.
The "High Water Mark" has been breached many times in the relatively short span of American History.
It has been said that:
(Brief History, p. 10-11)
Churchill had this to say about the unlimited powers of emergency and war government:
(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.
(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.
When are the People of the United States of America free and when are they not?
When do the People have Rights and when do they not?
When do the Courts of Common Law operate and when do Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction and court-martial operate?
When do the People own Property and when does the government own Property?
When can government operate in it's "corporate capacity?"
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.
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.
(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:
(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:
(Brownlow p. 57-58)
A follow-up question should have also been asked:
(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:
Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1880, 43 Vict., C. 14
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).
(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:
(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:
(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:
(Brief History, p.6)
(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:
In his own words; Lincoln wrote:
President Lincoln proclaimed:
(George Fort Milton,
"The Use of Presidential Powers" 1789-1943)
Boston Little Brown & Co. 1944, p. 111
(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:
(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).
(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):
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.
(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.
(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:
(Brief History, pp. 45-46)
On November 11, 1918; an armistice was signed which brought about a cession of hostilities.
(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:
(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:
(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:
(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:
(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:
(Senate Report 93-549)
(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.
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:
The only other mechanism that exists for government to take Property lies at U.S. Const., I:8:11:
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.
(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:
(...., 244 F.2d 794-797 [9th Circuit])
(..., 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)
(48 Stat. 39)
Arthur Schesinger, Jr., interprets this farm move:
(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.
(Brief History, p. 60)
These actions were challenged to the Courts. Clinton Rossiter has commented:
(Brief History, p. 63-64)
Madison warned in the Federalist Papers XLVII:
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.
(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.
(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).
(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.
(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:
section 5: "During the time of War or during any other period of national emergency declared by the president, the president may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses or otherwise -
(b): "investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions including any property in which a foreign country or a national thereof has any interest."
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.
(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 Banks and Banking Committee replies:
The Committee on Commerce:
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.
"Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" have a long tradition in the history of our English system of government. "Civil Courts of Summary Jurisdiction" are:
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.
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 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."
2 Edw. 3, c.8 (1328)
5 Edw. 3, c.9 (1331)
25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, c.4 (1330)
37 Edw. 3, c.18 (1363)
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.
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.
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 --
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.
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:
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.
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.
Everyone must first fully understand that there are two separate and distinct types of United States governments.
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.
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:
(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:
The U.S. Congress has committed a grave injustice when they place themselves in that position. Another "Act of Law" of God says:
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):
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:
(106 U.S. @ 220)
(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.
Declaration of Independence,
July 4, 1776
Samuel Adams, 1776:
Great Quotations, p. 808
Taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary [1881] by G. & C. Merriam Co.
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.) -
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]
Provisions of Federal Law now in effect Delegating the Executive Extraordinary Authority in time of National Emergency.
Prepared for the staff of the Special Committee on the National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers.