doing, and to judge whether
actions taken benefit the people who will bear the costs.
We have been in the dark long enough, content to rest on our past
glories and let the government take its course. In a way, we have been
like children, trusting in our parents to act in our best interest. But
as we have too frequently seen in the nightly news, not all parents have
their children's best interest at heart.
The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality,
for the time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our
elected and appointed officials are no more responsible for the current
state of affairs than are we. The strings are being manipulated at far
higher levels than the positions most officials occupy. They are working
with little knowledge or authority, trying to control problems far
bigger than even they realize.
Their programs and actions may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time
has now come to attack the disease. They are no more guilty than we are,
nor will they be any more protected when the nation collapses on us
all.
If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly blame
ourselves, for it is "We, the People" to whom this nation was given and
whose duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who direct the sails
of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and while we were
dreaming the American dream, a band of pirates stole the Constitution
and put our people into slavery.
And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not
one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able
or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state
of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change
unless we ourselves cause it to be so.
Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away, stand
up, stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop dreaming, and
start the long work before us. Now is the time to turn back to the
principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, the strong
foundation from which our national identity springs.
When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become slavery? When is enough enough? Now is when here and now.
Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off
these chains of ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to the point
of death. Let us return to the source, the standard of excellence set
for us long ago.
Our message to Congress and all elected and appointed officials must be,
"Let my people go!", for we are all laboring under a system which will
eventually crush us, regardless of our religion, our sex, or the color
of our skin.
We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we
have learned of the deception which lies at the core of our national
malaise. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate
this great lie no longer, and we must put them on notice that we expect
them to resign if they have not the courage and the resolve to help this
nation in its hour of need.
We have been fools long enough. Beginning today, no matter how long
after that date you see this report, start each and every week without
fail to give a copy of this information to at least one person you know.
We also ask you to write a letter to Congress telling them to "Let our
People go", or you can use the form letter you will find enclosed in the
report.
We must let our elected officials know that we expect them as servants
of the people to help us re-establish law and order and restore our
national pride. They must repeal Proclamation 2039, 2040, and the 12 USC
95(a) and 95(b), thereby cancelling the National Emergency, and
re-establish the Constitution for this Nation.
Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and will
accept nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no
matter the cost.
To do nothing, out of fear or apathy, is exactly what those in power are
hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that the darkness likes
best. We must not be a party to the darkness enveloping our nation any
longer. We must come into the light, and give our every drop of blood,
sweat and tears to bring our nation back with us.
We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing
to act now and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm
resolve, our freedom to act at all may soon be taken away altogether.
New bills, new laws are being presented daily which will effectively
serve to tighten the chains of bondage already encircling this nation.
My friends, we are not going into slavery we are already there! Make no
mistake those in power are already tightening the chains, but they are
doing so slowly, quietly and with great caution, for fear of awakening
the slumbering lion which is the voice of the American people.
There is yet still time for us to slip loose the chains which bind us, and for us to bring about the restoration of this nation.
If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our
refusal to accept the future which has been planned for us by those who
hold no allegiance to this great land of ours, we can yet demand and see
come to pass the day when the state of emergency is cancelled and the
Constitution is restored to her rightful place as the watchdog of those
for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If we repent of our ignorance and our apathy, and return to the
God-given laws on which this nation was founded, we may yet be free.
Indeed, one can find Gods promise in the book of Second Chronicles
Chapter 7 Verse 14:"If my people which are called by my Name, shall
humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their
wicked ways; THEN will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin,
AND WILL HEAL THEIR LAND." (emphasis added)
We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information
until everyone in America has had an opportunity to hear it and we have
set our nation free.
We will not tolerate less. We are Sovereign American Citizens and that means far more than most of us realize.
If at first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as this
information spreads across the land to the great cities and small towns,
you will find yourself in excellent company. You already are as only
one, for behind you stand all the heroes of our history who fought and
died to keep this nation free.
Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in fact,
we implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this deception has made you. Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a fierce determination not to give up until the battle has been won.
We are not asking you for any money; that's their game, the "almighty
dollar". It is the substitution of wealth and possessions for integrity
and honor that helped get us into this true state of emergency in which
we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for more time than you can
give, although we do ask you to
give what time you can to get this information out.
What we ask from you is your commitment to stand with those around you
to help us restore this nation to her rightful place in history, both
that written and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln once said,
"We
the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not
to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the
Constitution".
We must stand together now in this, our national hour of need. As the United States Supreme Court once said,
"It
is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling
into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government
from falling into error."
Each individual, their attitudes and actions, forges their own special link in the great chain of history.
Now is the time to add to that precious inheritance of honor and duty
which has kept America alive, because the choices we make and the
actions we take today are a part of history too -
history not yet written.
The vision for America has not died; the
"land of the free and the home of the brave"
still exists. There is still time to turn the tide for this great land,
but we must join together to make it happen. We have a debt of honor to
the past and the future, a call to glory to rescue our homeland from
the hands of those who would see her fall.
We cannot, we must not fail.
Report On NDAA Here.
