Time: Tue Mar 25 10:13:02 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03726; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:03:10 -0700 (MST) by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA03476; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:02:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:04:38 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Freedom (fwd) >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:50:32 -0800 >From: Douglas Walker <apta@discover.net> >Organization: APTA >To: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: Freedom > >You can do with this what you want. >-- >Doug > Is America a free Country? > >NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary) A state of >national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national >or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a >"state of national emergency" and a "state of war". Brown v. Bernstein, >D.C. Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732. This report begins with a series of >documents which are representative (Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents >contained in this Report. > >We will be quoting from in many cases, reports, Senate and Congressional >reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential >Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code. > >Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by Swisher called Constitutional >Development. 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 (Exhibit 9), 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 >theGerman 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 >tokeep 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 (Exhibit 10), 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 9 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 10. 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" and this situation has >continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933. > >In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11): "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 12) 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. 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 13), 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 >thepeoples 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 13, it says: "except in cases arising in the >land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of >War or public danger." > >We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already >contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be >necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution. Also from Senate >Report 93-549 (Exhibit 14), 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 >wentclear 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. And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy >of 12 USC and went to Section 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), 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 I, 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 March the 4th of 1933, or anything >that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to >do, is automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 10, >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 95 (b) is current law. This is the law that >exists over this United States 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 >beconfirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in >history. What happened on March the 4th of 1933? On March the 4th of >1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United >States. Referring to his inaugural address, which was given at a time when >the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read (Exhibit >16): "I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures >that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These >measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its >experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to >bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to >take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency >is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will >then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument >to meet the crisis broad Executive power to wage a war against the >emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in >fact invaded by a foreign foe." On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, >President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the >extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let's >see if he got it. > >On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary >session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. He called for the special >session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that >Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the >existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes. > >In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit 17), 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 >theabsolute 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 17), 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 15) today in Title 12, >USC 95 (b). The language in Title 12, USC 95 (b) 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 which 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 18), 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 >1; 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 theUnited >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 5 (b) of the same act (Exhibit 19), 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 >weregiven over our enemies. It is important to draw attention again to the >fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called >enemies. Consequently the government, under the war powers of this act, did >not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution. >Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do >anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. > >The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of >the United States will become crucial later on. In Section 2 of the Act of >March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), "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 added): "During time of war or during any other period >of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, >through any agency that be may designate, or otherwise, >investigate,regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as be >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". > >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. > >To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at >thebeginning 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. > >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 >beenremoved 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 17) >"through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, >regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe >by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, >transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined >by the President and export, boarding, melting or earmarking of gold or >silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United Statesor >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 20), 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 21), 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, c1. 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 >uslook 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 22), 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 23), 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 >thememorandum, 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 24): "The produce of the soil of the >hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the >hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always >regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner". > >>From the case (Exhibit 25) 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 >attorneyfrom 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 26), 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 22, wasn't it? So once we were declared >enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way we could nowdo >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 Drivers 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 27) "But it is >necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without >hurting somebody, even, at times, our own citizens. The public good, >however, must prevail over private gain. As we said in Bishop v. Jones (28 >Texas, 294), there cannot be "a war for arms and a peace for commerce". One >of the most important features of the bill is that which provides for the >temporary taking over of the enemy property." This point of law is >important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary takeover of >enemy property. > >The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned, >mustn't it? The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent right >of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war >terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and >the Admiral says, "I'm seizing 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 >added), "Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all >doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and >impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into >the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may >even be destroyed without the consent of the owner..." This quote, and >indeed this case, provides a vivid frustration 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 30) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which >follows: "Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. > >Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve >Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and >gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency >..." > >In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must >recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the >creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in >the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other >things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. >We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the >Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, >at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be >given back our gold which we had deposited. > >Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and >its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, 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, thebankers >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 31): "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 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 31), 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 normal 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 where that, " began, >what did the original Act of October 6, 1917, say? > >Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) >of the Act of October 6, 1917 says: "(other than credits relating solely to >transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)." This >portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from taking >control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't it? > >However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of >October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933 (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 "was, in all to likelihood, >meantbe 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 Congressto >be held on March 9, 1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 32: "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 >32. 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 33. In reading from Exhibit 33, 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 he may >prescribe, 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 hiking 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, 1917, as amended, are >approved and confirmed;" > >This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations >heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed, >citing the authority of Section 5 (b). The key words here being "all" and >"approved". Further: "Whereas, said national emergency still continues, >and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March 9, >1933, in order to accomplish such purposes." We again clearly see that >there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase, "further measures >extending beyond March 9, 1933 ...". > >Could this be the beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How >long can this type of action continue? 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 >continuedin 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 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 >byCongress. > >President Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of Congress' >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 United States, the Secretary of the >Treasury, in his discretion, may require any or all individuals, >partnerships, associations and corporations to pay and deliver to the >Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and >gold certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and >corporations." By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in 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 >TradingWith the Enemy Act? The enemy's. Whose gold was seized? Ours - >the gold of the people of the United States. 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 government officials and various local agencies to the advisability >of issuing clearinghouse certificates or some similar form of local >emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury issued >a regulation authorizing clearing houses to issue demand certificates >against sound assets of the banking institutions, but this authority was >not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing of >these certificates was actually begun, but after the passage of the >Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became >evident that they would not 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 added): "Upon the deposit with the >Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the >United States ..." What is a direct obligation of the United States? It's a >treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon "We the People" to >perform. It's a taxpayer obligation, isn't it? Title 4 goes on: "or (b) >of my 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 >thecurrency 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 chattel, aren't we? We have no >rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became >chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and >obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes. > >Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit >40):"The money will be worth l00 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 Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury. The Treasury holds the > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail