JFK Bethesda Autopsy Photos not JFK Oswald Framed Warren Report a Sham

11/22/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/11/jfk-bethesda-autopsy-photos-not-jfk.html

By Anna Von Reitz

Finally.  The Truth Begins to Emerge About JFK.  An Update From Jim Fetzer, USMC, Retired….. via Ambassador Lee E. Wanta:

I don’t usually just hit “Forward” on a message and send it to my List or publish it on my page, but I am making an exception today.

I was seven years-old when the Deed in Dallas went down, and even then, I was sitting in front of the TV saying, “But Mom, this is all phony!  Can’t you see where the bullet came from?”

[I have held my immediate distrust and dislike for LBJ throughout my lifetime.  I never lost the feeling that he had something to do with it besides being next in line.  Maybe we will finally find out exactly what his role in these murders (plural) and cover-ups (plural) was.]

Trump released thousands of files on the JFK Assassination a couple weeks ago.  And guess what?  What we all knew was phony was phony. Oswald was a patsy.  The guy on the slab wasn’t even JFK.  And here is the proof in black and white presented below.

Please pause a moment and think: what you are seeing now has been known by  hundreds if not thousands of Dallas police, federal agency subcontractors, and actual government employees, not to mention the Kennedy family, for over fifty years.  They knew.  They had to know.  So where does that leave us?

What happened to the actual JFK?   Was he kidnapped?  Murdered in cold blood in the Oval Office?   Imprisoned somewhere—here or abroad?   He certainly never re-appeared among the living.  Jackie moved on.  His children grew up.  The nation mourned.

For a brief and shining moment, this one man captured the hearts and inspired the minds of not just Americans, but people all over the world.  And then he was snuffed out like a brightly burning candle, and the world he illuminated guttered into night.

What I felt most of all about this as a small child was righteous anger, a certainty that those who did this— whoever did it, however they did it— deserved to go down in infamy, deserved to be caught, tried, and executed, deserved to have every one of us walk by and spit on their tombstones forever afterward.    I feel the same way about them as I feel about the sniper who shot Randy Weaver’s wife and baby as they stood in the doorway of their own cabin on American soil and the callous vermin who massacred civilians in Vietnam and the adherents of “ISIS” mindlessly beheading and burning what isn’t theirs to kill and more recently the mindless sewer rats who planned the ambush and execution of LaVoy Finicum, an innocent American Rancher exercising his right to attend a public assembly.

Such men do not deserve to live and much less do they deserve to live among us.  We need to wake up.  We need to stop ducking and dodging and hoping that we won’t be next.  We have to find our courage and our resolve to put an end to this criminality in our government once and for all.

Here is the link.

https://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/11/jfk-bethesda-autopsy-photos-not-jfk.html

Editors note: I have captured these documents and they are live on my server also but I wanted you to see the original article first because of the animation on the pictures.

Paul Stramer

http://annavonreitz.com/jfk/johnfkennedy.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/jfk/mydailyprayer2017.pdf

http://annavonreitz.com/jfk/roscoeanim.mp4

See this article and over 700 others on Anna’s website here:

http://www.annavonreitz.com


A Most Valuable Process

11/21/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/11/a-most-valuable-process.html

By Anna Von Reitz

As you gird up to make your claims stick, watch Winston Shrout’s YouTube video on The GoldFish Report No. 156 about the Writ of Habeas Corpus, November 17, 2017, and how to force the courts to deal with you as a private person. I highly recommend that everyone order the DVD, too.

Also go to

www.InPowerMovement.com to learn how to do a proper Notice of Liability.

These recommendations are about process— the step-by-step building of a claim.

As Winston points out in this referenced video, building a claim in court is like building a house. You have to start out by building a firm foundation. You do this by getting your documents and recordings in place and by presenting the evidence in a logical competent fashion.

Claiming the writ of Habeas Corpus and properly identifying yourself and your capacity to the Court is key to claiming your indemnity (exemption) and the value of the bond that was established in your NAME without your knowing consent.

The first thing you need to realize is that United States District Courts and all the federated state and county courts have no jurisdiction related to the living man, also known as the living soul (L.S.). Any court dealing in statutory law has jurisdiction over corporations that are created by statute and nothing else.

They have asserted jurisdiction over you and your assets by falsely claiming that you are “missing, presumed dead” and then establishing public trusts and public transmitting utilities named after you—- corporations that they can sue and charge and otherwise manipulate under statutory law.

They have also falsified the public records concerning you, which you need to correct either directly in court or by establishing new public records.

Those of you who followed my suggestion that you record your Common Law Copyright Claim with the nearest land recording office already have a claim to the writ of Habeas Corpus in place— subjecting all the courts of “this” state (the territorial or municipal “STATE” or “State”) while retaining your own standing and domicile on the land jurisdiction state.

The simplest approach is always best. For all civil cases and criminal cases not involving direct physical arrest, I recommend not even going to their court, as you can invoke a “special and restricted appearance” under Rule E of the Supplemental Rules and “appear” via a Registered Letter instead.

If the prosecutors bring a charge against any federal PERSON named after you, you send a letter marked “Private and Confidential” back to the Senior Judge of the Court. You will want to use your Christian aka Trade Name–First, Middle, Last– written in Upper and Lower Case, placed in the center of the page with a mailing address set up as “in care of” whatever Post Office Box or street address you care to use right beneath it, and under that the Registered Mail Number you are using to deliver your “special restricted appearance”.

Send a black and white photocopy of your Authenticated Birth Certificate stamped “Private and Confidential” and write “For Administrative Use Only” on it and sign your own Upper and Lower Case First-Middle-Last name across all the seals that appear on that black and white copy of the BC. This is Notice that you have taken control of that “Vessel”.

If you have established your Common Law (Land Jurisdiction) Copyright to your Trade Name by any of the processes I have described (formal correction and deed of re-conveyance, or simply recording your ownership of the Assumed Name(s) with the County Land Recording Office or both) include certified copies of these recorded documents as further evidence that you have taken control as the Holder in Due Course.

In your letter to the Senior Judge you will want to inform him that: (1) charges have been brought against a DEFENDANT corporation that was created and named after your Trade Name without your knowing consent via an unconscionable contract; (2) you are the Party of Interest in Fact and the Subrogee owed all Priority claim and interest against the bonds brought forward by the Prosecutor; (3) you are in fact exempt and known to be an internationally Protected Person; (4) the Clerk does not have your delegated authority to act as your Port Authority in the referenced venue; (5) please send the check for the bond recoupment to you at the address shown above; (6) please investigate and fine the Prosecuting Attorney should it be found that he or she failed to post a Bid Bond and/or failed to fully and truthfully inform the court of the actual Facts.

Thank you, very much, cordially, etc., etc., etc.,

John Michael Doe, a peaceful American state national….

That is the first thing you do when you are accosted by these rats in any civil case, including mortgage cases. Fully inform the Senior Judge so that his cajones are on the line and the court has no plausible deniability if it takes any action resulting in harm to you or your estate.

And since you have a standing claim to writ of Habeas Corpus on the Public Record (assuming that you followed the format we shared and recorded a Certificate of Assumed Name including such a claim) you can even use this in the case of physical arrest.

Just memorize the document number and recording district where you recorded your Certificate of Assumed Name and tell the arresting Officer that the Court is already served your writ of Habeas Corpus on the Public Record (recording number blah-blah-blah, Recording District blah for the blah-blah-blah County and blah-blah State) …..

They have 72 hours to release you and the Sheriff of the County has the obligation to serve Notice to the presiding Judge and the Clerk immediately.

The pieces of the puzzle are coming together and more and more of the pieces are falling into our hands.

See the Certificate of Assumed Name example (you have to add your own NAME/Name and other data) posted on my website. If the local land recording office won’t accept it, go elsewhere, even to another state. In the federated “state of state” system a recording in one is a recording in all. Notice that the claim to the writ of the Habeas Corpus is already built into the Certificate of Assumed Name example.

This process is deadly when used properly against statutory claims and charges. It will not stand against charges involving actual men and women bringing charges of first-hand injury—nor should it.

Always remember— rights go with responsibilities.

You can subrogate federal and state of state corporations with impunity and immunity, but in doing so— remember that you also have obligations to your countrymen and your community. Live in peace and be at peace and let the peace of God be your portion.

See this article and over 700 others on Anna’s website here:

http://www.annavonreitz.com


A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

11/20/2017

WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS

Researched and Written By

 

Gene Schroder, Alvin Jenkins, Jerry Russell, Ed Petrowsky, Russell Grieder, Darrell Schroder, Walter Marston, Lyml Bitner, Billy Schroder, Van Stafford, Fred Peters, Tinker Spain, Paul Bailey.

Introduction to Dr. Schroder’s Work

 Dr. Eugene Schroder has found the key to why our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are violated daily. It’s the insidious use of “emergency powers”  meant  to  be  used  only  in  time  of  invasion  of  rebellion.

Dr. Schroder proves with the government’s own documents that the Constitution has been effectively set aside since 1933. Eleven presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have used emergency powers for the last

67 years to regulate our daily lives without the inconvenience of Congressional approval. The definition of “emergencies” has been stretched to include economic problems, social imbalances, and perceived threats to the US by any foreign country’s actions, even those on other continents.

Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, says “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the president may: seize property;…seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control      all transportation  and communication;…restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

The president can act through Executive Order, Presidential Proclamation, or through his many agencies, which include most of the alphabet agencies.

The framers of the Constitution asserted that Americans have certain inalienable, God-given rights. But under emergency rule, all these rights are declared null and void. The government charges us for these rights by requiring licenses and excessive paperwork, with strings attached, as  long as restrictive and ill-defined requirements are met.

Dr. Schroder’s landmark research is documented in three books: Constitution: Fact or Fiction; War and Emergency Powers Special Report; and War, Central Planning and Corporations – The Corporate State. These may be obtained from Buffalo Creek Press.

I would also suggest a complete and thorough study of “Our Enemy, the State” by Albert J. Nock, “The Law” by Frederick Bastiat, “Trial by  Jury” by Lysander Spooner, “The Declaration of Independence” and of course, “The Constitution For The United States

AMERICAN AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT

 

“Study the Constitution. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice.” Abraham Lincoln

 “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe” John Adams

 “I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power that by violent and sudden usurpations..” James Madison

A word from the Editor:

 We must give a special thanks to the men who have spent years of their lives bringing this information to the public; and we must not forget the women who are not always in the foreground but without whose undying support and endurance this effort would be impossible. These men and women are true Patriots; they not only need your support but deserve it. Let us remember that the word Patriot as defined by Webster’s  Dictionary as “fellow countryman; a person who loses and loyally or zealously supports his own country”. Not everyone can afford to give the long hours of those on the front lines; many others fear their government. Isn’t it an outrage that the actions of our own government leaders causes many to not trust them? Where have we gone? How much is your freedom worth? If you can not give your time, please give your support. The American Agriculture Movement and many other organizations need your help to continue their efforts to bring about the Restoration of this Nation. A few dollars a month, in the form of purchasing information to pass on to others, is not too much to ask. Wouldn’t it be a tragedy to lose their efforts, from which we will all gain so much, because they were twenty dollars short, and we failed to do our part? Please, become involved; this movement is too important not to do so. We need this Report in the hands of all Americans, so we are not going to copyright it; therefore, permission is hereby granted to reproduce this Report in its entirety. We do ask, however, that you lend your support, if possible, by purchasing an original Report to make copies from so that the quality will be maintained. Thank you.

– Paul Bailey

INTRODUCTION

 To be able to call oneself “American” has long been a source of pride for those fortunate enough to live in this great land. The word “America” has always been synonymous with strength in the defense of our highest ideals of liberty, justice and opportunity, not only for ourselves, but for those throughout the world less fortunate than we.

America’s greatest strength has always been her people, individuals laying their differences aside to work in partnership to achieve common goals. In our greatest moments, it has been our willingness to join together and work as long and as hard as it takes to get the job done, regardless of the cost, that has been the lifeblood of our great land.

From America’s inception, we have been a nation of innovators  unfettered by hidebound convention, a safe harbor for captains unafraid to boldly chart a new :course through untried waters. This courage  to dare greatly to achieve great things has made our nation strong and proud, a leader of men and of nations from the very first days of her  birth. And since the days of her birth, millions of men and women whose hearts yearn for freedom and the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families have journeyed, often enduring terrible hardship, to our shores to add their skills and their dreams to the great storehouse of hope known as America.

The Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, the Pioneers – the brave men and women who have fought and endured to the end in wars both civil and international – this history of heroism and dedication in defense of ideals both personal and national has long been a treasured legacy of bravery and determination against all odds which we have handed down like family heirlooms from generation to generation.

For we are like family, we Americans, often quarreling among ourselves but banding together in times of adversity to support one another and fight side by side against a common foe threatening our way of life. This bold and brash, brave young land has long given its best and brightest to lead our country to its lofty position in the world as a bastion of freedom and a beacon of hope for all the peoples of the Earth.

For many, the dreams they had for America were dreams they never  lived to see fulfilled, but it mattered not to them, for their vision for this nation was meant to last longer and to loom larger than a mere mortal lifespan. Our national vision of integrity and responsibility, of concern  for one’s fellow man, the flame inside that demands of us that we shall not rest until there is peace and justice for all – these are the fundamental stones which form the strong foundation of our national purpose and identity.

And on this foundation rests, not only the hopes of those blessed to live  in this great land, but the hopes of millions throughout the word who believe in, and strive for, a better life for themselves and their children. For hundreds of years, the knowledge that America was there – proud, generous, steadfast, courageous – willing and able to enter the fray wherever human rights were threatened or denied, has given many who may never see her shores the will to endure despite the pain, to continue trying against sometimes insurmountable odds.

Yet without vigilance and constant tender care, even the strongest foundation shows the effects of stress and erosion. Even the most imposing edifice can eventually crumble and fall. So it is with nations, and with a nation’s spirit.

We have seen in this second half of the twentieth century great advances in technology which have impacted every aspect of modern life. Ironically, though we are living in the “age of communication”, it often seems as if we have less time now to talk or listen. For most, modern conveniences haven’t gotten them off the treadmill; they have only made the treadmill go faster.

Quietly, yet rapidly, the small town values of community and common purpose are vanishing. Instead of strength in numbers, we as a nation are increasingly being split into smaller and smaller competing factions, with the cry of “every man for himself’ ringing through the land. It seems that the phrase, “divide and conquer” has taken the place of, “One nation under God indivisible, with truth and justice for all”. Americans are retreating behind the locked doors of their individual homes, afraid to enjoy the sunset for fear of the darkness it brings.

When and where did it all begin to crumble? How and why has America, which once was a nation whose strength united was so much more than the sum of its total parts, begin to break apart into bitterly opposing special interest groups? What will this frightening pattern of disintegration mean to the future of America and of those  who  live within her shores? Let it be remembered, and remembered well, the  words of the Holy Bible: “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. And let us not flinch from facing the truth that we have become a nation desperately divided.

With the long legacy of pride, determination, and strength in unity, how has it now come to this, that we are fighting ourselves? Finally, and most vitally important of all, what can we do to turn the tide before the values and opportunities which others before us fought and died to preserve are washed away in the flood to come?

What you are about to see is the result of years of painstaking and meticulous research on the part of dedicated Americans gravely concerned for this nation’s future. Please listen closely and give your undivided attention to this presentation, for our future as individuals and free citizens of this mighty land depends upon it.

We are not here to showcase personalities the speakers could be any one of you here today. We are, first and last, concerned Americans much like yourselves, taking our stand in defense of the nation we love. Much  effort has been expended, and great hardships endured, by the American Agricultural Movement and many other organizations and individuals to bring this information to the public forum.

There is a wealth of information about many of the problems we face as  a nation today, written from a variety of viewpoints. But as with a deadly illness, there is usually a point of origin, from which the threat first was given life. So it is with the threat we as Americans face today – an illness which could prove fatal if we do not act quickly and in concert to cure the body politic before it dies from the disease within.

Almost all the problems we are facing today can be traced back to a single point of origin, in a time of national trouble and despair. It was at this point, when our nation struggled for its survival, that  the Constitution of the United States of America was effectively canceled.

We are in a State of Emergency!

REPORT

 We are going to begin with a series of documents which are representative of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from, in many cases, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.

The first exhibit is taken from a book written by Carl Brent Swisher — American Constitutional Development, A complete constitutional  history, from the British colonies to the Truman era. Let’s read the first paragraph. It says,

“We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established,” said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, “whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged.”

How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we’d have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn’t we? Justice Hughes goes on to say,

“The conflict known as the World War had ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the emergency organizations were still in operation.”

What is this man talking about when he speaks of “war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in operation”?

In 1933, Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states,

“I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary  body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip- service, but the result is the same.”

Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say,

“But the Constitution of the united States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers.”

What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, “the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one.” Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution.

The CAUSE and EFFECT of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report.

In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973), (Exhibit 2), the first sentence reads,

“Since March the 9th, 1933, the united States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”

Let’s go back to Exhibit 1 just before this. What did that say? It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 2. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.

Referring to the middle of this exhibit:

“This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens”

This situation has continued uninterrupted since the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719

In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 2):

“A majority of the people of the united States have lived all their lives under emergency rule.”

Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on  to say:

“For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought  into force by states of national emergency.”

The introduction continues:

“And, in the united States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have — from, at least, the Civil War — in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.”

How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be  taught in school? Amazing, isn’t it?

Where does this (Exhibit 2) come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the united States of America, we find the following words:

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

Habeas Corpus – the Great Writ of Liberty (Latin: …”you have the body.”). This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the procedure  of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.

In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (Exhibit 3), it says:

“No Person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous Crime, unless on a Presentment or Indictment of a Grand Jury, except in Cases arising in the Land or Naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual Service in Time of War or public Danger;…”.

We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn’t we? We didn’t give that power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the united States with a crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don’t order it, the government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn’t they? They could not hold us.

But let us recall that, in Exhibit 3, it says:

“except in Cases arising in the Land or Naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual Service in Time of War or public Danger;…”

We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.

Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 2), and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they’re talking about these emergency powers and they say:

“They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus.”

Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved.

But once it was done, the Constitution, was to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it’s called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.

If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or “United States Code”, and find that statute, that law, in existence. If we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC Section 95b (Exhibit 4), we will find a law which states:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection

(b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)”.

Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, (48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719), or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 2, let us remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95b is current law. This is the law that exists over these united States right this moment.

If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What happened on March the 4th of 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated  as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address (Exhibit 5), which was given at a time when the country was in the  throes of the Great Depression, we read:

“I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let’s see if he got it.

On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038 (Exhibit 6). He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.

In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 6), it states:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the united States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application.”

What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the Act as “imperatively necessary speedily”? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of self- defense. The law says, “Thou shalt not kill”. But also know that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.

Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.

In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 6), it further states in Title 1, Section 1:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision

(b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

Where have we read those words before?

This is the exact same wording as is found (Exhibit 5) today in Title 12, USC 95b. The language in Title 12, USC 95b is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1

The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the Rule of Necessity. We are still in a declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency that has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.

As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by  Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 8), we see that at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:

“An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.

By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War I; at that point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the continental borders of our nation in a time of war.

Therefore, Congress passed this Act which identified who could be declared enemies of the United States, and, in this Act, we gave the government total authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit.  We also see, however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the page: other than citizens of the united States.”

The Act specifically excluded citizens of the united States, because we realized in 1917 that the citizens of the united States were not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this Act.

Section 5b of the same Act (Exhibit 8), states:

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

Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers of this Act. We, the People, were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our enemies.

It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies. Consequently the government, under the war powers of this Act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the united States will  become crucial later on. Please note the distinction between “United States, and that of “united States”…

In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 8), “Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;

So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let’s see how it reads after it’s amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis is ours):

“During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the (united States) or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” (NOTE: later we will discuss that jurisdiction … for now please take note of this important point.).

What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the united States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the united States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with “by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the (President of the United States) through the authority given to him by the Trading with the enemy Act.

NOTE: change of title now! Exactly whom does the President represent in this situation now??)

To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America’s involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business  transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That Act also defined the term “enemy” and excluded from that definition citizens of the united States.

In Section 5 (b) of this Act, we see that the President was given  unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the united States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the united States, because we were certainly not enemies.

Citizens of the united States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with “by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.

The people of the united States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions, We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.

It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and  March 9, 1933, it states: “during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President..”. So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of “national emergency” as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 8)

“through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as  defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this  Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It’s purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.

 In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 2), Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, at:

“48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time.”

Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.

Now let’s find out about the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 9), Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:

“The Trading With the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water” Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8, cl. 11. P. 241″.

Remember your Constitution? “Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies.” ALL RULES.

 If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the “Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy” (Exhibit 11), remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:

“Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse.”

This is the case of The Rapid (1814). Additionally,

“No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.”

In other words, they have no personal rights at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814) (Exhibit 12), we read the words:

“By the general law of prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership.”

Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:

“The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose  cause he embarks.”

Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 12):

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

From the case (Exhibit 13) of The William Bagaley (1866):

“In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed after outbreak of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the united States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended.”

From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 14), in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:

“The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This authorization of trading under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule of international law forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law,  is given by the bill.”

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

That was the first case we looked at, Exhibit 12, wasn’t it? So once we were declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. We are certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Driver’s License, which gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?

Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law: (Exhibit 13)

“But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even, at times, our own citizens. The public good, however, must prevail over private gain. As we said in Bishop U. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be “a war for arms and a peace for commerce.” One of the most important features of the bill is that which provides for the temporary taking over of the enemy property,”.

This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary take-over of enemy property. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned — mustn’t it?

The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent right of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, “I’m seizing your ship.” Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts Payable in Gold” written in 1933:

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

Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call “yours”? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:

“Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation….”

That is the peacetime clause, isn’t it? Further (emphasis is ours),

“Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending  public danger, in  which private  property  may  be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner….”

This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.

Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.

On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit

15) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:

“Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency….”

In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been  noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.

Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve  and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time  when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, “People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency.”

How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 15):

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

In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time?

Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution (Exhibit 15), we find a proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:

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

Now, in any nominal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn’t it? If it’s not, that’s a fraudulent use of the American language. At that point marked by the red asterisk (*) above, ” began, what did the original Act of October 6,1917 say?

Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917 says:”(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the united States).”

This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from taking control of We, the People’s money and transactions, didn’t it?

However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17): “by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and “any person” became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act. Further, we can now see that the usage of the original text where the red asterisk is (above), it was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.

Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board’s proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be fined not  more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or  both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution.

Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the united States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions were “neither justified nor necessary” (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088). Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the united States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 17:

“Whereas, public interests require that the Congress of the united States should be convened in extra session at twelve o’clock, noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such communication as may be made by the Executive.”

On the next day, March 6 ,1933, President Roosevelt issued  Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of Exhibit 8. In Exhibit 32, we find the following:

“Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding . ..”

Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an “unwarranted” manner. Remember, the people of the united States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my  gold as I needed for my family and myself a “warranted” action. But the decision was not left up to We, the People.

It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the “purpose of hoarding”. The significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the term “hoarding” is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The term, “hoarding”, was not to be found in the original version of Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.

Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, Exhibit 9. In reading from Exhibit 9, we find the following:

“Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended, ” that the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as be may prescribed, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . .”exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).

If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase: “by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and  on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039 on Exhibits 32 and 33, and now, on Exhibit 33 (a), let’s see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:

“Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday…”

We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let’s read on:

“Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred  by section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1 91 7, as amended, are approved and confirmed;”

This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed, citing the authority of section 5 (b). The key words here being “all” and “approved”. Further:

“Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes”

We again clearly see that there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase, “further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 … ” Could this be the beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can this type of action continue? Let’s find out.

“Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6,1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President.”

We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as another proclamation is made by “the President”. Note that the term “the President” is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond.

So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing about these actions will to continue “in full force and effect” until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation.

It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene its extra session. Yet references are made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b), which had not yet even been confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of Congress giving confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we find that confidence was justified. *** For on March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the amendment of Section  5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. ***

 Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 34):

“That those speculators and insiders were right was plain enough later  on. This first contract of the ‘moneychangers with the New Deal netted those who removed their money from the country a profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was debased.”

Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore! The gold was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door attempting to have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What happened then? The laws were changed to prevent us  from asking again, and the military was brought in to protect the Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be the same as public enemy and placed under military authority.

Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):

“Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the (U)nited States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations.” Notice now to whom we refer as “owning” the money!

By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in their gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision, such violation to be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than ten years. It was a seizure. Whose property may be seized without due process of law under the Trading With the Enemy Act? The enemy’s. Whose gold was seized? Ours — the gold of the people of the united States. Are you seeing the fraud here now?

From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):

“During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of scrip or emergency currency would be necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would be essential when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to meet all possible demands of depositors. Consideration was given by government officials and various local agencies to the advisability of issuing clearing house certificates or some similar form of local emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a regulation authorizing clearing houses to issue demand certificates against sound assets of the banking institutions, but this authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing of these certificates was actually begun, but after the passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became evident that they would not be needed, because the Act made possible the issue of the necessary amount of emergency currency in the form of Federal Reserve banknotes which could be based on any sound assets owned by banks.”

Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):

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

What is this saying? It says (emphasis is ours): “Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the united States …” That is a direct obligation of the united States? It’s a treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon We, the People, to perform. It’s a taxpayer obligation, isn’t it?

Title 4 goes on: “or (b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers’ acceptances . .

What’s a note? If you go to the bank and sign a note on your home, that’s a note, isn’t it? A note is a private obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of the united States.

In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 38) , we find evidence that our congressmen didn’t even have individual copies of the bill to read, on which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for approximately 40 minutes.

Congressman McFadden made the comment,

“Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it was read from the clerk’s desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a dictatorship over finance in the united States. It is complete control over the banking system in the united States … It is difficult under the circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill, as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in 1917.”

Congressman McFadden later says,

“I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this is a plan to change the holding of the security back of the Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the united States rather than the Federal Reserve agent.”

Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve  bank held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to change who’s going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.

Chairman Steagall’s response to Congressman McFadden’s question, again from the Congressional Record:

“This provision is for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes; and  not for Federal Reserve notes; and the security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has referred.”

We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn’t it? We were penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.

Congressman McFadden then questioned,

“Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?

Mr. Steagall replied,”Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes.”

Does that sound familiar?

Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):

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

Who is the collateral? We are – we are chattel, aren’t we? We have no rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes. i

Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):

“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs – we were now slaves for the system.

From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41)

“When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the Treasurer of the United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or both, for the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the provisions of this paragraph.”

The Treasury was taken over by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Holding companies, the Depository Trust Co. and the CEDE  Co., hold the assets. We are the collateral – we ourselves and our property.

To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy.

The President of the united States, through licenses or any other form, was given the power to regulate and control the actions of enemies. He made We, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution.

 And we know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad, sweeping approval to be automatic, wouldn’t you agree?

On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio “Fireside Chat” (Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:

“The Secretary of the Treasury will issue licenses to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve system, whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank cities, to open Monday morning.”

It was by this action that the Federal Reserve took over the Treasury and the banking system.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the following words:

“Presidential Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933, temporarily suspended banking transactions by member banks of the Federal Reserve System. Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to certain restrictions. The first proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law until the passage on March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U. S. C. A. Sect. 95b). Anthony Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss. 883, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency proclaimed by the President. 12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95”

Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the phrase,  “present  law”.  The fact  that  banks are  under regulation  of the

Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more  evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.

From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12,1933 (Exhibit 43):

“To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and others to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof . . .”

This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority.

In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed  by the government over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural resources. The first hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the united States, its people and its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked about during his campaign and early presidency? His first hundred days.

Now, we know that they took over all contracts, for we have already read in Exhibit 22:

“No contract is considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of law of either government, and  they have, in the language of civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.”

 They have no personal rights at law. Therefore, we should expect that we would see in the statutes a time when the contract between  the Federal Reserve and We, the People, in which the Federal Reserve had to give us our gold on demand, was made null and void.

Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):

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

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

Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 45):

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

What was the “broad powers”? That was the War Powers, wasn’t it? And now we see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did. We should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to result in the eventual acquiescence of farm  leadership to the governmental take-over of their livelihoods.

Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 46):

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

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

The farming industry was nationalized.

 Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 47):

“It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Congress…”

Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):

“But in defining the meaning of the term ‘enemies’ property,’ we will be led into error if we refer to Fleta or Lord Coke for their definition of the word, ‘enemy’. It is a technical phrase peculiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles of public policy as distinguished from the common law.”

Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government “public policy”.

 All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws and regulations can continue to be passed.  The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for over 60 years. We’re not under law. Law has been abolished.

We’re under a system of public policy, (War Powers).

So when you go into that courtroom with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He tells you that you have no persona standi in judicio. You have no personal standing at law. He tells you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court, because it is not a Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different jurisdiction.

From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48) (emphasis is ours):

“Under this procedure we retain Government by law – special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the persons  affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties.”

If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with a crime, but with an offense.

Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):

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

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,

“Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don’t think it has reached the point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits.”

Senator Church then made the comment:

“What you’re saying, then, is that if Congress doesn’t act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest.”

No persona standi in judicio – no personal standing in the courts.

 Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):

“The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the fact that it created a permanent agency designed to eradicate an emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture.”

These agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control every aspect of our lives, were ostensibly created as temporary agencies meant to last only as long as the national emergency. They have become, in fact, permanent agencies, as has the state of national emergency itself. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: “We will never go back to the old order.” That quote takes on a different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.

In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:

“If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence.”

We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,

“Enormous Scope of Powers…A “Time Bomb”.

Remember, this is Congress’ own document, from the year 1973.

Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933 (Exhibit 52):

“Title III — Financing – And Exercising Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money And To Regulate the Value Thereof.”

From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:

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

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

Under Section 1 of the same Act (Exhibit 53) we find the following:

“To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be issued in such amount or amounts as he may from time to time order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled “An Act to authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption of funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the united States, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof”

What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn’t even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not  even a Congress in session for six weeks.

When Lincoln’s Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record: “The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed…” This is the exact language of March 9,1933 and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b), today.

We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit 54):

“This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended.”

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

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress (Exhibit 55):

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

It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 60 years.

Now, that’s no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report, how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this situation would have continued, and with it, the abolishment of the Constitution? But we’re not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?

In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement from Senator Church:

“These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased.”

Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement (Exhibit 57):

“Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention … Machiavelli, in his “Discourses of Livy,” acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people.”

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply (Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the standing national emergency:

“As a consequence, a “national emergency” is now a practical necessity  in order to carry out what has the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of “emergency” has become a permanent condition.”

From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (Exhibit 59):

“A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict  Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.”

What is being said here is that a tax can all be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn’t it?

Quoting further from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 60):

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

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

Again from United States v. Butler (Exhibit 61):

“If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and  limit the powers of the United States and preserve the powers of the states, could be broken down, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and The Federal United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns.”

Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its  meaning is vital.

The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization, unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said, in effect, “You’re turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police power.” What did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the Supreme Court, didn’t he? And in 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned.

From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find (Exhibit 62):

“The existence of war and the restoration of peace are to be determined by the political department of the government, and such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to exist.”

The courts will tell you that is a political question, for they (the courts)  do not have jurisdiction over the common law.

The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find (Exhibit 63):

“When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can exist in the court.”

Now remember, WE THE PEOPLE are SOVEREIGN, under the Constitution for the united States.”

From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):

“Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency.”

So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, “Emergency Administration”, a continuation of Exhibit 64:

“Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt’s general policy to assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments.”

Thus, thousands of “temporary” emergency agencies are now sitting out there with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.

Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to the question of “booty”. The following definition of the term, “prize” is to be found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):

“Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land.”

This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a fact which will become quite clear shortly.

Let us now remember that “Congress shall have the power to make rules on all captures on the land and the water.” To reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.

Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we can see that an army is not a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. So the United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we  had instead the individual state militias, both organized and unorganized.

Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war. But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental united States, because there was to be no army, and NO jurisdiction over Sovereign American citizens!

From the report “The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States”, published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled “The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War” (Exhibit 66), comes the following quote:

“4. Should the President desire to utilize the services of the Federal courts of the *united States* in promoting this purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the military establishment, they must secure from Congress the necessary action to confer such jurisdiction upon said courts.”

This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the continental united States on the land (booty), it must obtain statutory authority.

In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find the following words:

“5. The laws and usages of war make a distinction between enemies’ property captured on the sea and property captured on land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the united States over property captured at  sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in the absence of Congressional action.”

There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared, Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land by positive Congressional action. To continue with (Exhibit 66):

“The right of confiscation is a sovereign right. In times of peace, the exercise of this right is limited and controlled by the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government. In times of war, when the right is exercised against enemies’ property as a war measure, such right becomes a belligerent right, and as such is not subject to the restrictions imposed by domestic institutions, but is regulated and controlled by the laws and usages of war.”

So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.

In Section 1 7 of the Act of October 6, 1 91 7, the Trading With the Enemy Act (Exhibit 67):

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

Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental united States. And at the time of the original, un-amended,

Trading with the Enemy Act, we  were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies’ property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the  enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.

In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law. This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 (Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).

But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act. What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. It was no longer be necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution for the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates Admiralty jurisdiction.

Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 (Exhibit 68) states:

“Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12

U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of the national emergencies…”

Later, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit 69), we find the following: under the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C.  95a) Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an oft-cited support for Presidential authority, doesn’t it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93- 549:

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

The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every Sovereign American, is what type of acts can “almost anything” cover? What has been, and is being, done, by our government under the cloak of authority conferred by Section 5 (b)? By now, I think we are beginning  to know.

Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave  a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won’t it?

But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the following words:

“(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (1 2 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)”

The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all.

The alarming situation in which We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to think back to a time over two hundred years ago in our nation’s history when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental usurpation of individual rights. Their response,  written in 1774, two years before the signing of the Declaration  of Independence, to  the  attempts  of  Great Britain  to retain  extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the Declaration Of Colonial Rights: Resolutions Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774″ (Exhibit 72). And in that document, we find these words:

“Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament,  claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.”

We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed in 1774, but with one crucial difference. In 1774,  Americans were protesting against a colonial power which sought to bind and  control its colony by wartime powers in a time of peace. In 1994, it is our own government (as it was theirs) which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious method.

Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:

“Treason against the united States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That would be for the common law courts to decide. At this point in our nation’s history, the point is moot,  for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not  operate or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation’s money, the citizens’ property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the people of the united States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the united States cannot even be determined or argued in the legal sense until the Constitution itself is reestablished.

For our part, however, we firmly believe that, “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and on that authority we rest our case.

CONCLUSION

 As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to exist in a governmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under such a state of emergency, our Constitution has been set aside, ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency is cancelled.

But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public’s good that our government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered by the Constitution’s restraining force. The governmental edicts and  actions over the past six decades have led us to the desperate state in which we find ourselves today. Besieged on every side, corroding from within, frightened and in despair, we as a nation are being torn asunder.

There IS a national emergency today – one of life and death proportions – but it is NOT the emergency used by our government to continue its abuse of power. It IS this very abuse, this unbridled rape of the American spirit, that is the crux of the emergency we are in today, the cause of all the loss of hope, drug and alcohol addiction, irresponsibility in morality and ethics, lack of respect for life, and violence. But this true emergency cannot be cured by setting aside the Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to the laws of God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in whom we placed our trust to protect the national interest.

We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal words, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people”. One has  only to walk down the highways and byways of this great land to know all too well that this is not a government of the people or for the people. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions taken over the past decades have resulted in an unparalleled decline of American economic and political power, and a weakening of American values and spirit.

This is NOT a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the best answer. No, this is a situation in which we firmly believe that the pen will be mightier than the sword.

That a state of emergency exists cannot be disputed. That the emergency is one which should concern every American alive cannot be denied.  That we must stand together, laying aside our individual differences, to fight the common foe, is of vital importance, for the time to act is now.

But this is not a battle of swords, but of knowledge, for only when the deception is exposed to the light of day can the healing process begin.

Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth we bring to you today. Let it be known and understood that it is our intention to make this information available to every concerned Sovereign American who desires to know the true State of the Union. This is an undertaking of immense proportions, but we have dedicated ourselves to bringing this information to the light of day, and with the help of “We, the People”, we will be successful in our efforts.

Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that title. We the People have not only a right, but a responsibility to each other, to those who have gone before us and and to those who will follow, to learn what our government is doing, and to judge whether actions taken benefit the people who will bear the costs.

We have been in the dark long enough, content to rest on our past glories and let the government take its course. In a way, we have been like children, trusting in our parents to act in our best interest. But as we have too frequently seen in the nightly news, not all parents have their children’s best interest at heart.

The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality, for the time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our elected and appointed officials are no more responsible for the current state of affairs than are we. The strings are being manipulated at far higher levels than the positions most officials occupy. They are working with little knowledge or authority, trying to control problems far bigger than even they realize.

Their programs and actions may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time has now come to attack the disease. They are no more guilty than we are, nor will they be any more protected when the nation collapses on us all.

If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly blame ourselves, for it is “We, the People” to whom this nation was given and whose duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who direct the sails of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and while we were dreaming the American dream, a band of pirates stole the Constitution and put our people into slavery.

And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change unless we ourselves cause it to be so.

Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away, stand up, stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop dreaming, and start the long work before us. Now is the time to turn back to the principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, the strong foundation from which our national identity springs.

When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become slavery? When is enough enough? Now is when here and now.

Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off  these chains of ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to the point of death. Let us return to the source, the standard of excellence set for us long ago.

Our message to Congress and all elected and appointed officials must be, “Let my people go!”, for we are all laboring under a system which will eventually crush us, regardless of our religion, our sex, or the color of  our skin.

We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we have learned of the deception which lies at the core of our national malaise. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate  this great lie no longer, and we must put them on notice that we expect them to resign if they have not the courage and the resolve to help this nation in its hour of need.

We have been fools long enough. Beginning today, no matter how long after that date you see this report, start each and every week without fail to give a copy of this information to at least one person you know. We also ask you to write a letter to Congress telling them to “Let our People go”, or you can use the form letter you will find enclosed in the report.

We must let our elected officials  know that we expect them as  servants of the people to help us re-establish law and order and restore our national pride. They must repeal Proclamation 2039, 2040, and the 12 USC 95(a) and 95(b), thereby cancelling the National Emergency, and re-establish the Constitution for this Nation.

Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and will accept nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no matter the cost.

To do nothing, out of fear or apathy, is exactly what those in power are hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that the darkness likes best. We must not be a party to the darkness enveloping our nation any longer. We must come into the light, and give our every drop of blood, sweat and tears to bring our nation back with us.

We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing to act now and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm resolve, our freedom to act at all may soon be taken away altogether. New bills, new laws are being presented daily which will effectively serve to tighten the chains of bondage already encircling this nation.

My friends, we are not going into slavery we are already there! Make no mistake those in power are already tightening the chains, but they are doing so slowly, quietly and with great caution, for fear of awakening the slumbering lion which is the voice of the American people.

There is yet still time for us to slip loose the chains which bind us, and for us to bring about the restoration of this nation.

If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our refusal to accept the future which has been planned for us by those who hold no allegiance to this great land of ours, we can yet demand and see come to pass the day when the state of emergency is cancelled and the Constitution is restored to her rightful place as the watchdog of those for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If we repent of our ignorance and our apathy, and return to the God- given laws on which this nation was founded, we may yet  be  free. Indeed, one can find Gods promise in the book of Second Chronicles Chapter 7 Verse 14:”If my people which are called by my Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, AND WILL HEAL THEIR LAND.” (emphasis added)

We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information until everyone in America has had an opportunity to hear it and we have set our nation free.

