WAR POWERS ACT Of 1933

WAR POWERS SUMMARY

To understand our present day Court system (Justice) we must examine the general nature of Emergency Powers, martial law and martial rule to see how they operate, if in fact they do operate in our judiciary and why. 

Many have forwarded the argument that the Constitution never existed, as it was never signed by any principle. 

It was merely witnessed. That may have some legal currency, but for the purposes of this instruction we will assume that it is a valid contract with our government.

 Characteristics of Emergency Powers:

 Means any form of military style government, martial law, or martial rule. Martial law and martial rule are not the same as will be covered in greater detail. NOTE: 

The term emergency powers’ is generic, as used herein. Nations declare emergency powers under the Doctrine of Necessity, when a crisis (war, riots, rebellion, national collapse, etc.) occurs that cannot be dealt with in a normal peaceful manner. 

This has been the normal manner of dealing with these emergency situations from time immemorial. Emergency powers are supposed to be only a temporary measure to deal with a specific crisis. When the crisis ends, the emergency powers are supposed to end. 

In the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared emergency powers in 1933 that was supposedly to deal with a bank crisis that was in progress when he assumed the Presidency. In fact, the crisis as sold to the President is a figment of the Federal Reserve bankers’ imagination. 

They had embezzled all of the Gold on deposit in their banks and were running scared when they thought that by claiming that the American people were hoarding gold, precipitating a banking crisis they would be off the hook. It suited Roosevelt’s plans to seize control of the nation for his socialist agenda by and maintain it by Executive Order, so he accepted the Federal Reserve Board’s request, which amended the 1917 Wars Powers Act, giving the President license over all the citizens of this country, rather than just an enemy. We became the enemy of our country, and remain so to this day. See Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition under Bank Holiday P. 146. 

Congress returned from its annual recess and rubber-stamped Roosevelt’s Executive Orders and the Federal power grab began. From that day to the present, the United States of America has been under emergency powers and Presidents and the Congress, to maintain and justify the enormous growth in the power of the Federal government, have systematically exploited its people. 

The States cooperated with the Federal government because they benefited, right down to the County level from a massive increase in their tax revenues and powers.

Second, the area over which Emergency powers may be declared can cover part of a state (city or county), several states, or an entire nation, as is the case, today.

Third, the single most dominant feature of all emergency powers Government(s) is unlawful civil authority.

 Civil courts cease to exist, being replaced by courts with an appearance of ‘legitimacy’, but without the substance.

Court Process and procedures are a mix of rules from previous lawful courts and military courts. Traffic courts, for example are courts of summary court martial using military rules as applied to civilians.

An example of this is seen when defining so-called “traffic infractions”. Infraction is not defined in most state codes, but is defined in “The Manual of Courts Martial (1994), (4)” along with the terms “contempt,” “appeal”, etc., and in other military sources.

This by itself should tell us all something.

Fourth, emergency powers government(s) varies in the degree of the emergency declared. The most extreme form is called Martial Law. The benign, less restrictive form is Martial Rule.

Currently the U.S. is under the less restrictive form called Martial Rule. Martial law puts all major resources in an emergency powers’ area; transportation, food, minerals, metals, communications, etc., under the direct control of the nations’ armed forces and its Commander-in-Chief, the President.

A snow storm of Executive Orders, have been issued already so that in the event the President declares a National Emergency, all resources and citizen’s come under direct control of (FEMA) Federal Emergency Management Agency and the severe Martial Law form of governance.

In its raw sense, martial law governs via democracy, not a republic. ‘Military law’ uses municipal law. Courts are draped with quasi-civil (republican) forms of law, evidenced by draped military standards in courtrooms, i.e., the gold-fringed flag of the United States, mounted on a pole.

Lawful civil authority never flies flags, only banners, which are always hung from the back of the flag with the red and white stripes hanging vertically. Banners are never hung on a pole. Banners on a pole never represent civil author, only military Authority, on the march.

 Evidence of Emergency Powers

 First, under emergency powers, there must be an active and visible occupation of the land by armed Troops of the entity that declares emergency powers.

This is called “open and notorious, armed and hostile, occupation of the land.” Is there an armed occupation of America? The answer of course , is, yes! 

Under the guise of national emergencies, (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.) 

all National Guard units were federalized and all policemen, firemen, highway patrol, state marshals and county sheriffs were then placed under control of the Guard since 1972.

They are all under the control of Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E. M.A.), called the (Multi- 4 Jurisdictional Task Force) who are the cover for centralization of military and law enforcement powers under the Federal Government and the Commander-in-Chief (President).

Though law enforcement officers may not know it they are in fact a force occupying the land for the Federal government, we the people, are held hostage by our own neighbors.

The reason why active duty, Federal Forces are stationed in all National Guard Armories is obvious; to sustain the emergency powers control of the states and counties by the Federal government and maintain martial rule in the hands of the President as Commander in Chief.

By these means the Federal, martial rule, government maintains “open, notorious, and hostile, armed occupation of the land.”

Second, military law only recognizes municipal laws. Therefore, states had to create municipal courts to punish ‘infractions’ of Motor Vehicle Codes. 

Such courts fly the FLAG of the Commander-in-Chief; (solid fringed flag) they are really an arm, or an extension of the power of the President. 

Their primary function is to collect war reparations through fines, penalties, etc. They all operate as quasi-military courts using summary court martial proceedings.

This is why such courts only try matters of fact and why judges make and declare law on a case-by-case basis, without the controls of precedent or constitutional restrictions.

Municipal Court judges do this because they act for the Commander-in-Chief, in the field under emergency conditions. 

Judges make any decision to resolve the case under Doctrines of Necessity. In such courts the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and civil stare decisis, are not permitted.

(“stare decisis:){Latin,

Let the decision stand. The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.”}

Under emergency powers the final authority is always the chief military commander, which in this nation is the Commander-in-Chief, i.e., the military office of the President of the United States.

This accounts for Executive Order blizzards since F.D.R., who first declared – openly – his seizure of Emergency Powers in March 1933, again, by Executive Orders. Executive Orders have the force and effect of law when published in the Federal Register, and by this means they become “Public Policy.”

Third, since under emergency powers there is no lawful, civil, or constitutional authority, nor any lawful civil courts, neither can there be any lawful civil or administrative process. All emergency power process must be defective in form, content, and authority when such process is compared to lawful Process, and, defective as it is, it is valid in all cases except when abated. 

Thus all court appearances are VOLUNTARY, because the Process Rule is: ALL DEFECTS OR PROCESS ARE CURED BY ‘VOLUNTARY’ APPEARANCE. 

Lawful or constitutional process has no bearing on the case. In other words, it does not matter how many errors one finds in process from emergency powers courts. 

If you appear, you inform the court that you have waved defects of process. Submission to defects in process waves the protection of fundamental rights.

 Special Appearances

There are many that believe that special appearances (by paperwork, motions, etc.) nullify a court jurisdiction. Under emergency powers this is false doctrine. There is no remedy in challenging a court jurisdiction, except by abating its process, first.

Abatements are not a challenge to a court jurisdiction, merely a good faith attempt to correct errors in process, “clear up the errors, judge, and I’ll appear.” Special appearances fail when a judge knows what he’s doing. Under martial rule, judges do whatever they want, whenever they want so long as he/she does not alarm the public or disturb the peace. Jurisdiction is always granted to try jurisdictional questions, even if one goes to higher courts. Defendants grant jurisdiction without knowing it, because they never challenge the process that creates the jurisdiction in the first place. (See FRCP §2.4 (2)(4) Process is perfected by appearance, special or otherwise. Also remember the court is not the building the judge or anyone else, it’s the paperwork. If the court paperwork is defective there is no court and it ceases to exist. By necessity, field officers (judges, highway patrol, sheriffs, etc.) exercise powers of life and death to maintain authority given them by International Law that prohibits lawful civil authority, or constitutional mandates, because such procedures are too timely and clumsy for military, or quasi-military, operations.

In sum, constitutional and common law precedents are too restrictive of Federal, State, County, and City power. 

Further, military courts exercise “benefit of discussion”, that gives a court jurisdiction as soon as a Defendant answers a question or demands any response or action of a military court.

Arrest Warrants and procedures do not conform to Constitutional law because they don’t have too if a defendant appears in person or by “special appearance” paperwork.

Arrest Warrants with a judge’s signature (black ink) and proper affidavits with true court seals are instruments of lawful process and cannot be used in emergency powers courts.

Federal, State, County, and City emergency powers courts and other entities manipulate the English grammar to protect their own International law status. 

Thus, a state either writes its name as The State of Florida, (instead of Florida State) or in caps (instead of proper upper and lower case), or uses abbreviations such as Fl., CA., TX., Mt., KS., NY., NJ., and so on. All of which are misnomers and no names at all. 

International Law requires that neither party to a case, the State or the person, can appear in their own name, but only under the nom de guerre (war name), as indicated by a name in all caps or one name with an abbreviation.

This creates a “juristic personality” which grants jurisdiction to the Equity, Admiralty/Maritime courts.

Again, emergency powers courts have no lawful process because they have no lawful authority. All process by such courts is therefore defective because courts are forbidden to use lawful process, unless and until, voluntarily given to them. 

The real irony is, the U.S. government, in cooperation with the States, created emergency powers courts to expand their power and increase revenue. 

However, by doing so, they've become vulnerable, to lawful process.  

Further, there is little they can do about it now, without coming directly into conflict with International Law. 

This is why the United States government will never pull out of the United Nations, because the UN is the source of the United States’ authority to protect itself under International Law. 

The point is, one who brings properly written lawful process against unlawful process, must prevail.

 Attorneys-at-law

One who hires an attorney-at-law cannot bring lawful process against an emergency power’s court.

Remember that attorneys are agents of the court and only use process allowed by the court that admitted the attorney to practice, Equity/Admiralty, and was all they were taught in law school. All bar members are agents of emergency power courts, and most don’t even know it.

One must, therefore, never hire an attorney to appear on a case in an emergency powers court because doing so makes one “non compos mentis,” i.e. not mentally competent and automatically gives the court jurisdiction over ones’ self.

Arrest Warrants with ‘a judge’s signature (black ink) Warrants with proper affidavits, and proper court seals, are lawful process and cannot be used in emergency powers courts. That’s why such warrants are never proper. And, what about the Constitution of the united States of America in all this? Without lawful process or authority, the Constitution is a dead letter, a façade, manipulated at the Federal government’s whim because lawful process itself is based on the Constitution and they are thus, inter-dependent.

In short, if one is gone, so must be the other. Lincoln set precedence for the subversion of the Constitution in the War Between the States in 1860, when he had printed non-interest money to support his declaration of war. His was the first “War Powers”, resurrected again in 1917, and then again in 1933, and has never been repealed since.

The Federal government’s use of the Constitution comes down to this. If Constitutional cites fit a Federal need, they are used, if the Constitution or precedent doesn’t fit, it is ignored. In other words, the Constitution is optional to the Federal government, because after all, you answer to the “Juristic Personality” name, spelled in all capital letters, placing you in Equity jurisdiction without the protection of the Constitution.

This is why so many Supreme Court decision (“Right to Privacy” cases, abortion rights, Social Security, etc.) for which there is no Constitutional precedent, are made.

A ‘social agenda’ is impossible without Doctrines of Necessity and International Law to justify the imposition of emergency powers, as a first priority.  

