Time: Tue Mar 25 10:13:12 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA04305; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:04:13 -0700 (MST) by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA03556; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:03:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:05:50 -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 > >assets. We are the collateral... 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 madeWe, >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 Treasury took over 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 >thepassage on March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95b). >Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss. 883, 184 So. 626. The present law >forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking >business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during >an emergency proclaimed by the President. 12 U. S. C. A. Sect. 95" Take >special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the >phrase, "present law". The fact that banks are under regulation of the >Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by >virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more >evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency. > >>From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (Exhibit 43): "To >issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and others >to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign >commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof." This is the >seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority. In >the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar >seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed by the >government over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, >communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all >naturalresources. > >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 nights 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 >obligationhereafter 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 takeover 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 >asevere 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 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 >bills can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The >Constitution is suspended. It has been for 60 years. We're not under law. >Law has been abolished. We're under a system of public policy, (War >Powers). So when you go into that courtroom with your Constitution and 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 added): "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): >"Myrecollection 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 n 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): "TitleIII >- 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 >thefloating 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 canceled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section >13(Exhibit 54): "This title shall cease to be in effect whenever >thePresident 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 become the >regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by >Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme >situations, and for the most limited duration's, have become everyday >powers, and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition." > >>From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935) (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 only be an exaction for the support of >government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. >That would be socialism, wouldn't it? > >Quoting further from United States v. Butler (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 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." > >>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. 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. 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 usage's of war make a distinction between enemies' >property captured on the sea and property captured on land. The >jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over property captured at >sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in the absence of >Congressional action." There is no standing prize court over the land. >Once war is declared, Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts >over captures on the land by positive Congressional action. > >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 usage's of war." So we see >that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its sovereign >peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution >and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime >capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by >the Constitution, but only by the laws of war. > >In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy >Act (Exhibit 67): "That the district courts of the United States are >hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and >otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as >may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of >this act." Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of >the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy >property within the continental United States. And at the time of the >original, unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a >World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts >was appropriate. > >At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were >excluded from the provisions of the original act. In 1934 Congress passed >an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law. This Act, known as >the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect >until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to >Congress. > >The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur >until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938 (Exhibits >67(a) and (b)). But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were >declared to be the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading >With the Enemy Act. > >What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were now the >booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. It was no >longer be necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution of >the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no >longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty >jurisdiction. > >Take a look at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The gold >fringe around our flag designates Admiralty jurisdiction. Executive Order >No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 (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 one-sided 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 >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 (12 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 Rights" (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 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 >1933is 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 canceled. 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. 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 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 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 and to >those who have gone before us 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. No matter how long after >the date you read 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 reestablish law and order and restore our national >pride. They must, repeal proclamation 2039, 2040, and Title 12 USC 95(a) >and 95(b), thereby canceling the National Emergency, and reestablish the >Constitution of 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 dally 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 canceled 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. 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 Americans and that means far more than >most of us realize. If it 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 lots of >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 as well as our future. > >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 out homeland >from the hands of those who would see her fall. We cannot, we must not >fail. > >Example Letter to the President > >Date: > >Your NameAddress City, State, Zip > >President Clinton1600 Pennsylvania Ave.Washington, D.C. 20510 > >Sir: I am an American citizen who is aware of the extraordinary powers >conferred upon you by the declared state of "national emergency" under >which America has labored for over sixty years. These powers, available to >the Executive branch since March of 1933, have effectively placed the >American people in slavery, by nationalizing the vital industries of this >nation and removing the common law from our court system. I understand >that, because of this ongoing "national emergency", the Constitution of the >United States has been effectively set aside. > >I remind you now of the oath you took upon entering the office which you >now occupy by permission of the American people. When you took your oath of >office, you swore that you would uphold the Constitution of the United >States. > >I charge you now to carry out the duties and actions of your oath of >office, and return the Constitution to its rightful place in our >government by canceling the state of national emergency. I urge you to >repeal Proclamations 2039 and 2040, and the amended version of the Trading >with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, especially Section 5 (b), under >which so many actions injurious to the spirit and livelihood of the >American people have been taken. > >If you are unwilling or unable to take these steps toward restoring >America to the Constitutional republic she was designed to be, I urge you >to resign from your position as a servant of the American people. I will >continue to urge our government to correct this situation until such time >as you have canceled the state of national emergency, and returned the >Constitution of the United States to its rightful owners - We, the People. > >Sincerely, > > >Back to letters to servants Example Letter to the House of Representatives > >Date: > >Your Name >Address >City, State, Zip > >The Honorable United States House of Representatives >2449 Rayburn Building >Washington, D.C. 20510 > >Dear Sir (or Madam): > >I am taking advantage of my American freedom, while I still have it, to >urge you to stand up for the American people, and make it your position >that the declared state of national emergency which has operated in this >great nation for over sixty years be canceled immediately. > >I have been apprised of the amendment to Section 5(b) of the Trading with >the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and understand the extraordinary powers >it has conferred upon the Executive branch of our government. > >These excessive powers have been used to sell our nation into slavery, by >effectively nationalizing our vital industries and separating the American >citizen from their nights under common law. I know that the Constitution >of this United States has been set aside under this "national emergency". > >I urge you now, as a servant of the American people, to commit yourself to >working for its immediate return to its rightful owners - We, the People. >If you are unwilling or unable to take this stand in defense of your >country, I request that you tender you resignation so that another may take >your place who is willing and/or able to do what you are not. The 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 >our government from falling into error." > >As such, I hereby charge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and 2040, and 12 >USC 95 (a) and (b), reestablish the Constitution of the United States to >its rightful position in our government, and Let My People Go. >Sincerely, > > >Back to letters to servants > >Example Letter to the United States Senate > >Date: > >Your Name >Address >City, State, Zip > >The Honorable United States Senate >703 Hart, Senate Bldg. >Washington, D.C. 20510 > >Dear Sir (or Madam): > >I am taking advantage of my American freedom, while I still have it, to >urge you to stand up for the American people, and make it your position >that the declared state of national emergency which has operated in this >great nation for over sixty years be canceled immediately. > >I have been apprised of the amendment to Section 5(b) of the Trading with >the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and understand the extraordinary powers >it has conferred upon the Executive branch of our government. > >These excessive powers have been used to sell our nation into slavery, by >effectively nationalizing our vital industries and separating the American >citizen from their nights under common law. I know that the Constitution >of this United States has been set aside under this "national emergency". > >I urge you now, as a servant of the American people, to commit yourself to >working for its immediate return to its rightful owners - We, the People. >If you are unwilling or unable to take this stand in defense of your >country, I request that you tender you resignation so that another may take >your place who is willing and/or able to do what you are not. The 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 >our government from falling into error." > >As such, I hereby charge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and 2040, and 12 >USC 95 (a) and (b), reestablish the Constitution of the United States to >its rightful position in our government, and Let My People Go. > >Sincerely, >(Your name) > ======================================================================== 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