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