Remember that there was no Federal Social Security before passage of the International Labor Organizations Treaty (1935). This Treaty mandated a social consciousness and enfranchisement of the masses.

This process ended in the massive entitlements programs the people are burdened with, today. 

A hidden, Constitutional problem for Americans under emergency powers means, all Constitutional Rights become ‘privileges’ that can be given or taken away at whim, by necessity and International Law. 

Thus, in California v. Simpson, when Mark Fuhrman was called to testify about the infamous tapes, etc. he replied to all question with: “I wish to assert my Fifth Amendment “PRIVILEGE.” 

Note: Fuhrman asserted no RIGHT only a PRIVILEGE, using words given him by his attorney/agent of an emergency power court. 

Privileges, being removable at a Commander-in Chief’ whim, tells us why Congress feels so free to modify Constitutional Rights such as those in the Second Amendment, i.e., gun ownership, etc.

The remaining question is how are emergency powers and martial law, or martial rule, terminated? Emergency powers are terminated in only three ways.

A Commander-in-Chief can terminate emergencies by Executive Orders. 

The emergency then ends on a specific date and time. 

However, a lawful civil authority must exist, (UN?) to which he may cede authority.

If conquered by another, the conquering power can terminate emergency powers by its own E.O., or decree. 

This point deserves some expanded discussion for reason, which will become clear, below. 

Remember, the U.S. is, by International Law and Supreme Court decisions, a ‘foreign principal’ with respect to the states. Further, Title II of the United States Code, THE CONGRESS, is not: REPEAT NOT: positive law, only a Resolution.

This means that a Title (USC) stands only until it is successfully challenged in the courts. 

Why is this? 

Did not the Congress abandon without proper recess, its first Session during Lincoln’s administration in 1860? 

Does this not tell us why the U.S. flag flies over all state flags since FDR's Executive Orders, on September 9, 1933?

Moreover, is this not a sign of conquest over the states and the people when taken conjunction with F.D.FDR's Executive Order, changes in the “Trading With the Enemy Act” (1917) as amended 1933, language supplied him by the Federal Reserve Inc.?

The people if they restore lawful civil courts, processes, and procedures, and under authority of “inherent political powers” re-establish proper, civil and ‘de jure’ government can terminate the emergency. Abatements are a primary tool in achieving a peaceful and lawful restoration of godly authority to this nation. 

You can see why abatements are one of the most important tools the people have.

If the people lawfully resist any submission to emergency power courts, process and procedure, and respond to unlawful paperwork with lawful process, emergency powers are nullified, and become null and void, ab initio. 

A question that may occur is if the people restore lawful process and procedure, how do they restore lawful authority in the courts? 

The answer is, by re-forming lawful jural societies and use remedies provided in the Bible, Christianity, common law, and assize courts/juries in conjunction with the grand jury, where necessary.

On the subject of the Holy Bible, we cannot forget that it is STILL law adopted as such by many states. 

In Old Testament law we find not just our moral law, but Godly rules of restitution as well, and the standard of law on which the common law is based. 

If you intend to bring the Bible into court as your reference, make sure that it is non-Copyrighted, as all mistakes, the judge will only pay notice to the non-copyrighted version, the one that God wrote thru his agents.

Common law grew out of English, medieval ecclesiastical courts, where the people had no access to the King's’ Bench. 

In the Christian churches the people found true justice based on the Bible. 

Most importantly, Biblical common law connects the Bible with the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Federal, State, County, and City governments will not, repeat NOT assist the people in restoring common law and the Constitution. 

It is not in their best interest to do so, in that the entire system of welfare, income taxes, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and the bureaucracy would cease to exist in very short order with the States. 

For most of my adult life, I have pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States, now that it is its turn to defend me, to my amazement, the Constitution no longer exists. The following analysis of the War Powers Act, explains why the Constitution no longer exists and what it will take for us all to get it back.

 INTRODUCTION TO WAR POWERS ACT OF 1933

When and where did the American Dream evaporate? 

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 crumble into angrily divergent special interest groups? 

What will this fearsome precedent of degeneration mean to the future of America? 

Let be memorialized the words of the Holy Bible: ”…a house divided against itself cannot stand”. We must come to face the truth that we have become a nation to great extent divided and weakened in the process.

Our current war on terrorists, by cause and effect, is a direct result of the foreign policy dictated to our government by the international elite, who controls this country thru the President and the Congress. The tool of control being the War Powers Act, of 1933 and the Federal Reserve  Banking system.

Truly, this new conflict is our present day Crusade, only religion is not the cause, it is greed and avarice of the World Bankers in their insatiable quest for power and control.

For those of you who have a religious background, you might conclude that the Beast is forming his government here on Earth before our very eyes. The Riots in Seattle, Chicago, and European cities, is an indication that many in the world community of citizens are not asleep and have grave concerns with world government and the control it is having on their lives. The World Bank is an insidious organization, which is sucking the life-blood out of Third World countries as well as the more developed. The objective is total domination of our liberty and economy in the name of World Government, which is another name for World Socialism and Fascist control.

Almost all the problems we are facing today can be traced back to a single point of demarcation, in a time of national trouble and despair, known as The Great Depression. It was at this point, when our nation and the world struggled for survival, that the Constitution for the United States was for all tense and purpose, disregarded.

We are to this day in a State of National Emergency and is scares the hell out of me! I will be quoting from, in many cases, reports. Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.

From a book written by Swisher called “Constitutional Development”.

“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.” 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 are still in effect, many of the emergency organizations are 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 this 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 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!

In 1973, In Senate Report 93-549 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 what Congressman Beck says: that if a national emergency is declared there is no Constitution. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency. “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; communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens” and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.

In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549:

“A majority of the people of the United States has 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? 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 for the United States we find the following words:

 “The privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety my require it.”

Habeas Corpus – the Great Writ of liberty. 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. The writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.

In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution it says:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…”

 READ THAT AGAIN!

We reserve the charging power for ourselves. We didn’t give that power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge 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. Moreover, 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. “…except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of War or public danger.” We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.

 Also from Senate Report 93-549,

 and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents, and they’re talking about these emergency powers, and they say: “They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus.”  Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved. However, 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. And if We went to the library today and picked up a copy of

 12 USC and went to Sect.§95 (b) 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 S of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. l, Title l, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. l.)”.

Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed. 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 (b) is current law. This is the law that exists over this United States this moment. lf that be the case let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history.

What happened on March the 4th of 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address, which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read:  “I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis, broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” On March 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. 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 © 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 no enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this act.

Section 5 (b) of the same act states:

“That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)”.

Again, we see here that citizens and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States were specifically excluded from the war powers of this act. “We the People”, were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our enemies. It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in October 1917 were not called enemies. Consequently, the government, under the war powers of this act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the United States will become crucial later on.

In Section 2 of the Act of March 8, 1933:

  

“Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 41 1), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;”

Therefore, 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 added):

“During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or ear-markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States.

We had lost that crucial distinction. We can see that the phrase with 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.

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 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 no enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. 

But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with

“by any person within the United States or anyplace subject 

to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. 

For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and in effect all business transactions. “We the People”, became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. 

There was no longer any distinction. “…during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President…”. 

Therefore, 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 17) “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 transaction 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 We, the People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. 

It’s purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.

In Senate Document 93-549 Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, at: 48 Stat. 1.

The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time.” 

Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973. Now, let’s find out about the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. 

Quoting from a Supreme Court decision, 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”. “Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rule concerning the captures on land and the water of the enemies…”

 All rules.

If that is the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the “Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy”, remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. 

In this memorandum, we read: Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. 

This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse.

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), 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 belongS 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 (1814): 

The law of prize is part of the law of nations. 

In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. 

Condemnation to the use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause he embarks”.

Again from the memorandum:

  

“The produce of the soil of the hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner”.

From the case of The William Bagaley (1866):

“In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed after outbreak of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with an enemy are dissolved; 

powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended.”

From Senate Report No. 113 in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading With the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:

 “The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), page 4. 

This trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). 

This authorization of trading under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule of international law forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill.”

 It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all commercial intercourse is illegal. 

So, once we were declared enemies, all Commercial intercourse became illegal for us. 

The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from the 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 again to the Memorandum of law:

“But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even, at times, our own citizens. The public good, however, must prevail over private gain. As we said in Bishop v. Jones (28 Texas, 294). There cannot be “a war for arms and a peace for commerce”.

One of the most important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary taking over of enemy property. 

This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary takeover 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 our ship.” Can you stop him? No. 

However, when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. 

This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

Reading from Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts Payable in Gold” written in 1933:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” 

Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call “yours”? 

Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, Unites States v Russell; 18 “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just Compensation…” 

That is the peacetime clause, isn’t it? 

“Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in eases 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 frustration of the potential power of the government. 

Now, let us return to the period of time alter 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 overall situation at the time. 

The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 30), 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, before 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. 

After 1933, the situation changed drastically. 

In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say: “People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency.” 

How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:

 “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6.”

In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time? Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution we find a proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:

“Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or ear-markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency …”

Now, in any normal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three periods 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 where that …” 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.

“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 …

A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more egregious, by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. In addition, 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). 

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:

“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, 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.

Moreover, 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.

However, 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:

“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 he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or ear-markings of gold or silver coin, or bullion or currency.

Exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York. 21 If we return to 48 Statute 1, Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase: 

“by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039. On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040.

We looked at proclamation 2039, what is Roosevelt talking about in Proclamation 2040?

We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday.

“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, 1917, 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? “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. 4 11) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued there under are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President.”

We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933 will continue until such time as “the President” makes another proclamation. 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. 22

Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing about these actions will 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’ confirmation of his actions. Moreover, indeed, we find that confidence was justified. 

For on March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the amendment of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.

Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:

 That those speculators and insiders were right was plain enough later on. 

This first contract of the ‘moneychangers’ with the New Deal netted those who removed there 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, and “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:

“Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury, such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United 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.”

By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in his or her gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of the provision, such violation to be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 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.

 From the Roosevelt Papers:

“During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of scrip or emergency currency would be necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. 

We knew that it would be essential when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to meet all possible demands of depositors. 

Government officials and various local agencies gave consideration to the advisability of issuing clearinghouse 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 priming of these certificates was actually begun. But after the passage of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became evident that they would not he needed, because the Act made possible the issue of the necessary amount of emergency currency in the form of Federal Reserve bank notes which could be based on any sound assets owned by banks.”

Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes.

From Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933:

“Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligations of the United States or (b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers’ acceptances acquired under the provisions of this act, any Federal reserve bank making such deposit in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be entitled to receive from the Comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank, duly registered and countersigned.”

What is this saying? It says: “Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the United States …”

What 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 money notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers’ acceptances…” What’s a note?

If you go to the bank and sign a note on your home, that’s a note, isn’t it? A note is a private obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of the United States.” In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, we find evidence that our congressmen didn’t even have individual copies of the bill to read, on which they were about to vote.

A copy of the Bill was passed around for approximately 40 minutes.

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 l had to know what this legislation 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, before 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 whose going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.

Chairman Steagall’s response to Congressman McFadden’s question, again from the Congressional Record: “This provision is for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has referred.”

We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, Wasn`t it?

We were penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.

Congressman McFadden then questioned, “Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?” Mr. Steagall replied, “Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes.

Does that sound familiar?

Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record: “From my observations of the bill as it was read to the House, it would appear that the amount of bank notes that might be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to time for exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?”

Who is the collateral? 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:

“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: “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 Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury. The Treasury holds the assets. We are the collateral,” our property and ourselves.

