Home Page .



War and Emergency Powers
Civil Courts ...
Definitions ...
Other Terms ...
References and Sources


In Reg: P.L. 94-412
(90 Stat. 1255)

The "High Water Mark" has been breached many times in the relatively short span of American History.

It has been said that:

"Unquestionably the High Water Mark of the exercise of Executive emergency power in the United States is found in the Administration of Abraham Lincoln."
                               (Brief History, p. 10-11)

Churchill had this to say about the unlimited powers of emergency and war government:

"This has been called the High Water Mark in the voluntary surrender of liberty. Parliament stands custodian of these surrendered liberties and it's most sacred duty will be to restore them when victory is won."
                               (Emergency Powers Statutes, p. 13)

During times of crisis, the government becomes custodian of all Rights of man; including the Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. However; when the crisis is over, the Rights return to the individual and the government returns to it's normal peacetime functions as protector of these Rights.

The division line between these two modes of government, i.e., peacetime and crisis, is called the "High Water Mark," and has never been more pertinent than it is today.

Historically, once the government gains power during times of crisis, it is reluctant to relinquish the power.

It was during the wars of 1812, 1847, 1861, 1917, and 1941 that the "War Powers" were gradually and insidiously defined. However, it was with the declaration of "National Emergency" of March 9, 1933 that our government took permanent control through lack of complacency by the People.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared National Emergency."
                              (Senate Report 93-549, Part III)

At this point; the American People temporarily lost their Rights to the government and these Rights have never been restored. The American government now claims the Power of Right and rules the People, by statute, in all cases whatsoever. Although redundant; the American People must understand that during times of war or national emergency, they have no Rights. The United States government, during these times of crisis, becomes custodian to the Rights. When the emergency government is in operation, all Rights to Due Process of Law (long process) are suspended which leaves no bar against governmental violations of your Rights. The People become mere objects (In Rem) with no Rights to be protected (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 713).

The government, when in control of the Rights, can do whatever it deems necessary. The role of the Courts changes from that of "protector of the Rights" to "enforcer of the statutes."

Once the emergency is over, the roles reverse. The following study will show that the "national emergency" was officially terminated in 1976; however, the American People remain ignorant of this fact.

When the American People understand that they need only demand the relinquishment of the Powers of Right; they will once again regain their Rights, Freedom, and Property.

A study of the following document will answer these questions.

  1. When are the People of the United States of America free and when are they not?

  2. When do the People have Rights and when do they not?

  3. When do the Courts of Common Law operate and when do Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction and court-martial operate?

  4. When do the People own Property and when does the government own Property?

  5. When can government operate in it's "corporate capacity?"

  6. When are you treated "In Rem" and when are you treated "In Personam?"

As it stands now; the government is claiming all Rights to your Liberty and Property. The solution to this problem, however, is in the hands of the People; not the government's.



Top .




Recent American developments concerning War Power and emergency controls of our Economy, Property, and Rights are strikingly similar to the elements of the British experience. Twentieth century British government, completely un-restrained by written Constitutional limitations and free to invoke the vague and undefined prerogative powers in time of emergency, have successfully "statuere" prerogative Emergency Powers. That is to say; they have prescribed by statute the range of authority available to the Executive and the relationships between the Executive, the Legislature, and the Courts while under emergency rule.

In the United States of America; despite or perhaps because of the existence of formally inscribed Constitutional limitations upon the power of government and formally inscribed Constitutional separation of powers of government, there has insidiously evolved a prerogative Emergency Power of largely undefined content and without Constitutional authorization to which the Executive has appealed with almost uniform success in time of emergency (Hearings p. 539).

The present status of Emergency and War Power doctrine and practice in the United States is out of control.

"Since March 9, 1933; the United States has been in a state of declared National Emergency. ... A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For almost 60 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought in force by states of National Emergency."
                               (Senate Report 93-549, Part III)

While under Emergency rule; the government claims that there are no limitations on its powers. The Legislative branch can write statutes for all cases whatsoever. The Executive branch can, through Executive order, Executive agreements, and Executive proclamations; make rules, regulations, and laws concerning all subject matter. The Judicial branch can make law through case precedent and enforce all Executive or Legislative decrees.

All Constitutional limitations on the power of government are effectively suspended. The Rights of men, as guaranteed by the "Bill of Rights," are temporarily suspended. The three branches of government unite into one emergency body and work in concert to formulate and enforce this emergency rule.

Needless to say; emergency rule is perilous to the freedom of People. When emergency rule is declared and never terminated; the government becomes, for all practical purposes, a dictator. For example:

"Germany, after the First World War, framed the Weimar Constitution, designed to secure her liberties in the Western tradition. The President was empowered under this Constitution to temporarily suspend any or all individual rights if public safety and order were seriously disturbed or endangered. Hitler persuaded President Von Hidenburg to suspend all such rights and they were never restored."
                               (Senate Report 93-549, p. 12)

We all know the rest of the story. The Constitutional Republic of Germany was converted into a "fascist dictatorship."

Consequently we see that Constitutional morality is undermined by the crude adaptation of the governmental prerogative to act in accordance to statute in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Law, in time of emergency.

This doctrine has been used, and is presently being used, to justify the extreme assertions of prerogative Emergency Powers by American government (Hearings p. 540). See also Hancock and Gowing, British War Economy 83 (1949).

The theory of lawless reaction to emergency breeds lawlessness in time of war or peace and corrupts the essential process of Constitutionalism. Statutes and Executive proclamations, enacted under emergency rule during the turmoil of the economic emergency of the 1930's, continue to this day.

Scores of Executive agencies, designed to meet emergency needs with Emergency Power, continue to function and have become normal occupants of our every day lives (Emergency Power Statutes, p. 1).

It is interesting to note that the precedent for these actions began not in the United States; but in Great Britain whose parliamentary form of government was unrestrained by the chains of a Constitution.

Our forefathers, being aware of these dangers, placed extreme limitations upon this prerogative power of government in our Constitution. They also created a system of checks and balances by separating the powers of government into three different branches. Each branch was given limited and separate powers independent of the other branches. There were absolute prohibitions against one branch of government delegating it's powers to another branch (U.S. Const., 10th Amendment).

Through the insidious encroachment of government, through numerous and continuous emergency periods and through the complacency of the American People; the un-restrained prerogative power of government has once again shown its face and subjugated our People; the exact situation which the Constitution was written to prevent is now firmly entrenched.

President Lincoln, early on in our history, tried to justify these actions in a letter to A.G. Hodges, April 4, 1864:

"Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? ... I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation."
                               (Brownlow p. 57-58)

A follow-up question should have also been asked:

"Is it possible to lose the Constitution and yet preserve the nation? ... this is possible only if the Constitution is returned in its entirety, when the emergency passes; otherwise you have preserved a nation, but the nation preserved is totally different from the nation to be preserved in the first place."
                               (Schroder, 1992)

and this has become the case.

A closer look at the British experience might therefore be helpful in understanding the prerogative powers of government and the Constitutional dictatorship which has evolved in this country.

In Great Britain; the latest period of formal control commenced with the issuance of a proclamation following a meeting of the "Privy Council" on August 14, 1914. This was the beginning of World War I (London Times, p. 3, col. 3).

The proclamation, which probably was intended to extend a cloak of legality over military and government action during the first days of World War I, asserted that the King's "undoubted prerogative and the duty of all Our loyal subjects in Our behalf in times of imminent national danger to take all such measures as may be necessary for securing the public safety and the defense of Our Realm."

It then set forth the existence of an "imminent national danger" and exhorted His Majesty's subjects to "obey and conform to all instructions and regulations which may be issued by Us or Our Admiralty or Army Council, or any officer of our Army or Navy, or any other person acting in Our behalf ..." (Hearings, p. 539-540).

Many English statutes, at least as early in history as the reign of Edward VI, were designed to strengthen the national war potential through economic regulations or contained exceptional provisions to be invoked in times of emergency (Hearings, p. 540).

These acts included:

  1. Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1880, 43 Vict., C. 14

  2. Bank Holidays Act, 1871, 34 & 34 Vict., C. 58, 108A, 115

It is a historical fact that all governments during times of crisis take control of banking and currency issuance, claim unlimited power to tax the People, to finance the extraordinary actions and thereby control all economic and social agendas.

In the first six days of August 1914; some seventeen orders and proclamations of a general nature were issued under these statutes. Additional statutes were enacted by Parliament to cope with special problems. These orders, proclamations, and statutes became the base additional orders and regulations (Hearings, p. 540).

On the afternoon of August 7, 1914; the House Secretary, "coming into the House without a draft of the Bill, with only half a sheet of notes in my hand" asked the Commons to give the government the "Defense of the Realm Act" (DORA) (Hearings, p. 540).

This was a hurriedly devised translation of "martial rule" and prerogative concepts into statutory provisions. This was the cornerstone of the edifice of War and Emergency Powers.

The DORA elaborated and rephrased, as a statutory delegation of power, the prerogative proclamation of August 4, 1914. His Majesty, in council, was given the power to issue regulations defining the powers of persons acting in His behalf for securing the public safety and the defense of the Realm.

Under this act; the government could authorize a trial by "Summary Jurisdiction" for punishment of persons who disobeyed the orders and regulations (statutes).

By the second World War; the powers granted in this and subsequent DORA's extended to the total mobilization and control of Labor and Property.

The "Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Act" ("DORA Consolidation Act" (1914), 5 Geo, 5, C.B.) added a catch-all provision authorizing regulations designed "otherwise to prevent assistance being given to the Enemy or the successful prosecution of the war being endangered." The "Act" gave government the power, in its discretion, to make violations of defense regulations subject to trial by Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction (Hearings, p. 542).

There was no evidence of intent to use this power as other than a Damocles' sword to hold over the heads of recalcitrant businessmen. It was thought that the threat of coercion might produce voluntary cooperation "to secure the maximum output." (Hearings, p. 542).

The initial "DORA" and amendments through March 1915 established the pattern for emergency legislation and enforcement in Britain. Subsequent enactments merely enlarged the sphere within which this pattern applied. Major economic and special controls were authorized by later DORA's (Stanford Law, p. 543-44).

"29. Defense of the Realm (Amendment No. 3) Act, 1915, 5 & 6 Geo. 5, c 42 (partial prohibition of sale of alcoholic beverages); Defense of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, 6 & 7 Geo. 5, c 63; id. 1920, 10 & 11 Geo. 5, c 79; Defense of the Realm (Beans, Peas and Pulse Orders) Act, 1918, 8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 12 (controlled the production of specified vegetables); Defense of the Realm (Employment Exchanges) Act, 1918, * & 9 Geo. 5, c. 58; Defense of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918, 8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 9 (set heavy fines on food profiteering). In addition, the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, 6 & 7 Geo. 5, c. 68, set up new ministries of Labour, Food, and Shipping to help consolidate control of the war economy. This Act, in a sense, symbolizes partial resolution of the problems related to economic control which drove Asquith from office and resulted in the Lloyd George War Cabinet. See Smellie, A Hundred Years of English Government 185 et. seq. (1950)."
                               (Hearings, p. 542)

These DORA's were broad enabling Acts which contemplated subsidiary legislation by the Executive, i.e. "Executive Orders, Agreements and Federal Regulations" (Stanford Law).

It should be noted that emergency rule leads to a consolidation of the branches of government; the separation of powers are abandoned. The Legislative branch delegates much of its Legislative power to the Executive. The Executive maintains its administrative power and gains Legislative power. The Judiciary becomes the enforcement branch to carry out this exclusive Legislative and Administrative power. This government, in essence, rules by statute in all cases whatsoever. Man's Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, are subjugated by this Emergency Power.

Since American development of Emergency Powers are strikingly similar to the British development it is imperative that one study the contents of the "Hearings before the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency of the United States Senate," Ninety-third Congress, First Session, Part 2 - Views of the Former Attorney Generals, Washington, D.C., July 24, 1973, Constitutionalizing Emergency Powers, the British Experience, Cornelius P. Cotter, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, April, 1953.

A review of the War and Emergency Powers and their development in the United States is consequently in order:

"The United States has been in a state of National Emergency since March 9, 1933. ... especially since the days of the 1933 economic emergency, it has been Congress' habit to delegate extensive emergency authority - which continues even when the emergency has passed - and not to set a terminating date. "The United States has on the books enough Emergency Power statutes to effect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal Constitutional processes."
                               (Brief History, Forward, p. V)

The story remains the same. Once the prerogative power is obtained during times of crisis; there is reluctance on the part of the government to give it up. The beginning of Emergency Powers in the United States, however, did not start in 1933; rather it began shortly after the Constitution was adopted.

One of the first exercises of Emergency Power came in the summer of 1792 when the inhabitants of western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas began (forcefully) opposing a Federal excise tax on whiskey.

Congress enacted legislation calling forth the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions (Brief History, p. 6; see also Stat. 264 265).

More sweeping emergency authority was granted by the "Alien Act" of 1798. This "Act" delegated to the President virtually unlimited power to "direct the conduct" of Nationals of hostile countries (Corwin Opinion, Cit. p. 158). Presidents Jefferson and Madison enlarged the scope of Presidential prerogative with the purchases of the Louisiana Territory in may of 1803 and taking possession of West Florida for National security purposes. Special emergency statutes were issued during the War of 1812 (Clark, Opinion Cit. pp 190 - 1026).

These statutes pertained to shipping, trading with the enemy, regulation of imported goods, control of foreign vessels, and compensation for Property lost during military service. These statutes caused problems and the stewardship view of Presidential authority began to be argued before the U.S. supreme court. This initiated rationalization for Emergency Powers and actions by the Chief Executive and Congress. Corwin observed:

"As early as 1818, it had been recognized by the Court that the United States had, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, a common-law right to sue on a bill of exchange endorsed to the Treasurer of the United States" (Dugan's Executors v. United States, 3 Wheat. 172 [1818]); and a few years later, the broad general doctrine had been laid down "that the United States, being a body politic, as an incident to their general sovereignty, have a capacity to enter into contracts" "within the general sphere of their constitutional powers" through the instrumentality of the appropriate Executive department "whatever such contracts ... are not forbidden by law" (United States v. Tingy, 5 Pet. 115 [1831]). In the latter case, moreover, the Court had listened to argument by the Attorney General that in the performance of the trust enjoined on him by the "take care" clause, the President "not only may, but ... is bound to avail himself of every appropriate means not forbidden by law" and while the Court does not avert to this contention, the immediate and inevitable result of its holding was the location in the Executive department of the power that it ascribed to the United States Government in its corporate capacity.
                               (Brief History, p. 8)

From this documentation; it follows that during times of war or emergency, the government becomes custodian of all Rights and Property; in essence, the Government become the owners. It therefore follows that the Government assumes the Common Law Right to sue on behalf of this Right. The Government also takes on the corporate capacity to do business on behalf of the People and Property. This corporate capacity is located in the Executive branch of the government.

However it must also be understood that when the emergency is over; the Rights and the Property returns to the People. The corporate capacity of government to do business on their behalf must, cease.

Additional legal argumentation on this matter followed the War of 1847 when Attorney General Caleb Cushing, in 1853 and 1854, prepared a series of opinions regarding the Chief Executive's authority:

"One of these claimed for the President, the power, as growing out of his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," institute investigations and incur expenditures therefor which it became the moral obligation of Congress to meet (6 Opins. A.G. 28). Another held that although no statue made it the duty of the United States to assume the legal defense by counsel of marshals and other ministerial officers of the law when they were used for their official emergency acts, yet it was within the discretion of the President to do so if he was persuaded that such officers were being harassed by suits on this account (6 Opins., A.G. 220). Pertinent too was Cushing's holding a little later that a marshal of the United States, when opposed in the execution of his duty by unlawful combinations, had authority to summon the entire able-bodied force of his precinct as a posse comitatus, comprehending not only bystanders and citizens generally but any and all organized armed forces, whether militia of the states, or officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines of the United States (6 Opin., A.G. 466).
                               (Brief History, p.6)
"From this history of the exercise of emergency powers, President Lincoln would rely upon the posse comitatus argument in justification of his call for volunteers in April of 1861. Cushing's opinion would also be articulated in the cases of In re Neagle (1890) and In re Debs (1895), both of which resulted in broader Presidential discretion in the exercise of implied emergency power."
                               (Brief History, p. 8)

It was partially because of these newly acquired powers of government (to control the economy and to enforce the prerogative powers) that in 1860, following the election of Lincoln to the presidency, the southern states seceded from the Union.

It was obvious that the constitutionally protected "states Rights" were falling to the Federal emergency prerogative. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the People") had been usurped; suspended by the Federal government during these periods of crisis, and were not terminated. Through its Corporate capacity; the Federal Government had taken the Common Law Rights of the states.

As a result; a confederate Provisional Government was established on February 9, 1861 with Jefferson Davis elected as President on February 9, 1861 and inaugurated as President of the Confederacy on February 18, 1861. A new Nation was formed. The southern Nation declared there was Federal usurpation of state's Rights and open warfare began. Lincoln, therefore, took decisive action.

Wilfred E. Binkley remarked on Lincoln's actions:

"Unquestionably the high-water mark of the exercise of Executive Power in the United States is found in the administration of Abraham Lincoln. No President before or since has pushed the boundaries of Executive Power so far over into the legislative sphere. No one can ever know just what Lincoln conceived to be limits of his Powers."

In his own words; Lincoln wrote:

"... my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government ... that nation ... of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had ever tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together."

President Lincoln proclaimed:

"I conceive that I may in an emergency do things on military grounds which cannot constitutionally be done by the Congress."
                           (George Fort Milton, 
                               "The Use of Presidential Powers" 1789-1943)
                                  Boston Little Brown & Co.  1944, p. 111
"As interpreted by President Lincoln, the war power specifically included the right to determine the existence of "rebellion" and call forth the militia to suppress it; the right to increase the regular army by calling for volunteers beyond the authorized total; the right to suspend the habeas corpus privilege; the right to proclaim martial law; the right to place persons under arrest without warrant and without judicially showing the cause of detention; the right to seize citizens' property if such seizure should become indispensable to the successful prosecution of the war; the right to spend money from the treasury of the United States without congressional appropriation; the right to suppress newspapers; and the right to do unusual things by proclamation, especially to proclaim freedom to the slaves of those in arms against the Government. These were some of the conspicuous powers which President Lincoln exercised, and in the exercise of which he was as a rule, though not without exception, sustained in the Courts."
                               (Brief History, pp. 10-11)

From Lincoln's interpretation of the War and Emergency Powers; we can see how government frees itself from the Constitution to enforce actions that are in fact, unconstitutional.

To begin with; the government, while under the Constitution, cannot hold a person to answer for a crime of its own accord. The U.S. Const., 5th Amendment prevents this type of action. It says that: "no person can be held to answer for crimes, except by presentment or indictment of a grand jury."

We, the People, retained the "charging power" and thus the government is powerless to enforce its unconstitutional emergency statutes and decrees. If the government did, in fact, try to hold a person to answer for violation of an unconstitutional emergency decree; that person would need only to file a "Writ of Habeas Corpus" and would immediately be released under the U.S. Constitution as the procedure by which he was held violated the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment.

In order to enforce emergency rule; the government must suspend the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment and the "Writ of Habeas Corpus," then it must increase its police force for these enforcement actions; and further, the government must also suspend the part the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment which says: "No property shall be taken for public use without just compensation" which is a "bar" against direct taxation and seizure actions. With the suspension of this portion of the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment (Property acquisition statutes in Britain); the government assumes the Right to seize citizen's Property if such seizures become indispensable to the successful protection of the War or Emergency.

This seizure of Property relates not only to real Property; but also to money. The government further declares that it gains the Right to spend, create, and borrow money and mortgages the Property and People, which it has gained the Right to seize. The government, under emergency rule, controls public opinion by controlling information through the press. Government gains power to pass statutes and/or make proclamations concerning any subjects without concern of constitutionality.

The Courts become the enforcement arm for the Executive and Legislative branches. The separation of powers and the checking powers no longer exist. The Common Law Courts are converted into "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction."

In the end; the South was defeated. The North claimed the South as a captured Nation. The hostilities between the Union and the Confederacy opened without a "Declaration of War" and terminated without a "Treaty of Peace." Congress never officially declared "War" and the South never officially surrendered. Thus the legality of the captures and prize of this War was brought into question:

"What the Supreme Court held was simply this: that the President of the United States has the constitutional power, under such circumstances as he shall deem imperative, to brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in general insurrection. In otherwords, he has an almost un-restrained power to act toward insurrectionary citizens as if they were enemies of the United States, and thus place them outside the protection of the Constitution. This, it seems hardly necessary to state, is dictatorial power in the extreme. The Constitution can be suspended after all ... by any President of the United States who ascertains and proclaims a widespread territorial revolt. In the interval between April 12 and July 4, 1861; a new principle thus appeared in the constitutional system of the United States, namely, that of a temporary dictatorship."
                               (Brief History, p. 15)

Another issue argued before the Court was the question of the suspension of the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" and the declaration of "Martial Law."

On April 22, 1861; Lincoln issued a proclamation suspending the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" and instituting "Martial Law." However; the U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 9 gave this Power only to Congress. This issue was heard in the case of Ex parte Merryman. Chief Justice Taney ruled in favor of Merryman and ordered his release; but the Order was ignored because the Court lacked military power (Brief History, p. 16).

It is important to reiterate at this point that the institution of martial law, through the Courts of martial law or the Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, must also be accompanied by the suspension of the "Writ of Habeas Corpus." During peacetime; should the government try to enforce its emergency statutes and charge individuals on information of its own officers; the action would necessarily be declared "void" upon the filing of the "Writ of Habeas Corpus."

The "Writ of Habeas Corpus" requires that before a person can be held to answer for a crime; there must be a charge by the Grand Jury; and only by the Grand Jury. The person cannot be charged and held to answer simply by information of a government official.

The "Writ of Habeas Corpus" acts as a "bar" against government prerogative. Consequently; it is stated at U.S. Const., I:9:2 that the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." This proposition is also supported at the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment where it states that: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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."

It is from the exception clauses of these two sections of the Constitution that the government claims the War and Emergency Powers. When war or an emergency is declared; the government becomes "dictatorial" in nature with unrestricted enforcement power. The People are treated as though they are enemies of the corporate United States, and thus are placed outside the protection of the Constitution.

Thus we see that martial law, Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, suspension of indictments, suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, abolition of the process of Common Law and government seizure actions can only occur under the emergency prerogative powers of government during times of war or emergency. When the crises ends; the prerogative power must also cease. However; (as is almost always the case) at the end of the war, the Emergency Power was not relinquished.

The Emergency Power to confiscate the Property of individuals sympathetic to the enemy was recognized. An "Act" of August 30, 1861 sequestered the Property of "Aliens" by which was meant: "those adherent to the Union."

On August 6, 1861; legislation was enacted to regulate any Property which might be devoted to hostile use (12 Stat. 319). Other seizure mechanisms can be found in the "Captured Property Act" of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 820-821).

"This Act was essentially an exercise of the "belligerent right of confiscation" in a form different from that of the confiscation Acts, and applying to property which the latter could not reach. The competence belonged to Congress, according to the Supreme Court, to provide for the forfeiture of the property of all persons within the Confederacy, loyal as well as disloyal, on the principle that all inhabitants of enemy territory are enemies (Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404 [1865]). This, however, would have been an extreme measure, and the restoration of the property of loyal citizens was therefore provide for in the Act. In so doing, Congress renounced a part of its strict belligerent rights as the Supreme Court understood them."
                               (Brief History, p. 25)

Under the terms of the statute; Executive branch agents of the Treasury Department entered the states of the Confederacy and began seizing abandoned or otherwise considered captured Property of a "non-warlike character" in localities where the army had already swept through. Although their work was hazardous due to hostile inhabitants and the presence of Confederate agents in search of cotton and foodstuffs; it was quite profitable. By May 1868; gross sales of Property seized under the Act amounted to approximately $30 million while net proceeds totaled about $25 million. "Seizure and Capture Acts" are solely emergency prerogative actions. They violate the Common Law and the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment which says: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or Property without due process of the law, and no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation."

Effort to forestall seizure through judicial redress were of little consequence. It was only with a Proclamation of Pardon by the President; that the Courts began to provide for some recovery of lost Property (Brief History, p. 26).

Lincoln's first Pardon Proclamation and the first three such Proclamations of President Andrew Johnson indicated that confiscated Property was not to be returned. Congress ultimately enacted legislation providing for redress through suit with the Court of Claims in confiscations made under the "Captured Property Act" (12 Stat. 820, sec. 3; 15 Stat. 243-244, sec. 3):

"As a result of this decision, all claimants, regardless of their original loyalty, were entitled to restoration. Generally the effort to obtain seized property was slow, frustrating and usually only partially successful. The emergency power, once exercised, was not easily reversed, once the crises had passed."

In short; the South was defeated and subjugated by the Union. The Blacks and southern Whites were given a status under the  U.S. Const., 14th Amendment but were made permanently subject to the statutory jurisdiction thereof, to be ruled by statute, at will. The southern Citizens of the United States of America lost their state citizenship and became possessions of the United States and the states were made territories to be ruled by loyal provisional governments.

The United States government, acting in its corporate capacity, now controlled enormous resources it had previously lacked.

Heretofore; the Federal government had been required to relinquish the Property and the Rights at the end of the crisis. However at the end of the Civil War; the Federal government found itself in a unique position. The Southern states and People were a captured Nation, a prize of war, and there was no definitive requirement for the government to return any such Rights or Status.

President Lincoln had previously issued greenback "dollars" out of the United States' Treasury; a War Powers Executive action. Following the War and the capture of the South; the Union then had enormous wealth upon which to borrow.

The monetary decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are the subject of much discussion. Paramount opinions on the monetary powers of Congress are found in Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871) and Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 4 S.Ct. 122 (1884). In Knox; the Court held that Congress had the power to make its "Notes" (obligations) "lawful money" during times of war. Although the Court found that Congress did possess such power; it was at a total loss as to the source in the U.S. Constitution where this power originated. But by the time Julliard was rendered; the Court successfully located the origin of Congressional "lawful money" powers and found the same residing in the power of Congress to borrow.

This Court went so far as to say that Congress could borrow against the People and their Property in times of peace. This proposition was explicitly addressed in the Articles of Confederation and the "federalist papers" wherein it was concluded that government could only borrow in times of crisis under the extraordinary powers of emergency. Only when the government has claimed Title and Ownership can it mortgage Property including People.

In 1871; the Julliard v. Greenman decision was thus applied against the Southern states and the Southern People who were held under the "Captured Property Act." They were a "Prize of War" and were treated as "Aliens." This claim of Right to Title can only occur when under the crisis periods of war for national security purposes or as a result of prize.

Following the War; the Union continued to operate and do business in its sovereign corporate capacity. Consequently; in the case of Julliard v. Greenman, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Executive branch of government could continue to issue "dollars" after the War and that the power to do so was inherent in its power to borrow.

The United States Constitution at Article I, Sec. 8, Sec.5 states that only "Congress shall coin money." Obviously the Emergency Powers continued and in 1913; the Congress transferred this money power to another semi quasi Executive agency (Federal Reserve). The prerogative Emergency Powers continued and the U.S. Constitution remained in suspension.

The period following the Civil War is interesting indeed. During this period; the government attempted to operate in both modes, i.e., normal and crisis. The normal government operated in the North while the captured South was under emergency rule.

When World War I broke out; Wilson, like Lincoln, acquired full dictatorial powers over the North, as well as the South. But the basis for Wilson's authority varied significantly from that of Lincoln's.

"The most significant feature of the Wilsonian dictatorship is the way in which the President acquired his vast powers. The preponderance of his crisis authority was delegated to him by statutes of Congress. In brief, the most important single emergency device in the World War government was the delegatory statute. Confronted by the necessity of raising and equipping a huge army to fight overseas rather than by a sudden and violent threat to the Republic, Wilson chose to demand express Legislative authority for almost every unusual step he felt impelled to take. Lincoln had shown what the office of President was equal to in crises calling for solitary Executive actions. Now Wilson was to show its efficiency as a crisis instrument working along with the Legislative branch of the government. The basis of Lincoln's power was the Constitution, and he operated in spite of Congress. The basis of Wilson's power was a group of statutes, and he cooperated with Congress."
                               (Brief History, p. 41)

Another interesting aspect of Wilson's prerogative power was the "Committee on Public Information." On April 13, 1917; the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy; in a joint letter to the President, recommended the creation of this Committee in which the two functions of "censorship" and "publicity" could be joined.

"During the war-period it came to be recognized that the mobilization of men and means was not sufficient; there must be a mobilization of opinion. Power over opinion, as over life and property, passed into official hands, because the danger from license was greater than the danger of abuse. Indeed; there is no question but that government management of opinion is an unescapable corollary of large-scale modern war. The only question is the degree to which the government should try to conduct its propaganda secretly, and the degree to which it should conduct it openly. As far as the home public is concerned, there is nothing to be gained by concealment, and there is a certain loss of prestige for ... that is said, when secrecy is attempted. The carrying power of ideas is greatly increased when the authority of the government is added to them. With certain insignificant exceptions (the smuggling of propaganda material into adjacent enemy countries), nothing is lost, if all propaganda operations in neutral and allied countries are carried on openly. Otherwise, indeed, suspicion and distrust may exist when complete confidence and understanding are indispensable. The United States Committee on Public Information was undoubtedly correct in notifying neutral governments of what they wanted to do inside neutral borders."
                               (Brief History, pp. 45-46)

The actual operations and restrictions of the Committee were not deemed particularly offensive to the American civil liberties tradition. Professor Rossiter wrote later:

"No censorship of the press was established during the World War, and all demands by the Executive or members of Congress for anything smacking of prior censorship was defeated. Such control of the printed word as did exist was effected in several ways: through prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the closing (under Title XII of the Espionage Act) of the mails to printed matter violating the tenets established in those acts, federal censorship of cables and other means of communication to and from foreign countries, a rather complete discretionary censorship of the foreign language press in the United States (under section 19 of the Trading With the Enemy Act), and voluntary self-censorship by all newspapers and periodicals in the United States. This latter procedure was effected largely through the cooperation of the press with the famed Committee on Public Information. This powerful organization headed by George Creel was set up by an Executive Order of August 14, 1917 and was never recognized by Congress except by a statute of 1918 making an appropriation for its expenses. Its chief task was that of propaganda and publicity, but it also acted in conjunction with the other federal authorities concerned with the suppression of vital information and seditious utterances in such a way that it become a sort of extra-legal, overall directing body for the American press. The policies and standards which it advised were not flouted by the newspaper."
                              (Brief History, pp. 45-46)

On November 11, 1918; an armistice was signed which brought about a cession of hostilities.