We will not tolerate less. We are Sovereign American Citizens and that means far more than most of us realize.

If at first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as this information spreads across the land to the great cities and small towns, you will find yourself in excellent company. You already are as only one, for behind you stand all the heroes of our history who fought and died to keep this nation free.

Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in fact, we implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this deception has made you. Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a fierce determination not to give up until the battle has been won.

We are not asking you for any money; that’s their game, the “almighty dollar”. It is the substitution of wealth and possessions for integrity and honor that helped get us into this true state of emergency in which we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for more time than you can give, although we do ask you to give what time you can to get this information out.

What we ask from you is your commitment to stand with those around you to help us restore this nation to her rightful place in history, both that written and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln once said, “We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution”.

We must stand together now in this, our national hour of need. As the United States Supreme Court once said, “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function  of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”

Each individual, their attitudes and actions, forges their own special link in the great chain of history. Now is the time to add to that precious inheritance of honor and duty which has kept America alive, because the choices we make and the actions we take today are a part of history too – history not yet written.

The vision for America has not died; the “land of the free and the home  of the brave” still exists. There is still time to turn the tide for this great land, but we must join together to make it happen. We have a debt of honor to the past and the future, a call to glory to rescue our homeland from the hands of those who would see her fall. We cannot, we must not fail.

 

 Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.

 

Available online at: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Scams/Articles/WarPowersAct.htm and

http://thelastoutpost.com/war-powers/dr-gene-schroeder-war-powers- act.html

Eugene Schroder et al were not aware of the registration of the birth certificate as the means used to obtain the unwitting pledging of our progeny as security for the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.  This part of the scheme has been revealed by other researchers, including attorney Melvin Stamper in his book Fruit from a Poisonous Tree.


Communications About the Mess For the Military

11/18/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/11/communications-about-mess-for-military.html

By Anna Von Reitz

Part One  — Uniformed Officers

According to the Field Manuals of the US ARMY/Army your branch of the service is responsible for “supervising” the Bar Association and its members.  This is further confirmed throughout Title 37 of the Federal Code.  They are considered “Uniformed Officers” and they are required to act under your direction, as are doctors, dentists, chiropractors, etc.

So let’s stop the play-acting and pretension that you fellows don’t have the responsibility for what is going on in the courts in this country, because you obviously and self-admittedly do.

I am permanently domiciled on the land and soil of the Wisconsin state where I was born in 1956 and where my Mother was born in 1920 and where my Grandfather was born in 1865 and where my Great-Grandfather homesteaded beginning in 1854.

I have never worked for nor been dependent upon the federal government in my life. I am engaged in no federally regulated profession or occupation. I am an innocent Third Party American civilian who has been harmed by the misadministration of the US Army and US ARMY and its supervision of the activities of the Bar Association and its members on my soil and their usurpations and presumptions made against my person and my property.

You want to claim that you are occupying my land as part of your mandate to protect the peace and preserve the persons and property of the civilian population of this country?  Good.

I am here to inform all of you that you are doing a piss poor job and failing in that aim and that correction must be made to achieve that end.

I am also fulfilling my duty to report crime to the authorities responsible for protecting our persons and our property.

I am also here to make sure that you know who I am, know that I am here living in Alaska, that I have given Notice to the Secretary of State and the Wisconsin Secretary of State and am now also properly informing the Adjutant General responsible for keeping the records and the Port Authorities responsible for maintaining my egress treaty.

My American Trade Name is Anna Maria Riezinger and I own it and all its forms and derivatives including all those variations being used by the federal corporations and agencies.  My claims are plainly stated on the public records of this state and the State of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois and if anyone has any claim that I am not Anna Maria Riezinger and not a native-born American and not owed all the guarantees and protections of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Wisconsin Statehood Compact and am not a Protected Person under international law and am not owed the security and peace of my “vessels” and their “cargo” — then Mister, you better come forward to me with your proof and your counter-complaint right about NOW, because I am thoroughly fed up with all this mischaracterization of me, my husband, my son, and our position with respect to our nationality and non-citizen political status and also fed up with the harassment and privateering and illegal press-ganging being carried out by members of the Bar and doctors acting as undeclared Uniformed Officers on our shores— all of which you fellows are supposed to be overseeing and in all cases supposed to be protecting and preserving our persons and our property.

Am I making myself clear?

Though it passes through the pockets of lots of middle men– bankers, Popes, Queens, and even “International Organizations” — I am one of those paying for your “services” and I am not paying to be misidentified and pillaged as a foreign combatant, shallow-hulled vessel, special purpose vehicle, foreign grantor trust, Puerto Rican ESTATE trust, public transmitting utility or any of the other horseshit you have all cobbled together as a means to fleece and oppress the American Public.

We aren’t the ones in bankruptcy — not now, not ever. We are your actual, factual employers.

The sooner you all realize that FACT and start fulfilling your mandate to protect our persons and our property, the better off everyone concerned it going to be.

So I repeat — I am here to report crime taking place in this Federal District.  These crimes are being perpetuated by members of the American and Alaskan Bar Associations acting under the supervision and oversight of the US Army.  Further crimes are being committed by Uniformed Officers who deceptively appear to be civilians but who are also under the operational control of the US Army.

Now stop trying to tell me that all this horseshit shoved in my face is actually a bouquet of roses.

Finally, I am coming to you to make sure that you and the Adjutant General and all other members and parties and officers and employees of all federal branches of service including the federated states of states operating on our soil are fully aware that any presumed “interregnum” of the government of the people, for the people, and by the people owed the entire land jurisdiction and the reserved powers in international jurisdiction —is at an end.

The government of the actual unincorporated Body Politic of The United States of America is back on the land and moving to restore order and end the criminality to which this entire population has been subjected thanks to deliberate criminal mis-characterization of the people and plundering of property entrusted to the care of the US Army under international treaty and Executive Order.

The Adjutant General bears a primary responsibility for keeping accurate and honest records and I am here to correct the records he has about me and my family.

What he does with the crime report and what you do with it is your duty and business.  I have it all wrapped up and tied with a bow on the proper military forms as an affidavit to the Provost Marshall recorded on the land jurisdiction of the Matanuska-Susitna County and the State of Alaska Land Recorder’s Office.

I simply wish to hand deliver it and other supporting documents and answer any questions you may have.

Part 2:  Status Report

This is an article published and available on my Facebook Page.  It is designed to bring people up to speed concerning the Great Fraud committed against us.  If you have been doddering around assuming that this is all a “civilian matter” and that it has nothing to do with misconduct and dereliction of duty by the military, think again.  As I informed you yesterday, these “Uniformed Officers” who appear to be working in civilian capacities as undeclared Foreign Agents— both the courts and the doctors who are being used as the tools to defraud the American states and people— are supposed to be “supervised” by the Army and regulated by the Coast Guard.   So get to it.  Now.  If you want to get paid and look at yourselves in the mirror—- take action to defend your actual, factual employers.  And remember— without our land jurisdiction, you have no delegated sea jurisdiction to play in.  So you had better jolly well hop to it and defend us and defend our claims to our land jurisdiction or you will have nobody and nothing to come home to.

Property, Property Taxes, and the Whole Picture to Date

I have taken on the task of trying to consolidate everything to date for you. It’s a long article and I don’t want to be bombarded with questions of “How do I…..?” — I want you all to sit down, look at the situation described, and begin figuring things out. Just be quiet, take it all in, and think, think, think—- for yourselves. This is the first step toward being free of all this B.S. —- recognize how arbitrary, false, and silly most of this is, like a children’s game played in deadly earnest by adults. Unfortunately, most Americans have been playing Chess while their employees have been playing Parcheesi — which requires you to learn the new game, which then ultimately allows you to either (1) win the game, and/or (2) flip the table and play whatever game you want to play. They can make you play Parcheesi or you can make them play Chess–after all, they are your employees.

Our identity has been stolen. That resulted in us being reclassified as “US citizens” — as if we were government employees or as if we had been born in Puerto Rico.

This then affected our ability to own land in the states, because “foreigners” can’t actually live here, they can only “reside” here.

Instead, foreigners can have a long-term lease here and be tenants.

So that is how you are identified — as a tenant on your own land, with the State of Whatever as your landlord. Because you are misidentified in the public record, your land holdings are also misidentified and placed into one of three categories: residential, industrial, or agricultural, when your land of any sort should be classified as private property.

As long as you and your land are both misidentified, you will be taken for a “tax payer” and as a “subscriber” and as a “public vessel” and as a “resident” and everything you think of as yours will in fact be owned by and controlled by an organization of interlopers callings themselves the “State of Oregon” or the “State of Michigan”.

First order of business then, is to get yourself back into the right category, and identify yourself as an American state national, not a “US citizen”. This is more difficult than it looks, because the perpetrators of this scheme have made it difficult, yet to enjoy the benefits of their perfidy they have had to leave the door open for you, too.

That’s why there is always remedy available to those who diligently search.

Two layers of “government organizations” have placed these ugly claims on your name and estate. The first of these, known as the Territorial United States, seized hold of the copyright of your name on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways, and then used that as a means to seize upon all your other property, too. They excused this Breach of Trust after the bogus “Civil War” —which was never a war, but an illegal commercial action on our shores— in the name of Public Safety to ensure the peace after the “rebels” were defeated. A hundred and fifty years later they are still attempting to use this excuse for stealing control of your name and estate by announcing “wars” against drugs, wars against this and wars against that. It’s all bull, but it serves the purpose of continuing to excuse their inexcusable usurpation against the American states and people.

Where is the door?

The Expatriation Act of July 1868 allows you to sign an Act of State and go back to your original status as an American born on the land of an actual state of the Union.

But remember, they have already seized control of your Given Name, which is also known as a “Trade Name” in their system of things, and they have copyrighted it by “registering” your “birth/berth”.