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.

Moreover, 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.

On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio “Fireside Chat”, 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 Treasury took over the banking system.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 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. 95). 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 USCA Sect. ” 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: “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. Now, we know that they took over all contracts: “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):

“That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular- kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby is declared to be against public  policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred.”

Indeed, our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of Roosevelt’s hundred days. We lost our right to require our gold back from the bank in which we had deposited it.

Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers:

“This conference of fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were presented to me at the White house on March 11th by a committee of the conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for the same broad powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had requested for solving the bank crisis.”

What was the “broad powers”? That was the War Powers, wasn’t it? 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 resulted in the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental takeover of their livelihoods.

Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency:

“That the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity has largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure, it is hereby declared that these conditions in the basic industry of agriculture have affected transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, have burdened and obstructed the normal currents of commerce in such commodities and rendered imperative the immediate enactment of Title 1 of this act.”

Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember “Contracts payable in gold!” President Roosevelt needed the support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn’t he? So he impressed agriculture into the public interest.

The farming industry was nationalized.

Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency: “It is hereby declared to the public policy of Congress… Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black. 674): “But in defining the meaning of the term ‘enemies’ property,’ we will be led to 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 bills can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for 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 common law in your hand, what does the 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:

“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 stature 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:

“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  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: “The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the tact 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 and sinister meaning in light of what we have seen so far. In Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church: “lf 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. However, let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933. “Title III – Financing – And Exercising Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money And To Regulate the Value Thereof. ”

From Section 43: “Whenever the President finds upon investigation that the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected… and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion … To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into agreements with the several Federal Reserve banks…”

Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?

Under Section 1 of the same Act we find the following: “To direct the Secretary of the treasury to cause to be issued in such amount or amounts as he may from time to time order. United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled ‘An Act to authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption of funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the United States’, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof.”

What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln.

Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn‘t even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, and 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 canceled. Reading from the Agricultural Act. Section 13: “This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended.”

Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933, has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.

 In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:

“Furthermore, it would be largely futile task unless we have the President’s active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive – we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President’s acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President’s signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation.”

 It appears that no president has been willing to give lip 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 67 years. Now, that’s no definite indication that a President from George Bush Jr., on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 67 years of experience and l0 past Presidents, would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself.

However, 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? In addition, without the knowledge you’re receiving now, 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?

 However, we’re not quite as in the dark as we were. In Senate Report 93-549 we find the following statement from Senator Church:

“These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased.” Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement: “Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention … Machiavellian, in his “Discourses of Livy, acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people.”

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the standing national emergency:

“As a consequence, a “national emergency” is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become 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 duration’s, have become everyday powers, and a state of “emergency” has become a permanent condition.”

 From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935):

“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 setup in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.”

What is being said here is that a tax can only be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn’t it? Quoting further from United States v. Butler:

“The regulation of farmer’s activities under the statute, though in form subject to his own will. is in fact coercion through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a farmer’s consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best, it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states.”

Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under the belligerent capacity of government over enemies. They are not valid contracts.

Again from United States v. Butler:

“lf 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 United States convened 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? In addition, in 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned.

From the 65th Congress, 1st Session, Dec. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find:

“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 this state of war 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. “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.”

From Senate Report 93-549:

“Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th 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”: “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. “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 “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.

Therefore, the United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we had instead the individual state militias. 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.

However, in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental United States, because there was to be no army. From the report The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States, published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War comes the following quote:

“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, we find the following words:

“The laws and usage’s 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. “

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 usage‘s 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 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act:

“That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this act.”

Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty Jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental United States. In addition, at the time of the original, un-amended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies’ property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original act. In 1934, Congress passed and 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. However, 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 necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution of 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 states: “Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of the national emergencies…”

Later, in the same Executive Order we find the following: “…under the authority vested in 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 a one-sided support for Presidential authority, doesn’t it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549:

“My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything.”

The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every 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)?

Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976 we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies.

We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won’t it? 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.

Therefore, now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 the following words: “(a): The provisions of this act shall not apply to the following provision of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken there under (1) Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C.)5a; 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 at had held during a time of war became known as the “Declaration of Rights”.

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 country.”

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 2003, it is our own government, which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious methods.

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? 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 government 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.

It is not difficult now to understand why we cannot get justice in the courts we have no standing because we are enemies of the UNITED STATES. 

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 canceled. However, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public’s good that our government has used it unrestricted power, unhampered by the Constitution’s restraining force.

The governmental edicts and actions over the past seven 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 apart.

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 the very abuse, this unbridled rape of the American spirit that is the crux of the emergency. But setting aside the Constitution cannot cure this true emergency; no, 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 can only control it.

This is not a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the answer. No, this is a situation in which I 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.

Thus, 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.

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. If we blame those in government for 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.

In addition, since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not one President out of 12, not Congress, not even One Supreme Court justice has been able or willing to return it to its rightful owner.

Given the current state of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation will change unless we ourselves cause it to be so.

THE REMEDY

If you now feel as though your heart has been ripped from your chest, let’s see if I can put it back. All of the information you have received this week enlightens you as to your de jure status. All citizens of the United States are subject to all of the draconian laws that Congress dreams up. They have precious few rights, merely privileges. Therefore, it would appear that the first and most important thing to do would be to remove the legal presumption that you are a US citizen.

The only way to overcome a legal presumption is with the evidence. What evidence?

Expatriation.

Once you have expatriated from the United States and repatriated to the de jure American states, “We the People” the common law, then all of the programs you have heard about will apply to you, such as: Allodial Title, Tax Exemption, Lack of Jurisdiction to Federal Law, and Total Ownership of All Your Property.

This is a transcription by Phil Hudok. It was made from image files on February 22, 2015. (Any errors are most likely mine.)

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

To be honest, I doubt that many readers will have the interest to get this far, and to those of you who have, you have my appreciation and affection. There is much more info on the web if you want to further your knowledge. I pray that this information becomes a national interest because without a hundred million pissed off American’s I see no chance of change, as lack of interest and courage are now pandemic in America. Those who would like to communicate are welcome to email me at olddog@anationbeguiled.com

Rate this:

      Rate This

 Comments Off on WAR POWERS ACT Of 1933    |  World Politics |  Permalink

 Posted by OldDog

U. S. APPROACHING AN ABYSS

05/30/2015

http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven176.htm

By Professor Steven Yates

May 30, 2015

NewsWithViews.com

Articles on racial tension and conflict tend to hit nerves. My last one did, evidenced both in my email and on my Facebook page. One person dissented from certain details of my account of the Zimmerman-Martin physical confrontation. He was civil. A few other items were scary! There are people out there who aren’t satisfied that Zimmerman is a marked man whose life has been ruined! They want him dead! (Or, in prison, then dead!)

If I didn’t know better, I’d ask whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Or to the idea of the rule of law, as opposed to lynch mobs, including online where people can post hate blasts under fake names and bogus accounts.

There was no proof that Zimmerman was guilty. Period.

The high-tech lynch mobs might one day get their wish. Zimmerman was recently back in the news. It was reported as a road rage incident, but this wasn’t mere road rage. The other driver had clearly singled him out. The two had had at least one previous confrontation. The other man shot at his truck. Contrary to initial reports, Zimmerman was not hit by gunfire but cut in the face by broken glass and debris when the shot blew a hole in the truck’s passenger window. Zimmerman had a weapon — he’s a licensed gun owner — but did not fire in retaliation. Bleeding but not seriously injured, he walked to an ambulance, and was taken to an emergency room where he was treated and released.

This is the sort of bullying that is common enough in today’s America that it wouldn’t be considered news if Zimmerman hadn’t been the target. The incident ties in with the general decline in civility about which I wrote earlier this year.

Eventually, someone will shoot and not miss. Then, perhaps, the lefties will be happy — or at least satisfied. (I have trouble picturing cultural leftists happy; those I have encountered, in person or online, seemed like cauldrons of pent-up rage.)

I’d begun writing a piece on the melee in Baltimore, drawing attention to the race-and-gender make-up of the six cops directly responsible for Freddie Gray’s death: three white men, two black men, one black woman. Baltimore has a black mayor, a black police commissioner, and a police department that is 43% black. The Baltimore State’s Attorney is black.

Somehow, one might get the impression that Freddie Gray’s tragic death from injuries sustained while in police custody was about more than race, and that the epidemic of police violence in the U.S. is not primarily about race, which is what I have been arguing since the issue rose to visibility following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

Cultural lefties everywhere are railing about “white privilege.”

White privilege? I recall videos of random whites being physically attacked on Baltimore’s streets by blacks. One family was attacked in a passing vehicle. I didn’t see them striking back. They were terrified, and trying to get away. They were fleeing for their lives. In a separate incident, 61-year-old Baltimore resident Richard Fletcher was set upon by a large group of black teens and beaten unconscious. The beating continued despite his unconsciousness. This was sadism, pure and simple. Fletcher’s injuries included broken eye sockets and a brain bleed.

I have never taken the view that racial conflict is the worst threat facing the U.S., although obviously it is a threat — a big one! My view has long been that those with real power want us all divided — by race/ethnicity, by gender, by ideology (“conservative” or “liberal”), by one-percent vs. 99-percent, or by whatever other fault lines happen to be available. The superelite figured out long ago that when one group is given unworkable government favors at the expense of another group that can be demonized, resentments and counter resentments build until they explode. Such explosions can then be exploited, as society as a whole is taken in the desired direction: towards more centralized control, less privacy, less freedom.

There are reasons I do not believe in any substantive “white privilege.” Yes, yes, yes, I can look at history books and see mostly white people. Or walk into a store or restaurant and most of those around me are white — although this was not always the case: there was an incident in South Carolina I have never written about where I clearly was singled out in a public place where I was the only white person in the room, and chose to exit before the confrontation turned ugly. And yes, if a cop stopped me on the interstate, he was probably less wary when he saw I was white. Does that mean I am “privileged”?

Look at it this way: I presently live in Chile. Everyone around me, on a typical day when I must be out and about, speaks Spanish. All I have to do to signal my status as a gringo is open my mouth. My Spanish is halting and broken; I can speak, but make a lot of grammar mistakes. I often have to say “Más lento, por favor,” to even begin to understand what someone is saying to me. Do native speakers of the dominant language here have natural advantages over me because of that? Of course they do. Do they have advantages over us gringos because they grew up here, speak the dominant language, know the culture, know the local customs, etc., etc. Of course. Are we gringos “discriminated against” or victims of “microaggression” (one of the latest, and silliest, politically correct buzzwords) because of our limitations?

Nonsense. No one is discriminating against us or aggressing against us.

Cultural lefties will respond that my analogy is absurd. Blacks’ ancestors, they will say, were brought to U.S. soil by force and enslaved. We went to Chile voluntarily.

Let’s look at it. Not long after the War Between the States, there were black-owned businesses especially in the South where there were concentrations of newly freed former slaves. These included restaurants, newspapers, schools, and even banks. There were black authors and educators (e.g., Booker T. Washington), and black inventors (e.g., George Washington Carver). Blacks also went into the ministry and a few even held public office. Much of this progress was halted by specific acts of government, especially Supreme Court decisions (e.g., the Slaughter-House cases and Plessy), not discrimination in a general sense or “white privilege.” It is true that a lot of whites feared these advances; that is why the country got “black codes” and Jim Crow. The point is, black historians could make a larger deal of the successful black entrepreneurs one could find prior to 1900 and note their primary enemies were white elites, not white people generally, but this would hurt the Al Sharpton claim that slavery damaged blacks so badly they need reparations. They cannot have it both ways.[*]

The blacks who burned down small businesses in Ferguson and Baltimore had never been slaves. Nor had their parents been slaves; nor their grandparents. They were represented in their local governments. Are they victims? If so, it is of “progressive” policies that promised them advances in society without having to work to achieve them — advances their ancestors were capable of. These policies have destroyed the black family. Prior to the civil rights era blacks did experience workplace discrimination, but their families tended to stay together. They were not in a situation in which 70% of black children grow up without knowing who their fathers are.

I grew up in an all-white suburb in Atlanta, during the era of integration via forced busing to increase racial balance in public schools. As I recall, we white kids didn’t hate the black kids. We didn’t understand them, and they didn’t understand us. If there were opportunities for genuine education about our differences, they weren’t taken. Remember, this was forced on public schools, and those in them had no idea how to carry out what they were being told to do. By high school we were afraid of the black kids, who kept to themselves, usually congregrating in one section of hallway. Most aggression, which wasn’t “micro” either, came from them if one of us had to pass through that section. Their measure of a person’s worth seemed to be physical prowess, which may be why so many black kids of my generation excelled in sports. While again it was doubtless different in the pre-civil rights era, I never saw a white student single out a black student for abuse. Nor did I see a teacher or an administrator do it. I recall black students being openly defiant of teachers on more than one occasion, however.

Many could not read! Some of us wanted to help them learn to read! But we had no idea how to go about it! They had already separated themselves and wanted nothing to do with us!

There were a few sterling exceptions to this pattern: black students, presumably from the same background, who could read, took their studies seriously and made good grades. They were polite to everyone around them. They dressed decently. They did not hang out in the courtyard or on sidewalks smoking cigarettes, then blow smoke in white kids’ faces (yes, they did that, too). I believe they’d figured out that personal effort and responsibility — variables roundly condemned as code for “racism” by cultural lefties and media elites — actually went a long way! Those guys went on to college and probably made something of their lives. I do not imagine their children are burning down businesses in Baltimore.

The majority of blacks don’t realize that white elites in government — a bastion of real privilege — sold them a bill of goods from top to bottom right from the start. Today, they’ve basically developed a different culture, one lived in decrepit public housing and on the streets. Perhaps in a sense those of us who lived in safe, well-kept neighborhoods should feel “privileged” not to have grown up in that environment. But such claims won’t bear the weight cultural leftists are placing on them. How do they explain why Asians, with far fewer numbers than blacks and often unable to speak English, came to the U.S. with nothing but the clothes on their backs and went on to succeed brilliantly at whatever they tried, often outperforming whites in business or their studies? Is there some hidden “Asian privilege” none of the lefties or media elites have noticed?

All this is somewhat beside the point. The potential for media-fomented clashes between blacks and police are taking the U.S. closer to an abyss. For there will continue to be clashes. One day, conditions will be just right for another police murder, perhaps caught on video, to provoke a riot. Again, police will be ordered to stand down (as they were in both Ferguson and Boston). National Guard troops will be called in. Someone will get trigger happy, and instead of the situation coming under control, it will spread.

For nothing is being done about deadly violence at the hands of police. Over 400 people, black and white alike, have been killed by cops so far in 2015. While I’ve no doubt most officers just want to do their jobs and serve their communities, a few are dangerously violent sociopaths. Little is being done to contain this element. If anything, militarization of police forces with weaponry suitable for a battlefield has made matters several magnitudes worse!

Militarization of police is part of the ongoing militarization of American society generally. What, for example, is Jade Helm 15 really all about?

You’ve heard of it, no doubt. Just this morning as I write this article, I watched a video taken in Texas of a lengthy caravan hauling all manner of military vehicles and equipment down a major interstate.

Government officials insist Jade Helm is a standard training exercise, not different from its predecessors, intended to prepare troops for action elsewhere in the world. Across the aisle are those convinced we are seeing the beginning of an armed occupation of the affected states, which include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and southern California? Texas, moreover, was deemed “hostile” on an official Jade Helm map, which raised hackles all across alternative media.

The abrupt closings of five Walmart’s, all in Jade Helm states and projected to remain shuttered for up to six months, have fueled speculation that the stores will be used as staging areas. Others have speculated that this is company retaliation against employees demanding better wages and threatening to unionize. I wish to emphasize that we have no hard evidence of either one. Walmart’s official explanation—plumbing problems—seems to this writer a stretch. Does it take six months to fix plumbing problems? Be that as it may, those convinced that Jade Helm is more than an innocent exercise got the attention not only of Texas officials including the governor but also GOP presidential aspirants Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who have pledged to keep an eye on things.

Neither of the extremes is likely, of course. I do not believe Jade Helm will impose martial law on Texas. But I doubt it is as innocent as its defenders claim. We should be aware that specific events could bring martial law to U.S. soil.

Do I need to point out that another 9/11 could happen at almost any time? Or that the U.S. federal government definitely appears to be preparing for something!

It might be another terror attack, real or false flag. A real terrorist attack could be planned and carried out by foreigners who have entered the U.S. illegally (and I do not mean people from Mexico), as blowback against any of the U.S.’s many destructive wars of choice in the Middle East. This is not impossible, given the utter refusal by both Republicans and Democrats to secure the country’s southern border! (Again: border security is not wanted by the superelite, whose corporations profit from cheap labor just as the mostly Spanish-speaking populations undermine the dominant culture and divide the country further.)