"The return of peace was followed by an abandonment of practically all the new procedures and agencies which had been created to meet the commands of war, as well as by a reaction to Executive Power similar to that which followed the death of Lincoln. Most of those statutes and agencies which did not cease operation under the terms of their limited statutory duration were repealed or abolished by the Acts of March 3, 1921 [41 Stat. 1359-1360]. In the summer of 1920; Congress passed a Bill (343 to 3) in the House, unanimously in the Senate ... repealing sixty wartime measures delegating powers to the President. Wilson killed it by a pocket veto and thereby provided the Republican candidate himself with what he had stated during the war that `what the United States needs and what it must have if it is to win the war is a supreme dictator, with sole control of and sole responsibility for every phase of war activity ... . The sooner it comes the better for all of us ... . For supreme dictator at the present moment, there is but one possible man, the President of the United States.'"
                               (Brief History, p.47)

The continuation of the power of the government to issue currency through its "Federal Reserve Bank" and the "Trading With the Enemy Act," however, were exempted from termination. Clearly; the Federal government continued under dual modes (Knox, 48 Stat. 1359).

Another interesting example of the government's Emergency Power is their authority to control labor. Prior to the outbreak of the first World War; labor unrest flared in the coal mines of Colorado. Governor Ammons of Colorado, a crony of John D. Rockefeller's Colorado Fuel and Iron, sent the state militia to squelch the strike. Many of the miners, their women and children, were massacred in the famous "Ludlow Massacre."

Wilson called a meeting at the White House when he sought to personally mediate the situation. John D. Rockefeller refused to attend; but Wilson declared "Martial Law" and sent Federal troops to put an end to the strike. Wilson wrote a letter to Governor Ammons saying:

"I shall order that no person or persons, natural or artificial, shall be permitted to do that which may give rise to disorder ... to the end that good order may be established and maintained, I shall not, by the use of the troops or by any attempt at jurisdiction, inject the power of the Federal government into the controversy which has produced the present situation. The settlement of the controversy falls strictly within the field of State power. My duty, as I now see it, is to confine myself to maintaining a status of good order until the State can reassert its authority and resume the enforcement thereof ... "The manifest disadvantage of having two military forces under separate sources of control, operating within the same localities, leads me to request you to withdraw your militia as soon as the troops of the United States have reached the scene and are ready to take over the necessary control."
                               (Brief History, pp. 39-40)

These Federal troops enjoyed a broad mandate of authority including authorization to disregard the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" from the state Courts even though they were sent to enforce state law.

Following the War; a period of relative stability ensued. The speculative economic bubble, created by the continued issuance of Federal Reserve Bank notes which were circulated outside the Corporation, continued to grow. This "bubble" finally burst resulting in the crash of the stock market and agricultural commodity prices. The economic emergency of 1933 had begun. The corporate United States (custodian of the Rights and Property) took immediate action. President Roosevelt said in his inaugural address:

"It is to be hoped that the normal balance of Executive and Legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure. "I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that 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 a 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."
                               (Brief History, pp. 55-56)

After 38 minutes of debate; the House passed the Bill that, did in fact, gave Roosevelt Emergency War Powers. The Senate quickly followed suit.

A year after his inauguration; Roosevelt offered this characterization of the emergency:

"... the full meaning of that word "emergency" related to far more than banks. It covered the whole economic and therefore the whole social structure of the country. It was an emergency that went to the roots of our agriculture, our commerce, and our industry; it was an emergency that had existed for a whole generation in its underlying causes and for three and one-half years in its visible effects. It could be cured only by a complete reorganization and a measured control of the economic structure. It could not be cured in a week, in a month, or a year. It called for a long series of new laws, new administrative agencies. It required separate measures affecting different subjects; but all of them component parts of a fairly definite broad plan. Most of all, it called for readiness and understanding on the part of the people. We could never go back to the old order."
                              (Brief History, p. 56)

We then entered a new era - "The New Deal Socialist Democracy" which operated over the entire continental United States.

The day after his inauguration; Roosevelt issued a "Proclamation" calling a special session of Congress:

"In actual fact, it could appear that the President called the Congress into special session to sanction his emergency banking action and then continued the meeting for as long as it suited the mutual purposes of the two branches. When the proclamation for the gathering was issued on March 5, no purpose for the assembly was specifically indicated or even alluded to generally. Roosevelt knew what he wanted to do but had no Legislative plans. Before arriving in Washington, he had rough drafts of two presidential proclamations: one calling a special session of Congress; the other declaring a bank holiday and controlling the export of gold by invoking forgotten provisions of the wartime Trading with the Enemy Act. The bank holiday proclamation was issued on March 6. Between the evening after the inauguration and the opening of Congress, William Woodin, Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, Raymond Moley, a Roosevelt assistant, and a few others wrote the Emergency Banking Bill. When Congress convened, the House had no copies of the measure and had to rely upon the Speaker reading from a draft text. After thirty-eight minutes of debate, the House passed the Bill. That evening, the Senate followed suit. "The emergency banking measure extended government assistance to private bankers to reopen their banks. The bill validated actions the President had already taken, gave him complete control over gold movements, penalized hoarding, authorized the issue of new Federal Reserve Bank notes, and arranged for the reopening of banks with liquid assets and the reorganization of the rest."
                               (Brief History, p. 57)

The "Bank Holiday Act" and the "Trading With the Enemy Act" (patterned after the British experience) gave the government virtual control over all aspects of the economy and social structure of the Nation. The "New Deal" was on. Nationalization, socialism, and confiscation of all Property, both real and personal, were the password of the day.

In his inaugural address; Roosevelt said:

"I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis - broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
                              (Senate Report 93-549)
"The first New Deal agencies indeed bore strong resemblances to wartime agencies and many had the term "emergency" in their titles. "In his first important official act, Roosevelt proclaimed a National Bank Holiday on the basis of the October 6, 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, itself a wartime delegation of power. "The Trading With the Enemy Act had been specifically designed by its originators to meet only wartime exigencies."
                               (Senate Report 93-549, pp. 4-5)

The "Trading With The Enemy Act" was implemented first in 1917. That "National Emergency" was terminated in 1921. However, section 5(b) of that Act was exempted.

"`The Trading with the Enemy Act' of 1917 has been amended frequently, and in the process, its original purpose and effect have been altered significantly. The `Act' was originally intended to "defined, regulate and punish trading with the enemy." 40 Stat. 415. Directed primarily to meeting the exigencies of World War I, its drafters intended the `Act' to remain on the books for future war situations. 55 Cong. Rec. 4908. Accordingly, when other war powers were terminated in 1921, an exception was made for the `Act' and it remained valid law. (Knox)"

See also Part 2 Executive Replies Summary of the Executive Branch and Committee Recommendations prepared for the staff of the Special Committee on the National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers United States Senate November, 1974" (Senate Report, 39-948, p. 193)

It was under this section of the Act that Congress declared and implemented the "National Emergency" of 1933.

"Pursuant to authority provided in the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" of March 9, 1933; gold held by private persons in the United States was required to be surrendered to the Government" (48 Stat. 2, 12 USC 248). "The "Gold Reserve Act" of 1934 prohibited private ownership of gold" (Munk, Dept. of the Treasury). These `Acts' required all private gold (Property) to be surrendered to the government. Failure to do so resulted in criminal penalty." "Lawful money" means "legal tender." In 1913, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency included the following explanation in its report on the bill which became the Federal Reserve: "The terms `lawful money' and `legal tender' are different names for the same thing. The term `lawful money' originated in the `Act' of February 25, 1862, authorizing the issue of United States Notes. It was probably used in subsequent `Acts,' because the term was comprehensive and, notwithstanding the fact that gold and silver coins were not then in circulation, it would necessarily embrace them, as well as Legal Tender Notes, whenever specie payments should be resumed. However, commonly the term "lawful money" has been applied to the United States Notes. `Legal tender' is a quality given a circulating medium by Congress and possessing this quality, it becomes `lawful money'. "Senate Report Number 133, part 2, 63rd Congress, 1st Session, p. 107 (1933). Section 16 of the `Federal Reserve Act' of 1913 (12 USC 411) provided for the issuance of Federal Reserve notes but did not make them legal tender. Instead, it made them redeemable in gold or "lawful money" (legal tender) at the Federal Reserve Banks or in gold at the U.S. Treasury in Washington, D.C.. However, in 1933, the United States went off the domestic gold standard. The `Gold Reserve Act' of 1934 amended Section 16, to provide that Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable in "lawful money" only. Redemption of any currency of the United States in gold was, and remains, prohibited (31 USC 5119). "Federal Reserve notes are legal tender under 31 USC 5103, and are therefore "lawful money." United States notes have been discontinued (with the exception of the $100 United States note), and Federal Reserve notes have become practically the only form of paper currency in circulation. Consequently, if a holder of Federal Reserve notes presents them for redemption in lawful money at the Treasury or at a Federal Reserve Bank, he is most likely to receive in exchange lawful money in the form of other Federal Reserve Notes." (Munk)

From this we see that "lawful money" originated in the "Act" of February 25, 1862. This was a wartime issuance done under the War Powers of the Civil War.

In 1913; Congress established the Federal Reserve to issue Federal Reserve Notes. Although the delegation of this power to a semi-quasi government agency was unconstitutional; the Federal Reserve Note itself was redeemable in Gold or Silver (a warehouse receipt) and was probably lawful. The "Federal Reserve Act" of 1913 did not declare these Federal Reserve Notes to be "lawful money."

It was not until 1933, when the Gold and Property were seized and the Federal Reserve Notes were declared non-redeemable, that the Federal Reserve Notes were declared "legal tender" or "lawful money" (31 USC 5103). Thus we see that "lawful money" and "legal tender" are both wartime or emergency issuances; to meet the extraordinary emergencies that occured. However, following the emergency period, species payment must resume.