How do you correct that?

Well, their own records — all those resulting “Certificates of Live Birth”— show that you, the living man, were actually born on a specific day, like August 14, 1967, but the THING named after you wasn’t registered until a few days or weeks afterward—- on the (de) filing date which is also shown. This results in a situation in which the living man has a birth-day and the ESTATE they created “for” him has a birth-date.

There are two peaceful ways out of this box. The first, and the route that I have chosen, is to object to their presumption of trusteeship and usufruct status, return the Birth Certificate (it’s actually an insurance indemnity receipt so you are making an insurance claim for the return of your vested interest in your own estate), and copyright your own name by recording it as an Assumed Name with the land recording office in your county. Every State of State in the Union has statutes about Assumed Names, also known as Business Names, also known as Trade Names, which retain your Common Law Copyright rights……. ah, so….. go back and correct the “mistake” and claim your own Trade Name and copyright it effective with your actual birth-day. This predates their claim by a few days or weeks, so you are finally identified as the true party of interest and Holder in Due Course.

They had to leave this door open, in order to profit from all this chicanery themselves.

Now you are Master of your own “vessel” and nobody can say otherwise, and if they infringe on your copyright in an effort to defraud you, you can call them on it in no uncertain terms with the proof of your recorded Common Law copyright to shove in their astonished faces. Oh, my, Matilda, the horses can talk and the sheep can dance! And their own published documents are the evidence of all this deceit and will-to-plunder.

The second route, which recently opened up and which by mistake, has become yet another tool for the rats to use against you, is PARSE SYNTAX grammar.

As I recently discussed— one enterprising American found his way out of the their maze by creating a new name for himself using (arguably) correct grammar principals as his justification. He left his Given Name which was “Russell Jay Gould” behind and adopted a new name with new punctuation: “Russell-Jay:Gould”. This created a separation between their “person” operated as “RUSSELL JAY GOULD” or “RUSSELL J. GOULD” and his newly created persons “Russell-Jay:Gould” and “Russell-J:Gould”. It has, thus far, created a lasting protective barrier between the living man and the predatory corporations, and if you adopt his system and use PARSE SYNTAX, it can protect you, too.

The problem is that they have turned around and seen it as a new secret language they can operate in and use to defraud you. This is precisely the problem that Russell and I spent five days discussing in Texas. It now becomes necessary for everyone to learn PARSE SYNTAX so that you can defend yourselves in the venue of international law and commerce.

The vermin responsible for all this fraud and rot have had a long tradition of using “Federal Code” — think of actual coded language as in “Code Book” — combined with “Legal-ese”, the language of the lawyers, both of which attach special uncommon meanings to common words to form coded communications which are then used to defraud innocent Americans. The idea of using PARSE SYNTAX grammar for the same purpose was a no-brainer for these rats and they have eagerly accepted it.

According to Russell, this is their new backdoor trick. If you don’t present your claims in PARSE, they ignore them.

Improper grammar, they snort. Incorrect punctuation. Throw it out. Ho-hum. Mere gibberish…..

Well, so is Swahili gibberish to a non-Swahili, and French makes no sense to someone from Iceland who hasn’t studied French. As long as American English is our official language and it has its own punctuation and style conventions, PARSE has to be viewed as a foreign language from our perspective, just like Legalese, Italian, and Dutch. Russell justifies it in terms of being “correct” according to principles of math and logic, but as he also had to admit — it’s just as easy to lie in the language of math as it is to lie using any system of symbolic communication. Such a system only has to be consistent within the framework of its own declared assumptions to be “correct”, so, correctness— as we say in physics— is in the “givens”.

Russell is a righteous man, so he naturally sees the Truth in PARSE. The men we are dealing with naturally see it — and use it—for the exact opposite purposes.

There are advantages to identifying the foreign languages these vermin have been using against us. We have spent years breaking their codes and learning their lingo, so learning PARSE SYNTAX is just the latest challenge, but there is even more profound value in identifying whatever they are throwing at us as foreign language. “Foreign” to us means exactly that—- and serves to make the distinction between Americans and “US citizens” more obvious. RUSSELL-J:GOULD is never going to be recognized as a Proper Noun in American English. The style, form, and punctuation clearly identifies it as PARSE and implies the grammar that goes with it. That alone is a giant step forward toward honesty and truth in commerce.

People will need to make their own decisions about how best to crack the nut and what tools to use to crack it. I think that the strongest tools we have are our own values and sense of justice. No matter what language something is expressed in, whether the grammar is correct or not, we all know when something is unfair. We all recognize the criminality of trespassing on someone else’s assets. And a lie however it is expressed is still a lie.

Picture the scene: Commander Gould and I seated at my kitchen table, both heads bowed. We daily struggle with all that is false and selfish and small-minded in human nature, in ourselves and in others—-but at the same time, we have a glimpse of something in Mankind that is glorious and fine and generous, a part of All That Is.

In the days to come, I recommend that everyone work hard to take advantage of the “exits” that still exist in the standing law, working backwards to (1) claim and record your Common Law copyright to your name however it is styled, ordered, formed, or expressed, and then (2) issuing an Act of Expatriation and recording that as a Deed with the State Secretary of State. If there is anyone out there who is willing to fund the effort, the Living Law Firm can ferret out the statutes guaranteeing Common Law Copyrights in all fifty of the States of States. We can develop effective Acts of State. We can get it all translated into PARSE SYNTAX so the rats have no excuse. We don’t have the manpower, but we could hire enough paralegals and PARSE experts to get it done.

The first step reclaims your copyright interest in your own name (and therefore all the assets attached to it) and puts you in control of it, and the second step uncouples the “presumption” of “residency” and “US citizen” status being associated with your name. The first action gives you the key to unlock the door, the second allows you to walk through the door and lock it behind you. The third action– translation into PARSE– gives them no wiggle room to ignore anything you have done.

There are some additional niceties to be observed. Once you reclaim your name and your proper political status you will need to notify the authorities responsible– the Port Authority for your area (Coast Guard Commandant) and the Adjutant General (responsible for keeping and updating proper records) and the US Postmaster General. There are actually seven (7) Postmaster and Post Master offices, but you address it to the Postmaster General as he is in charge of the military end of things and is the actual Commander of the Coast Guard and Adjutant General’s Office in the Territorial Government that you have to notify about the changes in your status.

If you intend to conduct any kind of business outside your state of the Union you will need to post an Indemnity Bond with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and if you go offshore to conduct business of any kind you will need to notify the U.S. Secretary of State and give them notice.

We all need to become very much more aware of the “occupation” of the U.S. Army and the misconduct that has gone on in the international jurisdiction since the so-called American Civil War. By becoming aware and doing our due diligence we can save the world from criminality and predators. We can also exercise our God-given rights and enjoy our privacy and not be harassed.

Going right along with this aim, we all need to learn the “latest and greatest” foreign code—- PARSE SYNTAX—- and use it as Russell intended it to be used, as a defense against falsehood and tyranny.

Once you have yourself free and clear and beyond the reach of the vermin and their false claims against you, you can easily deal with the issue of Property Taxes and Income Taxes being imposed by foreign governments via false presumption and deceit. Once you can be recognized as a natural-born American state national, you can go to the Tax Assessor and claim back your land as the landlord exercising your “reversionary trust interest” —- and demand that it be listed as private property and not annexed as residential, industrial, or agricultural property belonging to the State of State.

If like millions of Americans you still have a mortgage, you have “issues” to resolve. American state nationals are not eligible for mortgages. You are the actual landlords, so any mortgage credits to be applied under any tenancy agreement has to be paid to you, not taken from you. American state nationals are not eligible for Social Security, either, and you should have never been enrolled. American state nationals don’t require or use marriage licenses. And though they are imposed “in the interests of public safety”, American state nationals are not required to use driver licenses, either, unless they are engaged in some business or trade that makes use of the public roads for private gain — commercial trucking operations, taxi and courier services, etc.

The foregoing mish-mash in which you have mistakenly enrolled or taken part in or been coerced to participate in programs meant for “US citizens” results in a lot of entanglements and potential controversies based on adhesion contracts. You were not told that these offers and programs were only for “US citizens” and you were not given full disclosure about which kind of “US citizen” was eligible and other aspects of these sugar-coated lumps of rabbit feces, either. As a result the contracts are invalid. Now what?

We are at the beginning of trying to settle such issues with the organizations responsible.

Those who actually own their homes, ranches, etc., free and clear of mortgage debts can go to the Title Company and request a Certificate of Redemption. They can then correct the Deed and Title to their assets, issue an Acknowledgement, Acceptance, and Re-Conveyance of Deed, transferring the property back to Stanton County Oregon or Pierce County Idaho or wherever else it is located and defining it as a private land parcel, tax-exempt, and described as……. “according to metes and bounds established by this Deed…..” and as further described as Number 452 Pickle-Lovers Lane (copyright symbol) — whatever name you make up to describe your parcel— belonging to Ted and Marcia (or Bill and Alice or….) Johnson, c/o Post Box 39980 in AnyState, blah, blah, blah. You record your deed in plain simple American English on page with the local land recording office, and you clearly “post” your land with the international black and white sign and “Private Property” signs.

The federal vermin have to recognize your claims, because their own claims depend on your land claims: without a land jurisdiction, they don’t have a delegated sea jurisdiction. And they are even motivated and grateful to see your claims appearing on the land recording district offices, because it is beginning to dawn on them that without us, they are nothing. Without us, they are open to seizure as pirates. Without us, all their State of State claims blow away in the wind.

They will still try to play their “You Can’t See Me” games using PARSE SYNTAX as the excuse. It is therefore important to learn PARSE and follow up with a Corollary Deed written in PARSE and added to the land record so that they can’t discount or “mistake” your meaning about any of this anymore. This would be the equivalent of re-writing your Acknowledgement, Acceptance, and Re-Conveyance of Deed in a foreign language and recording that for the benefit of the speakers who use that language. A properly translated PARSE deed serves notice to the vermin that the jig is up and that you know what they are doing.

So at last you can achieve that much-desired end of having your employees leave you and your assets alone, and forcing them to get back to work doing the job you hired them to do—- protecting you and your assets instead of bullying, attacking, and robbing you.

And wouldn’t that be a nice change of direction?

This is a long read and explanation of the circumstance and there are still a lot of things up in the air, but the basic outlines of the situation and the proper steps needed to deal with the Mess as it stands are becoming clear. I cannot stress enough that this whole circumstance is a process — not a single step, but many steps. They’ve been diddling around with this for 150 years. You can’t expect to overcome it all in an afternoon.

You need to think it through in a logical sequence and then reverse that sequence. It is a Maxim of Law that “as a THING is bound, so it is unbound”. Well, THINGS, here is your chance.

Reverse their claim and copyright of your name and estate by over-riding with a guaranteed Common Law Copyright pre-dating their claim. Record that. Give notice to the Coast Guard and Adjutant General and U.S. Postmaster General. Reverse their presumption that you are a US citizen with an Act of State returning your name and estate to Wisconsin, Minnesota, or wherever you came from. Record that. Give Notice to the State Secretary of State and U.S. Secretary of State. Reverse their unspoken claim that your land belongs to their franchise operating as a State of State and belongs to a “resident” and is either “residential, industrial, or agricultural” land. Correct the Deed. Record that. Give notice to the Tax Assessor and demand that your parcel be designated as private property and as tax exempt.

Learn PARSE and bring a Notice of the Fact written in PARSE as a translation of your claims and rebuttals and deeds. Record that. If they even think about messing with you, they will see that translation provided for their understanding and go away, far, far away.

So, now, at the end of all this— you are back on solid ground and the sharks have to remain in the sea. You are home at last. The snail is on his thorn. And the pick-pockets are on the run. If you are an honest and peaceful man, that’s what you wanted all along. Be willing to give that to other people, even those you consider to be enemies, and your own peace is assured.

The Rule of Love always overcomes the Rule of Law.

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger


The Sides of a Coin Anna Von Reitz

11/16/2017

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/11/the-sides-of-coin-anna-von-reitz.html

By Anna Von Reitz

Ancient Romans were fascinated by the two sides of a coin.  Here were two faces of the same thing….  Quite a concept, isn’t it?

The two faces of America are the jurisdictions of the land on one side and the jurisdiction of the sea on the other.  And to make it more complicated, part of the sea jurisdiction is under the control of the land jurisdiction– thanks to the so-called reserved powers.

Since 1860 the portion of the sea jurisdiction of America that was entrusted to and operated by the British Monarchs has been operated in fraud.

By Maxim of Law, fraud taints and vitiates everything, even the most solemn contracts known as treaties. Fraud voids all contracts “ab initio”—- “from the beginning”.

There is no statute of limitations that applies to fraud.

It’s like that scene in “The Raiders of the Lost Ark” where the Holy Spirit of God comes out of the Ark of the Covenant and destroys the evil Nazis, leaving Indiana Jones and his girlfriend at peace.

This is the Truth about fraud, and it is universally acknowledged, yet nobody quite seems to know what to do about a fraud this monstrous, this big, impacting virtually everyone on Earth.

Let’s begin by assuring everyone that there is still an American government and that that honest government is responsible for the land jurisdiction of this country.  The whole confusion and uproar is on the “other side of the coin”—- that portion of our government operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea that was entrusted to King George and his Successors. So let’s examine the situation.

The British government kept control of our international commerce (which is business between incorporated entities), our trade policies, our military, our coinage, and provided all the other services that we associate with the nineteen enumerated powers delegated to the federal government which was always as foreign to us as the government of Scotland.

If you never bothered to read or think deeply about The Constitution for the united States of America, please do so now, paying special attention to Article I Section 8 Clause 17, Article IV, and Amendment X.

The British were supposedly here to provide us with “essential government services”, under contract and under condition of trust obligation.  In exchange for all those powers, George III agreed to act as our Trustee on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways and to protect Americans and American vessels in commerce. (We are considered to be vessels engaged in international trade, not commerce, and our consciousness is our cargo.)

To accomplish this feat of political and commercial compromises, a constitution— a debt agreement— was agreed to, but in 1819 the upstart Americans decided that the members of the British Bar Association were not to be trusted and they passed the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) in that year.  Ever since, members of the Bar have been precluded from serving in our land jurisdiction government in each state and county, but not the portion of the federal government provided by Britain.

Say what?  By now, your head is spinning as you realize that there are members of the Bar sitting on every city council, every assembly, every school board, every state legislature and yes, in the Congress.  And they shouldn’t be there, except for one thing.  They have incorporated the old county and state governments and redefined them as franchises of the parent federal corporations doing business as the USA, Inc. and the UNITED STATES, INC. — not the actual land jurisdiction government owed to you and to this country at all.

So, what you think of as your government is not your government.  It’s their government pretending to be your government.  According to them, we are a nation of 350 million public servants, all here to provide essential government services.

There is the word that you need to keep your eye on: service.

Military service….

Banking service…..

Postal service….

US Marshals service….

Legal service…..

And so on…..

Absolutely every power this foreign entity exercises is a delegated power that they have been allowed to exercise under conditions of contract and trust, which they have violated and breached via semantic deceit, secrecy, and fraud.

So much for the “delegated powers”—- the federal corporations and the federal citizens responsible for providing the services and exercising the delegated powers have failed us, failed their duty, and participated in premeditated racketeering, abuse of bankruptcy protection, and fraudulent hypothecation of debt against us and against our assets.

It was the obvious intent of these monsters to levy their own debts against us and our assets as presumed sureties, and to discharge their debts in bankruptcy—- leaving us and our children’s children to pay for it.

These are acts of crime executed against the American states and people by their own employees under conditions of fraud and breach of trust; but, remember these are all “delegated powers” and those who delegated these powers— the American states and people, their heirs and assigns — have their own ship of state which is reserved to them, their own language (American English), their own law (American Common Law) and their own republican form of government, and all the rest.

Please keep it fixed in your mind that the “federal United States” which includes both the Municipal United States and the Territorial United States are foreign with respect to us.

They can have their own language(s) — their so-called “Federal Code” — and they can have their own “states” called “states of states” which are franchises of deceptively named parent corporations doing business as the USA, Inc. and the UNITED STATES and more recently, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  They can run their affairs as corporations, they can have their own offices, they can hire their own courts, they can promote political parties, they can hire the members of the Bar Associations and carry on however they wish, and as long as they are working for us, they can fly our flag under delegated power—- and none of it has anything to do with us, the actual Americans.

Let that sink in.

Your United States of America has never been bankrupt.  Theirs has. Repeatedly.

See this article and over 700 others on Anna’s website here:

http://www.annavonreitz.com


Almost $200 Million Donated to Representatives to Pass TPA

11/15/2017

https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Almost-200-Million-Donate-by-Paola-Casale-Banking_Congress_Control_Corporations-150620-523.html

 

 

Money in Politics

By Paola Masman      

Many think our government is for sale. However, by taking a look at the facts below provided by the Open Secrets, it is easy to understand where they are coming from. Looking back at Friday the 12th, the House voted on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the controversial bill that gives power to the executive branch to negotiate treaties. TPA limit’s Congress’ ability to better a trade deal by subjecting members of Congress to 90 days of reviewing the trade agreement, prohibiting any amendments on the implementing legislation, and giving them an up or down vote. TPA passed with a mere 219-211 vote with only 218 needed to pass. The real shocker comes from the amount of money each Representative received for a yes vote. In total, $197,869,145 was given to Representatives for a yes vote where as $23,065,231 was given in opposition.

  • John Boehner (R-OH) received $5.3 million for a “yea” vote and was the highest paid legislator.
  • Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) received $2.4 million for his “yea” vote.
  • Paul Ryan (R-WI) received $2.4 million for a “yea” vote and came in at the third highest paid legislator.
  • Pat Tiberi (R-OH) follows Paul Ryan, coming in the fourth spot having received $1.6 million for his “yea” vote.

The fifth highest paid legislator is somewhat of a “hero” in comparison to others. Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) received $1.6 million for a yes vote and only $282,710 for a no vote. Despite of his high contribution from those in favor of TPA, he still voted a solid nay.

We also have other hero stories.

  • Joe Crowley (D-NY) received 1.3 million for a “yea” vote and only $72,550 for a “nay” vote and he still voted against TPA.
  • Patrick Murphy (D-FL) received 1.1 million for a “yea” vote and only $213,360 for a “nay” vote and still voted against it.
  • Richard Neal D(MA) received $1.1 million for a “yea” vote and a mere $47,625 for a “nay” vote and still voted against it.

Democrats are not the only heroes in this voting session. GOP members spoke very loud and clear.

  • Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) received $541,746 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay” vote and he still voted “nay!”
  • Andy Harris (R-MD) received $254,803 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay” vote and he still voted “nay”.
  • Thomas Massie (R-KY) received $250,328 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay” vote and he still voted “nay.”
  • Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) received $180,832 for a “yea” vote and no money at all for a “nay vote” and she still voted “nay.”

Where did this kind of money come from? Those in favor of TPA were Security Brokers and Investment Companies who donated a whopping $11.3 million dollars for a “yea” vote. Or big banking companies who donated $10.1 million dollars. In other words, Wall Street hashed out millions and millions of dollars to push for the passage of TPA.

Those numbers are absolutely staggering. Corporations are taking control of what policies are approved or blocked in the U.S. We cannot sit around while corporations decide what is “good” for America or not! This is a democracy, not a plutocracy! Contact your representatives and let them know that you do not want them to vote in favor of TPA!

Paola Casale is a graduate of Otterbein University. She works for The Coalition for a Prosperous America as the Media Director who is in charge of overseeing that hidden news is uncovered. Paola meets with members of Congress in D.C. to discuss international trade agreements and how to aim towards fair trade instead of free trade.