It might be general civil unrest — an Arab Spring in U.S. soil — accompanying a major economic downturn. This is worth noting because even as I write, the U.S. economy appears to be slowing after the most tepid “recovery” in U.S. history. Except for Wall Street, of course, the U.S. never really recovered from the Meltdown of 2008. The present “5.4% unemployment rate” has been achieved by consigning roughly 100 million people to the status of “not in the labor force.”

It might be a massive, multi-city race riot following either another suspicious death in police custody or a highly publicized nonprosecution of a white cop for shooting and killing another unarmed black man. These days, any white cop who shoots a black man has to be either stupid or sociopathic.

It might be a combination of these. If the economy does abruptly turn sour, with the “too big to fail” banks even bigger, the majority of jobs part-time and paying starvation wages, economic inequality now worse than it was in the 1960s with no end in sight, every major city in the U.S. will become a powder keg.

When whatever happens, happens, it is going to catch the bulk of the majority-white TV-watching public with their pants down and around their ankles. Most, after all, are far more fascinated by the Kardashians than what is occurring in the corridors of power. So much for their “white privilege.”

This column hasn’t been as focused as I usually prefer. The U.S. is approaching its abyss from many directions at once. Events are happening so rapidly that writing columns about all of them is impossible.

Why civilizations collapse has been widely studied. While scholars differ on a lot of details, most agree that few if any major civilizations are invaded. They decompose from within. Having risen energetically, they grow complacent. They betray whatever principles gave rise to them and become bloated, arrogant empires. Gradually, corruption saps their energies. Trust in public officials declines and slowly takes loyalty down with it. Those in positions of authority grow increasingly abusive and violent. When working within the system repeatedly fails to yield satisfactory results, abuses of power eventually lead to armed rebellion and separatism. The U.S. is presently at the stage where massive corruption in all the dominant institutions is in evidence, and loyalty is fading. The inherent violence of its power structures is clear, but has not yet prompted organized resistance or secession movements with sufficient influence to commandeer state governments, which is what will be necessary for such movements to gain traction.

It’s just a matter of time, however. Whatever else one says, those in power are not stupid. They know the U.S. is rotting from the inside out, and do not plan to go down without a fight. Maybe this is why they are militarizing police all over the country (even small towns). Maybe this is what they are using Jade Helm to prepare for.

Once, perhaps 15 years ago, there was a very comprehensive black history website that listed black achievers by name, date, and accomplishment, but that site appears to be gone. One can find relevant information on scattered sites by googling, e.g., black inventor. 

But as the cultural left has gained influence including over the Internet, the majority of websites now emphasize the official narrative, meaning that unless you have physical books or a printout the older site (I don’t), the claims in this paragraph will be difficult to document. I will be happy to send the bibliography I’ve worked from to anyone who requests it.

EDUCATE THE MASSES

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Thomas Jefferson.

PATRIOTIC PERSEVERANCE

“It does not take a majority to prevail…but a rather irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” ~Samuel Adams

A HOMELESS NATION

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. Thomas Jefferson - 1802

RECENT POSTS

The Central Banks Are Losing Control Of The Financial Markets

Investors Start To Panic As A Global Bond Market Crash Begins

Middle East Turmoil Is Complete Theatre – War Is On The Horizon

Benjamin Fulford asks will the revolution finally come this autumn?

McCain and the POW Cover Up

A NATION BEGUILED.COM

MOLON LABE!

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." THOMAS JEFFERSON

SOCIALISM SUCKS

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." THOMAS JEFFERSON

APATHY IS THE REAL VILLAIN OF HISTORY!

"The lesson of history that most often repeats is that the common man is short sighted and thinks only of tomorrow, but never the day after." -… David Criswell

THE COMMUNIST STATES OF AMERICA???

“Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and oppressed subjects.” Leo Tolstoy

GOOD ADVICE

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” H.L. Mencken

UNAVOIDABLE CONCLUSION

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.” FL. Hamer

INTELLECTUAL COURAGE

'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death." S. Rasmussen

ARE YOU A FOOL? TAKE THE TEST!

A man is a fool who trusts his rights to lawyer, his soul to a preacher, his health to a doctor, his wealth to a banker, and his happiness to a government. By Anonymous

REASONS FOR OPTIMISM

“It is only human to seek reasons for optimism, and to find comfort in self-delusion. We have to believe we're going to be "just fine", because the alternative is too painful, and painfully unacceptable”……. (Unknown)

IMMUTABLE LAWS OF HUMAN NATURE

"The only way to maintain progress without chaos within a society is to have changeable social values that are tied to unchanging principles." Marilyn Barnewall

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religions destroy spirituality." -- Dr. Michael Ellner

AMERICAN MOOCHERS

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." – Frederic Bastiat

WHAT REAL PATRIOT’S DO

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." -Thomas Paine

FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Resources and The Original Article From:

06/01/2015

http://www.hudok.info/files/4114/2726/0822/Evi-Doc_01.pdf

This is an excerpt from “A Lawsuit Is An Act Of War” by Melvin Stamper, J.D.

The following Chapter on the War Powers Act was researched and written by: Paul Bailey, Lynn Bitner, Russell Grieder, Alvin Jenkins, Walter Marston, Fred Peters, Ed Petrowsky, Jerry Russell, Billy Schroder, Darrell Schroder, Van Stafford, Tinker Spain, and summary by Professor Melvin Stamper

file:///C:/Users/Chad/Desktop/LostSheepSolved.jpg

 Steven Yates has a doctorate in philosophy and currently lives in Santiago, Chile. He is the author of Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic(Brush Fire Press International, 2011). He also owns an editing business, Final Draft Editing Service.

Steven Yates’s new ebook is entitled: Philosophy Is Not Dead: A Vision of the Discipline’s Future.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Rate this:

      Rate This

 Comments Off on U. S. APPROACHING AN ABYSS           |  World Politics |  Permalink

 Posted by OldDog

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up for email updates

 © 2015 Steven Yates – All Rights Reserved