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