The preceding concept is critical to the understanding of the status of state citizens. The taking of private Property (Gold) was not a Common Law condemnation proceeding under the 5th Article of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution:

"No property shall be taken for public use without just compensation." (FRN secured by an obligation upon these same people to perform can never be just compensation. Only statutorily compelled performance during times of war or emergency.)

The only other mechanism that exists for government to take Property lies at U.S. Const., I:8:11:

"Congress shall have power to declare war and make rule concerning captures on land and water."

Referring back to the "Trading With the Enemy Act" of 1917:

"The `Trading With The Enemy Act' forbade foreign trade without a license, provided for the seizure of enemy owned property in the United States, and authorized the president to regulate transactions in foreign exchange.

"The `Act' was repeatedly challenged as violating the due process and just compensation clauses of the fifth amendment by authorizing the Alien property Custodian to seize and hold enemy owned property with deferred or perhaps no compensation. But Courts found that the `Act' was based on the power of Congress to make rules for capture on land and sea, a war power, and such was not subject to the restraints of the fifth amendment, at least during time of war. See Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U.S. 238 (1921); N.V. Montan Export Metals v. U.S., 102 F.Supp. 1016 (Ct. Cl. 1952)."
                               (Hearings, p. 684)

We can see from these cases that U.S. Const., I:8:11 acts only upon enemy Property and that compensation can either be deferred or nonexistent. By applying these cases to the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" of 1933 and the "Gold Reserve Act" of 1934; it becomes obvious that the Gold was enemy owned Property. Since the American People owned the Gold; they must necessarily be the enemy.

In 1957; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to overturn a conviction for the possession of Gold bullion in violation of the Gold Hoarding Regulations issued under the authority of Section 5(b) of the "Gold Reserve Act." These resolutions were challenged on the ground that the economic emergency of the Depression no longer existed and therefore no longer could criminal prosecutions of the 1950's be justified. The Court acknowledged the menit of this argument:

"It seems vital as a matter of national policy that emergency regulations and dictatorial powers granted or conceded in the turmoil of war, cold war, economic revolution and the struggle to preserve a balanced democratic war of life, should be discarded upon return to normal conditions, lest we grow used to them as the fitting of ordinary existence. Executive regulations drafted and confirmed for an emergency should expire with the emergency. There will be time enough to revivify these if another emergency requires and Congress be willing. Of Course, if it seems essential to continue the subject matter of these criminal regulations now, Congress can so declare. But the power lies in Congress."
                               (...., 244 F.2d 794-797 [9th Circuit])
"However, the Court was unwilling to follow the logic of this reasoning to its conclusion and refused to consider whether the Depression emergency had ended by 1957. "This Court should not declare the end of any emergency as a matter of law. Nor, except under the most exceptional circumstances, should Judicial notice be taken by us of conditions from which we might be inclined to conclude an emergency has ended.""
                              (..., 244 F.2d 794 [9th Circuit]) 
                                       (Boston College, p. 10)

On March 9, 1933; the United States government declared war upon the American People. The American People were the enemy.

One of the first government actions, following the declaration of National Emergency, was the "Agricultural Adjustment Act" which in itself contained a declaration of acute emergency.

"The opening title of the `Agricultural Adjustment Act' (AAA) declared the presence of an "acute economic emergency" which the statute was designed to meet. However, the legislation left the discontinuance of the Act with the Executive, saying: "This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended.""

                              (48 Stat. 39, sec. 13)
"That the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of agricultural 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 tender imperative the immediate enactment of Title I of this Act."
                               (48 Stat. 39)

Arthur Schesinger, Jr., interprets this farm move:

"The broad design was clear: to help correct the imbalance between industry and agriculture by raising farm prices; and to raise farm prices through the curtailment of production, the regulation of marketing, and a variety of other devices. And there was general agreement on the mechanism: the establishment of a new agency within the Department of Agriculture, to be called the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. But the immense discretion conferred on the Executive under the `AAA' law left many crucial decisions for the future. Much would therefore depend on the men summoned to conduct what Mordecal Ezekiel pronounced `The greatest single experiment in economic planning under capitalist conditions ever attempted by a democracy in times of peace.'" "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. The reasoning, apparently, was that the permanent governmental unit would not only eliminate the emergency situation but, in the aftermath, would control those conditions promoting the crisis and forestall any such exigency from occurring again. The legislation also empowered the President, for purposes of meeting the financing provisions of the statute, to engage in broad monetary expansion and, by proclamation, to fix the weights of gold and silver dollars. The United States had abandoned the gold standard on April 19."
                              (Brief History, pp. 58-59)

This was the nationalization of agriculture. The nationalization which took place in 1933 has never been terminated. The farmers and the land are simply "chattel properties" to be managed and controlled by the New Deal/socialist/communistic government to meet their economic and social agenda. It must be understood that agricultural subsidized prices were not established to support the farmers; rather, they were implemented to prop up the value of the assets to support the national credit structure; while at the same time, maintains a cheap food policy for the American consumer.

It was also under the "Agricultural Adjustment Act" that the President was empowered to meet the financing provisions of the statute, to engage in broad monetary expansion, and by Proclamation; to fix the weights of Gold and Silver Dollars (48 Stat. 52-54). U.S. Const., I:8:5 says only Congress shall have the power to coin money and fix the standards of weight and measure. The Proclamation action by the President was unconstitutional but passed under the emergency prerogative power. The separation of powers and the U.S. Const., 10th Amendment were also suspended. This "Act" was intended as a permanent "Act" to reach far into the future.

Congress had already passed the "Banking Relief Act" on March 9, 1933 which empowered the government to seize privately held Gold. Anyone who refused to surrender their Gold was prosecuted criminally, according to the Summary Process. With the Gold in possession and the power of proclamation to set the price; Roosevelt could borrow and create credit to finance his entire "New Deal" emergency government.

Remember that "indictments" and "Habeas Corpus" must be suspended before the government can enforce these unconstitutional actions. The U.S. Const., 5th Amendment must also be suspended to facilitate seizure actions. Once the government seized all of the Gold; Roosevelt, by proclamation, changed the value in terms of "Federal Reserve Notes," from $20.67 per ounce to $35.00 per ounce. He immediately mortgaged our Gold (at the new price) to his Federal Reserve Bank. He now had the credit and "money" to finance his "New Deal." However one must remember that it was ALL taken from the People under the prerogative seizure power of emergency rule.

The government, with Roosevelt at the rains, was now in control of enormous economic and human resources. His statement was: "follow me and I will put a chicken in every pot." On March 21, 1933; the President called upon Congress to establish programs for unemployment relief. Acting upon his statutory authority; the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 6101 establishing the "Civilian Conservation Corps" (48 Stat. 22-23). The "Federal Emergency Relief Administration" dealing with "Grants to States for relief work" (48 Stat. 55), E.O. 6174 creating the "Public Works Administration" (48 Stat. 55), E.O. 6252 "National Industrial Recovery Act" (48 Stat. 195), "Farm Credit Act" (48 Stat. 257), "Home Owners Loan Act," (designed to "bail out" banks and real estate interests rather than homeowners), "Securities and Exchange Commission" (48 Stat. 74), "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation" (48 Stat. 162), "Tennessee Valley Authority" (48 Stat. 58 amended 49 Stat. 1075) ... . The list goes on, but it is obvious that the government took control of the economy and the Property of the People.

"In June, Congress adopted the Home Owners' "Loan Act" amidst cries that the law bailed out real-estate interests rather than the home owner. Without having to scale down the debt he was owed, the mortgagor could turn defaulted mortgages for guaranteed government bonds. Yet, however, much of the act was tailored to the interests of financial institutions, it provided a lifesaver for thousands of Americans. When the Home Owners' Loan Corporation opened for business in Akron, a double column stretched for three blocks down Main Street by 7 in the morning; when the doors opened, 500 people pressed into the lobby. In the end, HOLA would help refinance one out of every five mortgaged urban private dwellings in America."
                               (Brief History, p. 60)

These actions were challenged to the Courts. Clinton Rossiter has commented:

"One of the leading characteristics of the Civil War and World War governments was the fact that the limitations on the use of emergency powers remained the normal limitations of the American constitutional and political system. Moreover, these limitations were weakened, for the Supreme Court refused during and after both crises to pass unfavorably upon any of the extraordinary Legislative or Executive acts -- with the single and comparatively harmless exception of the Milligan Case in 1866. This was not true of America's third emergency government. The limitations on Executive and Legislative power in the year 1933 itself remained the usual political and constitutional responsibility of the two branches; but shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court, asked to interpret parts of this legislation which were infinitely more controversial than the popular war acts of the other two crisis governments, was not loathe to inform the government that some of the New Deal crisis statutes had passed beyond the bounds of two great American constitutional principles: federalism and the separation of powers. Specifically, the "AAA" on both of them [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Schechter Poultry Co. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)]. Even though all this happened two years or more after the passage of these statutes, they were still in operation at the time; thus the decisions did work a sizable if belated check on the government's crisis activity. 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 Tenth Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national Emergency."
                               (Brief History, p. 63-64)

Madison warned in the Federalist Papers XLVII:

"The accumulation of all powers, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

The separation of powers and the limitation of powers were effectively usurped, and a tyranny was formed.

Roosevelt quickly began appointing new members to the Supreme Court, creating the "stacked Court," which approved the programs. The stacked Court effectively destroyed our remaining power of "checks and balances" which remained in the government through the separation of powers.

Having established a number of new programs, either through statutory authorizations or by grants of discretionary power, the President was faced with the task of purposefully administrating and coordinating these mandates.

""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." (Robert F. Sherwood Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York: Harper & Brothers 1948 pp 31-32) The President had a variety of reasons for pursuing this course: he thought the departments were burdened with duties which preoccupied them in meeting the current crisis; he believed a new agency with a single task in attacking an exigency would be dedicated and persistent in its mission; he felt that such new agencies with emergency duties as might be created to deal with the depression could, when the crisis passed, be easily eradicated without disturbing the regular Executive branch departments; he thought talented and expert personnel might be attracted to the specialized new emergency units; and there was also a desire on the part of the President to avoid the established Civil Service channels in staffing for the emergency period and to utilize political appointees."
                               (Brief History, p. 64)

From this we see that Roosevelt created an entirely new government of Executive agencies with the all powerful prerogative emergency powers.

The President appointed the political elite to rule the country and this became a Nation ruled by "Government by royal favorites." Roosevelt called his council the "Executive Council" which is strikingly similar to the King's council and Privy Council employed by the Kings of England. The prerogative powers employed are identical. The President himself, as head of these agencies, was called the "Chief Executive."

The Federal United States government, doing business in its corporate capacity, was finally and permanently in place. The corporate government had control of the country.

The "Reconstruction Finance Corporation" was used extensively.

"Under Hoover, the `RFC' had been an instrument of the established businessmen, particularly of the eastern rentiers. Roosevelt put the agency under a Texas banker, Jesse Jones, who represented the southwestern boomers' desire for expansion, and who spoke for businessmen less interested in protecting existing holdings than in fresh ventures. Jones converted the `RFC' into a vastly different organization from what it had been under Hoover. Instead of lending money to banks, and thereby increasing their debt as had been done in the Hoover regime, Jones sought to enlarge their capital. By buying bank preferred stock, he bolstered the capital structure of banks, created a base for credit expansion, and made it possible for the deposit insurance system to function. Under Jones, the Corporation became not only the nation's largest bank but its biggest single investor. Eventually, Jones ruled an empire of `RFC' subsidiaries: federal mortgage agencies; the Commodity Credit Corporation; the Electric Home and Farm Authority which sparked the purchase of electric appliances; and the Export-Import Bank, which spurred foreign trade."
                              (Brief History, pp. 67-68)

In order to enforce their emergency powers; the Courts were necessarily changed. On June 3, 1935; by its authority under the "Rules Enabling Act," the Supreme Court appointed an advisory committee consisting of law professors and lawyers to develop an unified system of procedural rules. These rules were transmitted to Congress on January 3, 1938 and became effective September 16, 1938. It was called the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act." It set out a rigid form of statutory law. For all practical purposes; the Common Law was abolished and the Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction were instituted.

On September 8, 1939; the "Office of Emergency Management" was formed (E.O. 8248, E.O. 8629).

"... a President who went beyond Wilson and even Lincoln in the bold and successful exertion of his constitutional and statutory powers; a Congress which gave the President all the power he needed to wage a victorious total war, but stubbornly refused to be shunted to the back of the stage by the leading man; a multitude of presidentially created boards and bureaus which regulated the nation's entire economic life and which for all the false starts and mistakes and prophesies of doom, would point to the most incredible triumphs of production, research, and supply in the history of man; a governmental record of noninterference with the political liberties of the American people that would have been well-nigh perfect but for one dictatorial performance, the evacuation of 70,000 American citizens of Japanese descent from the Pacific Coast area; and finally a Supreme Court that once again durante bello gave Judicial sanction to whatever powers and actions the President and Congress found necessary to the prosecution of the war, and then post bellum had a lot of strong but unavailing things to say about the limits of the Constitution-at-War."
                              (Brief History, pp. 76-77)

Roosevelt said about these assumed powers: "And when the war is won, the power under which I act will automatically revert to the People of the United States - to the People to whom these powers belong" (Roosevelt Papers, Vol. XI, pp. 364-365, 372-373). He was either naive or purposely intended to deceive the American People.

Following the end of World War II; the concept and practice of emergency powers would broaden and extend into new policies and programs.

"In 1945, the `Bretton Woods Agreement Act' (59 Stat. 512, 22 U.S.C. 286 et.seq.) was enacted, which provided for the U.S. membership in the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Under the Article of Agreement of the I.M.F., each member of the IMF was required to establish a par value for its currency, expressed in terms of gold, and to take appropriate measures to permit within its territories exchange transactions between its own currency and those of other IMF members for the official settlement of international transactions.

"However, under the amended IMF Articles of Agreement, which became effective April 1, 1978, the United States has no legal obligation to establish and maintain a par value in gold for the dollar (FRN)."
                              (Dept. of Treasury, Munk)

By now, it should be quite obvious that the Gold and Property captured in 1933 were pledged in an International Agreement for settlement of International transactions. The states were now territories and possessions of the United States. Once the Gold was depleted from the fund, the par value was removed. The "dollar" (FRN) still retains a value in international transactions, because the U.S. Government can compel it subjects (slaves) to perform. "The Federal Reserve Note is now redeemable only in goods and services which the American producer is compelled to produce."

The "Trading With the Enemy Act," section 5(b) [Amended] reads in part:

Once our Gold and our Property were pledged by international agreement ("Bretton Woods Agreement Act" of 1945) for settlement of international transactions; all members of the IMF and most foreign countries and banks had a vested interest in our Property. The President, acting as agent for these foreign principals, has claimed the authority to regulate, direct and compel the exercising of any Right with respect to our Property, including ourselves and our posterity.

Our government has become a "de facto government" of "foreign agents," acting to compel its subjects to perform upon the demands of the IMF, the United Nations and the One World/New World Government. The I.R.S. IS the international collection agency, operates for this exclusive purpose, within the United States.

Congress acts as a "Foreign Agent" when it takes the funds collected by the I.R.S. (or appropriated through mortgages upon ourselves and our posterity) and transfers those vast sums to foreign powers in accordance with a multitude of foreign agreements (22 U.S.C.A. 285(g); 22 U.S.C.A. 287). Nowhere in the thousands of statutes, Executive orders, or rules and regulations do they require themselves to register as "Foreign Agents."

The United States is now the world's largest debtor Nation. We have unilateral and multilateral trade agreements concerning everything. Consequently; foreign countries and nationals thereof have an interest in everything and everyone.

Likewise [reading from U.S. v. Shaver, 214 F. 154 (Ark, 1914); U.S. v. McCullogh, 221 F2d. 88 (Kan, 1915); and U.S. v. Jim Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 568 (1916)] we see how the "Feds" obtain power via Treaty with foreign alliances. Once the Treaty is ratified; the terms of the Treaty can be enforced by statutes within the body of a country. This Treaty power give fifty two men (51 U.S. Senators and 1 U.S. President) dictatorial power in this country.

The temporary instruments of the New Deal, designed to meet momentary exigencies, were transformed into permanent multi-faceted arrangements for acting upon national defense matters, non-military and military-labor problems, natural disasters, civil rights, and economical difficulties. In the absence of any declarations of war; Emergency Powers were utilized to discipline other nations when the United States was engaged in action meeting open hostility (Brief History, p. 87).

This applied to Korea, Vietnam, and more recently; Iraq. The "War Powers" ended but the Emergency Powers were broadened and continued. The Emergency Powers also applied to the Internal Revenue Code. Certain War Power sections were terminated but the emergency sections continued.

"For a compilation of the statutes under consideration see: Legislative Reference Service. Termination of War Controls, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947. (80th Congress, 1st Session - Senate Document No. 5); Department of Justice, Termination of War Controls, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947. (80th Congress, 1st Session - Senate Document No. 42)"
                              (Brief History, p. 88)

In 1973; the United States Senate formed a special committee to study the effects of terminating the national emergency. As a result; the Senate Committee sent letters to Executive agencies, Commissions, and Corporations asking them what they thought about terminating the emergency. Refer to "Replies from Standing Committees of the Senate and Executive Replies." Almost all of the replies were similar. An example is a reply from the Committee on Agriculture.

"The provisions relating to the adjustment of marketing quotas (7 USC 1903) are emergency provisions which should be designated as essential to the regular functioning of the government."

The Banks and Banking Committee replies:

"It is the committee's recommendation that these sections of Title 12 be retained in their present form."

The Committee on Commerce:

"Continue in force."

The United States of America continues under emergency rule. The Gold has never been returned. The U.S. Constitution is suspended and the prerogative powers of government are in full force and effect.


Top .



"Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" have a long tradition in the history of our English system of government. "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" are:

"Any preceding by which a controversy is settled, case disposed of, or trial conducted, in a prompt and simple manner, without the aid of a jury, without presentment or indictment, or in other respects out of the regular course of the common law."
                               Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 1084

The procedure of this "Court of Summary Jurisidiction" differs radically from the Due Process and regular course of the Common Law. The Common Law Courts had their inception in the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.) and evolved until their incorporation into the Constitution for the United States in 1787 A.D..

Two of the most critical aspects of the "Common Law Courts" were the first and last steps of the procedure. The first step held that no man could be held to answer for a capital or felony (infamous) crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury (U.S. Const., 5th Amendment; Macken et.al. v. U.S., 117 US 348-355 [03/22/1886]). This first procedure of the "Due Process" acted as a "bar" against prerogative government. Government effectively had no right to bring charges against or prosecute an individual. This Right was retained by the People in the form of a grand jury of their peers. Government could not prosecute unless the People instructed them to do so.

The final step in the Due Process guaranteed that the accused shall have the Right to an impartial jury before convection (U.S. Const., 6th Amendment). Again we see that the People retained the Right to make all convictions and denied the government this power through its own Courts.

It was also held that in suits of Common Law; the Right to trial by jury shall be preserved (U.S. Const., 7th Amendment). This held firm with the U.S. Const., 5th Amendment which holds that: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Thus we see an effective "bar" against government by prerogative; a government that is powerless to act unless upon order by the People. It must be noted that the Common Law Right of Government to sue arises from its corporate capacity. The government can only operate in a corporate capacity during times of war or national emergency.

The "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" however are diametrically opposed to this procedure. These Courts proceed upon the governments own information and determine the outcome based upon their own statutes with or without the aid of a jury. In cases where the jury is used; the jury is instructed by the Court to rule according to the statute.

These "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" were first known as the "Court of the Star Chamber." The "Court of the Star Chamber" was an off-shoot of the "King's Council." During the middle ages; the Council exercised broad and undefined Executive, Legislative and Judicial Powers.

"The Council was first composed of a shifting group of bishops, barons, and officers and it did not become a distinct body until the fourteenth century. At that time it consisted of the great officers of state, the officers of the household, a number of professional lawyers, some knights, and some of the lay and ecclesiastical nobility. Its functions thus constituted "government by royal favorites." The council had a reviewing authority over the inferior Courts and also had original jurisdiction in cases in which the King was especially interested."

Cora L. Scofield, A Study of the Court of Star Chamber [Chicago 1900], XXIII - XXX; William S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law [4th Ed.; Boston, 1931] I. 480-485.

The Council's functions were largely un-impaired and it administered "justice" in its own fashion - a fashion which differed radically from the methods of the Common Law.

"The Council acted in one of two modes. The most summary was the proceeding ore tenus. "The second mode of prosecution, was to proceed by bill. A bill of complaint was addressed to the Council, signed by a councilor. When the bill was filed, or in some cases even before filing, the accused was summoned by a Writ of Subpoena. On his appearance the defendant was bound to answer on oath the plaintiff's bill. If he refused to make a reply, he was committed to prison; and after some delay, his crime was treated as acknowledged. If he put in an answer, his case was not much better; he was examined by the Plaintiff on written interrogatories, a refusal to reply to any of which led to imprisonment from default. The case was then ready for determination by the Council, and after, it might be, a long delay, sentence was given."
                           The Privy Council (London, 1887) 102-1-3; 
                               Edward P. Cheyney, 
                                  The Court of the Star Chamber, 
                                    American Historical Review, XVIII 
                                       (July 1913) 737-742.

The powers and procedures of the "Star Chamber" aroused opposition as early as the fourteenth century. The "Common Law Courts" were jealous of its Judicial Powers; Parliament looked upon it as an instrumentality of prerogative government, and laymen feared its arbitrary procedures and its mighty discretionary powers. The King and his Council could, by proclamation, make any statute they wanted and punish the People for its violation. Finally; the Parliament passed a number of statutes which attempted to limit the Council's jurisdiction. These statutes were founded upon the principle of "Due Process of Law" contained in the "Magna Carta."

"It is accord and established, that it shall not be commanded by the great seal nor the little seal to disturb or delay common right; (2) and though such commandments do come, the justices shall not therefore leave to do right in any point."
                               2 Edw. 3, c.8 (1328)
"That no man from henceforth shall be attached by any accusation, nor forejudged of life or limb, nor his lands, tenements, goods, nor chattels seized into the King's hands, against the form of the great charter, and the law of the land."
                               5 Edw. 3, c.9 (1331)
"Whereas it is contained in the great charter of the franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his freehold, hor of his franchises nor free custom, unless it be by the law of the land; (2) it is accorded, assented, and established, that from henceforth none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to our lord the King, or to his council, unless it be by indictment or presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighborhood where such deeds be done, in due manner, or by process made by writ original at the common law; (3) nor that none be out of his franchises, nor of his freeholds, unless he be duly brought into answer, and forejudged of the same by the course of the law; (4) and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redressed and holden for none."
                               25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, c.4 (1330)
"Though that it be contained in the Great Charter, that no man be taken nor imprisoned, nor put out of his freehold, without process of the law; nevertheless divers people make false suggestions to the King himself, as well for malice as otherwise, whereof the King is often grieved, and divers of the realm put in damage, against the form of the same charter; wherefore it is ordained, that all they that make such suggestion, be sent with the suggestions before the chancellor, treasurer and his council, and that they there find surety to pursue their suggestions, and incur the same pain that the other should have had if he were attained, in case that his suggestion be found evil. And that then process of the law be made against them, without being taken or imprisoned against the form of the said charter and other statutes."
                               37 Edw. 3, c.18 (1363)
"That no man be put to answer without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process and writ original, according to the old law of the land: ... and if any thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in the law, and holden for error."
                               42 Edw. 3, c.3 (1368)                     
                                   (Sources p. 126-127)

These statutes were largely ineffective and by the close of the sixteenth century; the "Court of the Star Chamber" was regarded as a separate Court but still closely connected with the "King's Privy Council." The Court had power to instruct jurors and punish jurors for giving verdicts against the Crown. It punished offenders against royal proclamations, and it dealt severely with individuals who criticized the King's taxation policies. The power of the Court to enforce proclamations gave it important Legislative and Executive functions in addition to its Judicial duties.

This power was based on the statute of proclamations of 1539. In effect; it amounted to no less than an outright delegation to the Crown of Parliament's Right to legislate in all cases whatsoever on any subject.

During the reign of James I (1603-1625); proclamations were issued that included the regulation of trade and business. In 1610; Parliament complained that proclamations had been issued creating new offenses unknown to the law.

Coke issued a reply that is considered a landmark in the history of individual liberties. He stated that the King could not create new crimes and that royal prerogative was subject to the law of the land and Due Process of Law.

"That the King, by his proclamation, cannot create any offense which was not an offense before, for then he may alter the law of the land by his proclamation in a high point, for if he may create an offense where none is, upon the ensues fine and imprisonment ... . That the King hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him ... . But the King, for prevention of offenses, may by proclamation admonish his subjects that they keep the laws and do not offend them, upon punishment to be inflicted by the law ..." Quoted in J.R. Tanner,
English Constitutional Conflicts
of the Seventeenth Century,
(Cambridge, 1928), p. 38.

The Kings refused to be bound by these limitations and the "Star Chamber" continued to enforce proclamations on any subject over which the King wished to exercise control. The power of this Court and "Privy Council" finally became intolerable and on July 5, 1641; an Act entitled: "The Abolition of the Star Chamber" was passed.

"The main effect of the abolition of the Star Chamber was to establish in England a system of justice administered by the Courts of Common Law with due process instead of by the administrative agencies of the Executive branch of government. The statute thus constituted an important reaffirmation of the concept of due process of the Common Law including the protection of the rights to life, liberty, and property from the arbitrary prosecution of government and secured to the people the right of prosecution through the grand jury and right of conviction through the jury of peers." Holdsworth, op. cit., I 516; Albert V. Dicey, Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution, 98th Ed., London, (1915) pp. 263-264

It should be noted that the "Court of the Star Chamber" and the arbitrary power of government always gained prominence during times of national crisis and emergency. It was always claimed that the government needed these summary powers for national security and public safety reasons. However; when the emergency passed, the government was always reluctant to give up their newly acquired power; especially the power of government to collect taxes to pay for the extravagances of crisis times.

In 1914; the Emergency War Powers were again invoked which suspended the Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. "The Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Act" invoked the arbitrary prerogative power of government for national security purposes and re-established the "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction."

These Courts enforce violations of the "DORA" and suspend the "Common Law Courts" with the Due Process of Law protection. The "DORA" provided that civilians charged with offenses triable by court-martial might choose a court-martial or the Civil Court. In case of a Civil Court trial; the offense was to be considered a felony and the Court was empowered to inflict any penalty which a court-martial could.

The "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Act" of 1938, containing the "Rules of Summary Jurisdiction," implemented these same emergency "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States, shortly after the implementation of emergency rule in 1933, was asked to interpret parts of the emergency legislation.

The Court --

"... was not loathe to inform the government that some of the New Deal crisis statutes had passed beyond the bounds of two great American constitutional principles: federalism and the separation of powers. Specifically, the AAA was voided on the first of these counts, the NRA on both of them [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Schechter Poultry Co. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)]. Even though all this happened two years or more after the passage of these statutes, they were still in operation at the time; thus the decisions did work a sizable if belated check on the government's crisis activity. 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 Tenth Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency."

However; Roosevelt did not set idly by and allow these decisions to stand. Roosevelt immediately began to appoint non-members to the Court. By 1938; the "stacked Court" was in place.

In the famous decision of Erie Railroad v. Thompkins (304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)); this "stacked Court" ruled that there was no "general federal common law." The "Common Law" was temporarily suspended along with the Rights of man.

Congress immediately followed suit with the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Act" of 1938. These rules incorporated Rule 56; the Rule for Summary Judgment.

"Summary judgment under Rule 56 has played a prominent role in federal practice for a considerable time. Within the last five years, the Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions which have enhanced its use. The proposed amendments to Rule 56 are intended not only to clarify summary judgment practices, but also to enhance the use of the Rule even further so as to provided a key method for avoiding the time and expense of discovery, preparation for trial, and trial itself as to matters that can have but one outcome. The revised rule will cover both total and partial summary judgment motions. The essence of the change in the rule is that it incorporates the standards developed over the years for determining whether a fact is genuinely in dispute. The particular subsection also adopts the standard prescribed in Rule 50 for judgments as a matter of law in jury cases. Even in non-jury cases, however, the judge will still be prohibited from deciding the motion on the basis of contested facts. The test, however, is made explicit and, contrary to the intent of the drafters of the 1938 Rules, credibility findings among conflicting items of evidence can be made by a standard of whether reasonable persons might disagree. The rule further provides 30 days to respond to such motions and affords responding parties with a reasonable opportunity to discover any relevant evidence pertinent to the summary judgment decision."

We thus see that the "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" were firmly entrenched in this 1938 "Act." The "Common Law Courts" were abolished and the emergency government was free of the reins of the Due Process of the Common Law. In a matter of a few years; all the "states" adopted these Rules of Civil Procedure and thus there is no longer any Common Law.

For an example; the Common Law was abolished in the "state" of Colorado at C.R.S. 18-1-104:

"Offenses Defined. Offenses classified. Common Law crimes abolished."

and thus Crimes no longer exist. There are only offenses in violation of statutes. Grand Jury indictments are no longer used to commence prosecution. Prosecutions are commenced on "Oath of Information" by government officials. "Juries" are used in selected cases, but are always instructed to find according to the statute in all cases whatsoever. The American People, through ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and Due Process of Law, have once again been subjugated by the prerogative powers of government.

Another part of the problem is that at the moment we filed "IRS 1040 Forms;" we became "Chattel" of the "United States" and as we are now "other property" of the United States under U.S. Const., IV:3:2; we are subject to rules and regulations of Congress. Furthermore; although the Treaties entered into with the United Nations were made under emergency powers of the "War Powers Act" of 1941; they ceased under the termination of the National Emergency. The United Nations' Treaties cannot be imposed upon the American People unless they are the "other property" of the United States. Can we resolve this problem? More on this later.


Top .


The evidence is conclusive. During times of crisis; the mode of government allowed under the U.S. Constitution changes. The limitation on the powers of government, the separation of the powers of government, and the procedural Due Process of the Common Law are suspended. The Legislative branch can legislate or write statutes concerning all cases whatsoever.

The Executive branch can legislate through Executive Orders, Decrees, Treaties, Foreign Agreements, and Alliances. The Executive Agents and Agencies (bureaucracy) legislate through Federal Rules and Regulations and the issuance of license.

The Judicial branch enforces the statutes, rules, and regulations in all cases whatsoever. The common citizen/subject has no standing/status to sue the constitutional validity of any of the above.

Substantive "Due Process" and "Summary Judgment" replace the "Procedural Due Process" of the "Common Law" and the Right to indictment and jury trial.

However, on September 14, 1976; the U.S. Congress officially terminated the national emergency (P.L. 94-412). Upon this termination; the mode of government should have returned to its normal peace-time function. The U.S. Congress, however, continued and made permanent much of the emergency power through statute.

The seized Property, including the Gold, has yet to be returned to the lawful state citizens. One must also remember that Federal statutes, during times of normalcy, can only be enforced within the jurisdiction of the corporate United States; i.e. District of Columbia, forts, magazines, arsenals, enclaves within the several states, territories, and possessions.

However; these statutes cannot be enforced within the sovereign states against sovereign state citizens. Should any Judge or Court attempt to do so; the sovereign state citizen must present all of the conclusive evidence to the contrary including the "Oath of Office" taken by the Public Official involved. One must understand that "sovereign immunity" for Public Officials terminates with the national emergency. Their contracts (Oath of Office) with the sovereign citizen now becomes the first and primary contract to rule the case.

Any violations of this contract will damage the sovereign citizens Rights and make the Public Official personally liable. With no evidence or facts in dispute; the sovereign citizens can summarily lien, seize, and encumber all Property and Rights held by the Public Official as well as filing charges with the Grand Jury to this effect.

It was never the intent of the Preamble to the Constitutions, either Federal or state, to place the People themselves in a state of permanent servitude to the same government that they created.


Top .


Everyone must first fully understand that there are two separate and distinct types of United States governments.

  1. Peace-time government with limitations of power, separation of power, subject to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as pertaining to all states of the Union and state citizens. This peace-time government also has exclusive Legislative power over the District of Columbia, forts, magazines, arsenals, territories, and possessions.

  2. Emergency and War-time government, where the government claims exclusive power over the entire continental United States as well as over the District of Columbia, territories, and possessions.

Everyone must also understand that the economic emergency of 1933 was formally terminated on September 14, 1976 (P.L. 94-412, 94th Congress). The government is attempting to continue their emergency powers and corporate capacity through statute.

As it is now (as stated by your own affidavit that you are a United States citizen and by your own adhesion Contracts, application of Social Security benefits, Driver License, Marriage License, Voter Registration, etc.); you have made a political decision to participate in the federal corporate United States' benefits and as you are a political member; you are subject to all the rules and statutes in all cases whatsoever. You are "Chattel Property" pure and simple.

Whether we want to admit it or not; we are all guilty of participation at some time or another. We have entered into an adhesion contract with "Big Brother" by way of Social Security applications, voter registration etc.. This, in essence, means that we all made a political decision to participate in the benefits of the "New Deal" socialist democracy and by implied adhesion contract; the Courts take silent "Judicial Notice" that we are a corporate member. As such; we are subject to all of the rules and statutes in all cases whatsoever and as such; we have walked away from the "Common Law" and its protection under the state and federal Constitutions.

Therefore, to correct this condition, one must create evidence that one has made a political decision not to be a part of the federal corporate United States and that is done by making a "Revocation of Power of Attorney," "Oath," and "Declaration of state citizenship" under the Republic and making it a part of the record.

Once you make this political decision (under U.S. Const., 1st Amendment) to reclaim your Rights and make it a part of the record; the government officials who have taken an Oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution must now hold the statutes subservient to the Constitution.

Henceforth; the statutes can only be enforced in the District of Columbia, territories, and possessions of the United States (possibly the South) and against those individuals who do not declare their Rights. Those individuals who do not declare their Rights will be treated as U.S. citizens under the U.S. Const., 14th Amendment. Those who do declare their Rights must be treated as "state citizens" with the protection of the Constitutions, both state and federal.

If we are ever going to regain our freedoms; the American People must realize that should any attempts by a governmental Official to enforce an unconstitutional emergency statute upon a state citizen; this Official has breached his Contract (Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution) with the individual.

Should this occur; the individual will need to obtain a certified copy of the Official's Contract (Oath) and place this Contract in the Court Record along with the state and/or federal Constitution.

This Contract, when placed into evidence in the Court Record, becomes a binding Contract. Upon the evidence of the Official's signature; the Contract becomes "prima facie evidence" and all statutes must be held subservient to this Contract.

The individual must also obtain a copy of P.L. 94-412 and make this a part of the Court Record. The government Officials, including the Judge, are now powerless to act on behalf of the government in their corporate capacity. The Courts have said:

"It seems to this Court the determination that a national emergency existed is a matter of political judgment, and determination that the national emergency no longer exists is also a matter of political discernment, which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility to decide."
                              (119 F.Supp. 896)

Consequently; "Emergency Powers" cannot be enforced by the Courts in times of peace when properly challenged. The political determination was made in 1976 by an "Act" of Congress. The "National Emergency" is over and therefore all the Courts and Judges are bound to their peace-time agreement to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, including the Common Law protections with full Due Process of Law. >>Seizure actions are prohibited<<. The "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" cannot function once they are properly challenged.

Anytime that a government Official intentionally commits and act against the Rights of a sovereign individual (state citizen); an act of treason has occurred. Perhaps the most important document written in our American history is the "Declaration of Rights." This document was written on October 14, 1774, two years prior to the "Declaration of Independence," and it declares that the Power of Right was reclaimed from the British Parliament.

This "martial rule" of a war government has continued for 60 years and well into peace-time. It should be obvious that this is a gross usurpation of power. The only word that describes this "martial rule" of a war government is "treason." Our rulers never intended to restore our Gold, Property, or our Rights. Had they so intended; they would never have pledged our Gold to foreign interests.

The U.S. Congress is not "God." The U.S. Congress is not our "Creator." The U.S. Congress is not above the fundamental natural law and nature's God nor does the U.S. Congress have the lawful authority to commit acts in violation thereof. The first and foremost Act of Law of God says:

"Thou shall have no other Gods before me."

The U.S. Congress has committed a grave injustice when they place themselves in that position. Another "Act of Law" of God says:

"Thou shall not steal."

Taking our Gold, Property, and Rights through "Seizure Action of Capture" are no less than theft. This act of theft can only be done under U.S. Const., I:8:11; a seizure action in times of war.

Bouvier has this to say concerning the capture of Property (prize):

"Strictly speaking, as between the belligerent parties, the title passes, and is vested when the capture is complete; and that was formerly held to be complete and perfect when the battle was over and the spes recuperandi was gone. But by the modern usage of nations, this is not sufficient to change the property. A Judicial tribunal must pass upon the case; and the property is not charged in favor of a neutral vendee or recaptor, so as to bar the original owner, until a regular sentence of condemnation."
                               1 Kent Comm. 102 
                                 (Bouvier's Law Dict., p. 377)

and thus we see that when the war is over; a Common Law condemnation proceeding must be held. It is in this proceeding that the constitutionality and the criminal actions will be tried and prosecuted. The U.S. Constitution did not give the government the power to declare "War" against our own People.

The case of U.S. v. Lee (106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240 [1882]); Arlington, Lee's estate subject to litigation; the United States was claiming ownership via "tax sale" under the "Captured Property Act." Some years earlier; the Court held:

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office, participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."
                               (106 U.S. @ 220)
"Shall it be said ... that the Courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights."
                               (106 U.S. @ 220, 221)

We see from the above cited case that once the War is over; one can go back and reclaim his Rights and Property. Only when the People have reclaimed their sovereign Rights, under God, will the government be restrained in its proper Constitutional perspective. Always remember that in a Socialist Democracy; the majority of the People always get what they deserve.

"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."
                                Declaration of Independence, 
                                 July 4, 1776
"if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom ... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
                                Samuel Adams, 1776: 
                                   Great Quotations, p. 808


Top .


Taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary [1881] by G. & C. Merriam Co.

Social Contract n: [trans. of F contract social]: an actual or hypothetical agreement among individuals forming an organized society or between the community and the ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. Social Insurance n: protection of the individual against economic hazards (as unemployment, old age, or disability) in which the government participates or enforces the participation of employers and effected individuals. Socialism n: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


Top .


Include: To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. (Black's Law Dict, 5th Ed.) -

NOTE: Most federal laws uses: "The term State includes" which means "limited to the following" such as the "District of Columbia," "Territories" and "Possessions." As the states no longer sit in Congress do to the purported ratification of U.S. Const., 17th Amendment; CONGRESS VERY SELDOM DEFINES THE TERM: "STATE" AS TO INCLUDE THE 50 FREELY ASSOCIATED COMPACT STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN ITS STATUTES. [e.g. 18 U.S.C. 921(2)].

United States: The "United States" is a "foreign corporation" to any of the (50) freely associated compact states of the (u)nited States of America [20 C.J.S. 1786; In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287]


Top .


A Brief History of the Emergency Powers in the United States - A Working Paper prepared for the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers. - (Brief History) United States Senate, 93 Congress, 2d Session, July, 1974 Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition - (Black's) Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review Part I - The constitutionality and propriety of Executive Emergency Powers. - (Boston College) Vol. XI, February 1970, No. 2 Brownlow - The President and the Presidency [1949] (Brownlow) Constitutionalizing Emergency Powers, The British Experience - (Stanford Law) Cornelious P. Cotter, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, April, 1953 Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Act - (DORA) 5 Geo. 5, C.8 cl. [1914] Department of Treasury, October 26, 1989 - (Munk) - Russel L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel (International Affairs) Emergency Power Statutes - (Emergency Power Statutes)

Provisions of Federal Law now in effect Delegating the Executive Extraordinary Authority in time of National Emergency.

Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, United States Senate, 93 Congress, 1st Session September, 1973 Executive Replies, Summary of the Executive Branch and Committee Recommendations - (Executive Replies)

Prepared for the staff of the Special Committee on the National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers.

U.S. Senate, November 1974, pp. 39-948 Hearings before the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency of the United States - (Hearings) 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Part 2 - View of the former Attorneys General, July 24, 1973 London Times, August 5, 1914 - (London Times) Senate Report 93-549 - (93-549) Sources of Our Liberties - (Sources) American Bar Foundation, Richard L. Perry, 1959 The Knox Resolution - (Knox) (48 Stat. 1359)



Home Page