The Whiskey Rebellion How Brand New America Tore Up The Bill of Rights

11/14/2017

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/the-whiskey-rebellion-how-brand-new-america-tore-up-the-bill-of-rights/

By Joe Jarvis

223 years ago, “The Dreadful Night” occurred in Western Pennsylvania, after an uprising called The Whiskey Rebellion.

The United States was brand new. Soldiers who had fought for independence from Great Britain found themselves on opposite sides of a skirmish. Some were having their rights violated practically before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Other Veterans of the Revolution were doing the oppressing at Alexander Hamilton’s behest.

The Whiskey Rebellion saw farmers stand up to an unfair tax handed down by the federal government, and the government responded with the force of a monarchy. It may have all sprung from Alexander Hamilton’s desire for glory. Or Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, may have had other motives for setting the precedent of force which still lives on today.

It all started after the Revolution, in 1791, when the federal government was in debt, and had no official money. The notes they paid to soldiers were worth fractions of what was promised, but many had no choice but to accept the funds and go home in order to try to survive.

But the soldiers were not the only ones who needed to be paid after the war. There were a number of rich investors and bankers who had provided the capital needed to win the Revolution. They too were awaiting repayment.

Alexander Hamilton had a better relationship with these financiers than with the soldiers. Hamilton was one of the leading banking figures of the time. He proposed a tax which would have two purposes. The tax would raise the revenue necessary to pay back the wealthy financiers of the Revolution. But the tax would also bring under the jurisdiction of the federal government a group of pioneers living in rural western Pennsylvania. The tax was to be levied on the production of whiskey, and not just at a commercial level. Everyone who made whiskey owed the tax. This would be the first federal tax on domestic goods.

This was a problem for the people of western Pennsylvania. Most people in this area used whiskey as a currency. Whatever surplus grain a family had would be converted into whiskey in order to preserve it. Whiskey would still have the calories of grain and was drank by almost everyone. It could be used for preserving and making some medicines.

Whiskey didn’t spoil, was widely used, and easy to transport. This made it an ideal currency. No need for banks, no need for paper money the worth of which can be manipulated. These people had tangible goods with intrinsic value absent of government mandate.

But Alexander Hamilton and the federal government insisted that the tax on whiskey be paid in coin.

For western Pennsylvanians, this amounted to an income tax. But even worse, now they had to find a way to convert their whiskey into coin. They had no use for coin since they used whiskey as a currency. But now the federal government would require them to use more time and effort just to pay the tax.

But it gets worse. Producers of whiskey were given a choice. They could pay a flat tax or pay a per gallon price. For commercial distillers who produced a lot of whiskey, the flat rate was cheaper than the per gallon rate. But for individuals, the per gallon rate was cheaper.

This was a political reward that Hamilton gave to commercial whiskey distillers in the area. They would now have the cheapest whiskey available since the flat tax worked out to a lower per gallon rate than home-distillers were forced to pay.

Hamilton did this to gain a foothold of support in the area (his enforcer was a large scale distiller) and to convert the economy of western Pennsylvania away from a whiskey-based currency. The sooner everyone was brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the sooner the government could raise money to pay for spending.

The tax destroyed the way of life for your average rural Pennsylvanian. First, they were singled out for a tax that most city dwellers would not be affected by. Next, they were forced to find a way to earn coin in order to pay the tax. Then, the tax made their whiskey more expensive compared to commercial distillers. This meant it was harder to sell, making it harder to convert the whiskey into coin to pay the tax.

Many people from this area moved out west to avoid the intricacies of society and government. Some were veterans of the Revolution. They would not accept this tax.

They were outraged that this tax was levied against them while the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the U.S. making the area unsafe. Seeing the tax as an advantage to grain growers (who owed no tax) and big distillers in the east (who owed a flat rate) also fueled western Pennsylvanian’s anti-federal sentiment.

They decided that if this was the way the new country was to treat its people, they wanted no part in it. They refused to pay the tax and served vigilante justice to tax collectors and other sympathizers of the federal government. They reacted similarly to how the United States reacted to unfair British taxes which sparked the Revolution.

By 1794 the climax of the situation unfolded. A U.S. Marshall was sent to the area and a showdown ensued. Some rebels were shot in a skirmish and their leader, a veteran of the Revolution, was killed. The tax collector and U.S. Marshall were captured only to later escape, and the fury of western Pennsylvanians peaked.

There was talk among the rebels that they should secede from the United States and form their own country. The plan that emerged was a watered down version of protest in which the rebels would march through Pittsburgh nonviolently. This was meant to send a message that they would not back down against what they saw as Hamilton’s attempts to pay back the wealthy by taxing the ordinary citizen.

President George Washington decided it was time to send in the army. A commission he sent to western Pennsylvania returned and recommended using the military to enforce the tax laws, and restore order.

By October 1794 Washington was seeing troops off, and heading back east, much to the dismay of some moderate locals including Congressman William Findley. He saw Washington as a fair president who just wanted to do what was right. Alexander Hamilton was the real force behind the army heading west, according to Findley, who was included on Hamilton’s list of possible rebels to be arrested.

Hamilton went with the army of nearly 20,000 as a civilian adviser. He was instructed by Washington to maintain the utmost discipline among the troops. As they advanced toward their target in western Pennsylvania, Hamilton was to prevent any breach of law by the troops, such as pillaging the countryside.

Officers harshly punished any soldier caught stealing, but the soldiers were doing so because of the lack of rations and clothing. Hamilton decided to solve this by making the theft of these goods legal. According to William Hogeland in his book The Whiskey Rebellion:

The quartermaster corps, [Hamilton] announced, would impress civilian property along the way. Now families watched helplessly as bayonet-wielding soldiers–no longer freelancing thieves but officials, authorized by the president–commandeered hard-won winter supplies of grain, meat, firewood, and blankets on behalf of the government of the United States. A steady, freezing rain meant the arrival of winter. Families whose sustenance was carted away faced grim months ahead (218).

Once the army and Hamilton finally arrived at the target county in western Pennsylvania, they contonued their oppression. They did not care much to follow the due process laid out in the Bill of Rights in new Constitution, despite Hamilton’s assurances to the President.

Many residents had signed oaths of support for the U.S. government. By signing, they risked local vigilante justice. But the U.S. promised that they would be pardoned as punishment was served to the region for failing to pay the new tax, and leading an insurrection against officials of the federal government.

These oaths were ignored and many who had signed them were arrested by Hamilton and the army anyway. A month earlier the first arrests of a few rebels had been made, prompting the most guilty among the rebels to flee. Anyone left in western Pennsylvania had minimal roles in the insurrection, and had certainly not led it. The most violent rebels, who had committed the worst acts against government officials, had already fled.

“The Dreadful Night” began in the middle of the night on November 13, 1794. Hamilton had created three lists of people: those who were not to be arrested, those who would be arrested, and those who were to be brought in as witnesses for questioning. The first list was not provided to the generals. Hamilton gave them the authority to arrest anyone they suspected of having participated in the rebellion, aided the rebels, raised liberty poles, or robbed the mail. He also authorized the troops to arrest local officials who failed to suppress the insurrection. The officers and soldiers who were passed these orders were delighted to finally have some excitement and authority on this trip west.

One particularly unstable officer named White was put in control of  the 40 prisoners which Hamilton thought would give the most valuable intelligence on the whole situation. These prisoners “were brought to a dark log structure” where they were tied up and seated on the muddy floor, and guarded by soldiers instructed to keep the prisoners away from the warmth of the fire. The tavern keeper was told he would be killed if any prisoners received food, and thus for more than two days the sadistic officer in charge:

…starved and dehydrated his shivering, exhausted captives, steadily cursing and castigating them, glorying in their helplessness and describing their imminent hanging. Even White’s troops became concerned about the captives who seemed barely alive (222).

The prisoners were then marched 12 miles in bad weather to be held in another jail, still without being charged with any crime. Following interrogation, most of them were eventually released without any criminal proceedings. This was unsurprising since most of those arrested were indeed innocent.

The arrests and brutality went on for several days throughout western Pennsylvania. This served as a reminder to all residents not to speak out against the federal government. Hamilton made it clear to the presiding judge that regardless of innocence, a good number of detainees would need to be marched back to Philadelphia in order to give the impression that the federal government had accomplished its goal, and put down a violent, unjustified rebellion. The judge held a number of rebels for trial even with what he considered lack of evidence, fearing that the army would revolt if too many prisoners were let go.

The prisoners that remained in custody were marched back to Philadelphia with great show in order to create the illusion of glory. It was essentially a photo op for Hamilton and Washington, who could now say, see, look what we did, look at the problems we solved. The prisoners were paraded on Christmas Day 1794 before 20,000 Philadelphians.

It was a disappointing show to the spectators who knowing that thousands of rebels had marched against the government, were surprised to see only twenty prisoners. Twelve cases went to trial, and two rebels were convicted. The rest weren’t released until 1796. They were left to find their way home if they could afford it. The whiskey tax remained hard to collect until it was repealed in 1801 by President Thomas Jefferson.

From the beginning of this country, the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution. Clearly, the due process rights of most of the “rebels” arrested were violated. Also violated were the rights of the farmers whose food and property was confiscated along the way in order to supply the army.

Cruel and unusual punishment was used on the prisoners, prior to them even being charged. What a precedent to set at the birth of a “free” country. They tore up the Bill of Rights before the ink had time to set.

With Hamilton’s broad presence in the foundation of the country’s banking and finances, is it any wonder that his vision has led us to where we are today? The government still uses taxes to give some businesses an advantage. The government still levies taxes which are meant to change the way citizens live their lives.

But remember that the government still found it hard to enforce and collect the whiskey tax. And today we can arrange our lives in a similar fashion, and make it difficult for the government to collect their unfair taxes. Let the spirit of rebellion inspire you.

Olddogs Comments

Those of you who have the intelligence and means to protect your rights must band together and teach those who do not, or we will certainly all go down together. The above article is nothing compared to what others have suffered over the years, and what we all will suffer in the near future if we do not stand up and fight back. The international Banking Cartel must be taken down one way or another. Greed is no different than pedophilia.